Political Violence in America: Turning Point or Flashpoint?

The murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk reignited an old debate in the United States: Are we approaching a turning point in political violence, or is this simply another flashpoint in a long, uneven history of partisan conflict?

Political scientists and commentators appear divided. Some warn of a spiraling wave of tit-for-tat violence, fueled by incendiary rhetoric and amplified by online echo chambers. Others emphasize that such acts are rare, often the work of lone actors rather than coordinated movements, and that the broader public overwhelmingly rejects violence as a political tool.

For security professionals, the challenge is not to get swept away in media-driven panic but to cut through the rhetoric and focus on the facts. Political violence like workplace violence follows patterns we have studied, trained for, and know how to interrupt. The actors may gain national headlines, but their behaviors, motives, and pathways to violence remain familiar.

The Landscape of Political Violence

Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, has warned that America is entering an era of violent populism, with levels of political violence now at their highest since the 1970s. According to his data, support for political violence has risen significantly since 2024, with 40 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of Republicans expressing some willingness to use force under certain conditions.

Other experts urge caution in interpreting these numbers. Sean Westwood of Dartmouth’s Polarization Research Lab found that fewer than 2 percent of Americans condone political murder, yet people mistakenly believe their opponents are far more violent than they are. This “phantom enemy” perception may be more dangerous than actual levels of violence.

Clionadh Raleigh of ACLED points out that most U.S. violence (even high-profile assassinations) tend to be individualized, not organized. In other words, we are not seeing mass partisan armies, but lone actors in a heavily armed, polarized society.

What does this mean for security professionals? It means the threat is real but not unprecedented. Just as with workplace violence, the most danger comes not from sweeping societal movements, but from isolated individuals who radicalize, plan, and act.

Pathways, Not Spontaneity

Whether in the office or the political arena, violence rarely erupts spontaneously. Most perpetrators travel a well-documented “Pathway to Violence”: grievance, ideation, planning, preparation, and implementation.

The grievances may differ in workplace conflict, political ideology, or personal resentment but the warning signs remain strikingly consistent. Individuals may withdraw socially, express obsessive or hostile thoughts, issue veiled threats, or fixate on perceived enemies. The difference between a politically motivated assassin and a workplace shooter is often not the pathway, but the publicity their actions attract.

Security professionals must remember: the actors are not fundamentally different. The context and amplification vary, but the behavioral cues are the same.

Separating Rhetoric from Reality

In times of high-profile political violence, media narratives tend to exaggerate the scope of the threat. Headlines suggest an impending civil war, while social media accelerates fear and anger on both sides.

Yet security professionals know better than to equate rhetoric with action. Just as we teach in workplace violence prevention, the presence of aggressive language online does not always equate to imminent physical harm. Instead, we must distinguish between “talkers” and “doers.”

Threat assessment teams (TATs) in organizations use structured analysis to evaluate the credibility and capability of threats. The same logic applies to political violence. Most incendiary posts online will never translate into real-world violence, but some will. Identifying those cases requires disciplined analysis, not reactive fear.

Lessons from Workplace Violence

The corporate sector has learned painful lessons about violence prevention. The tragic case of Charter Communications, where an employee with known behavioral issues murdered a customer, underscores the cost of ignoring red flags. A jury awarded the victim’s family $7 billion for negligent retention.

The parallels to political violence are clear: ignoring warning signs, dismissing threats as “just rhetoric,” or underestimating lone actors can be devastating. Security professionals in both private and public sectors must rely on established practices behavioral threat assessment, cross-functional collaboration, and proactive intervention.

In workplaces, we mitigate risk by embedding prevention into hiring, culture, and terminations. In society, we can do the same by embedding fact-based assessment into our analysis of political violence, resisting the urge to exaggerate, generalize, or politicize.

Escalation Dynamics

Another important lesson comes from understanding escalation. Political scientist Arie Perlinger has shown that assassinations often come in waves, as one act legitimizes retaliation by the other side. Online ecosystems amplify this effect, celebrating or demonizing perpetrators, and providing justification for “revenge” attacks.

In the workplace, we recognize that termination or disciplinary actions are high-risk inflection points. Mishandled, they can escalate grievance into violence. Similarly, in the political sphere, inflammatory rhetoric, especially from leaders, can function as an accelerant, pushing individuals already on the pathway closer to action.

For security professionals, the question is not whether rhetoric is harmful (it often is), but whether individuals exposed to it also display the warning signs of progression toward violence.

Turning Point or Flashpoint?

So, is America at a turning point toward sustained political violence, or is this another flashpoint in a long pattern of isolated events? The answer, as so often, lies somewhere in between.

Data show that public support for violence is not widespread, and most Americans continue to reject it outright. At the same time, polarization, fear, and misperceptions create fertile ground for lone actors to justify extreme actions.

For practitioners, the distinction matters less than the response. Whether the trend grows or fades, security professionals must stay grounded in training and proven models: recognize the pathway to violence, assess threats systematically, intervene early, and resist the temptation to inflate threats based on sensational headlines.

A Call to Security Leaders

Political violence, like workplace violence, is a strategic risk with profound consequences. Security leaders cannot afford to be swayed by rhetoric or public panic. Instead, we must:

• Rely on training and evidence-based models. The pathway to violence remains the same, whether the grievance is workplace-related or political.
• Distinguish rhetoric from credible threats. Not all incendiary speech leads to action, but credible threats must be acted upon.
• Promote cross-functional collaboration. Threat assessment requires input from security, behavioral experts, law enforcement, and leadership.
• Educate stakeholders. Just as we build a culture of safety in organizations, we must help communities and leaders understand the facts, not the hype.
• Interrupt the escalation cycle. De-escalation, empathy, and restraint like those urged by Utah Governor Spencer Cox after Kirk’s murder are critical tools to prevent metastasizing cycles of violence.

Back to the Fundamentals

America may be experiencing a dangerous surge in political violence, or it may simply be enduring another spike in lone-actor incidents amplified by a polarized media environment. In either case, the role of security professionals remains unchanged.

We must not buy into exaggerated narratives of impending civil war. Nor can we dismiss the risks as isolated aberrations. Instead, we must stay disciplined, fact-driven, and grounded in the proven principles of violence prevention.

At the center, political violence is not fundamentally different from other forms of targeted violence. The perpetrators are not mythical figures of partisan lore they are individuals on familiar pathways, exhibiting familiar warning signs. The publicity may be greater, but the patterns are the same.

The choice before us is whether to escalate in fear and retribution or to apply the training, models, and strategies that we already know work. Security professionals have the tools. The challenge is to use them with clarity, objectivity, and resolve.