Two lawmakers, one pattern

Democratic representative Pramila Jayapal and Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene both faced serious death threats from political opponents, despite their opposing ideologies. Their cases reveal how political violence now crosses party lines.

Jayapal's home invasion

In July 2022, armed men drove past Jayapal's Seattle home screaming racial slurs and threats. One returned with a loaded handgun and shouted "Go back to India. I am going to kill you."

“Go back to India. I am going to kill you.”

Greene's shifting threats

Greene faced hundreds of death threats while defending Trump, but when she broke with him over the Epstein files and Gaza, threats came from Trump supporters instead. One threatened to assassinate her; another claimed a plane ticket was purchased.

Greene quits over threats

In November 2025, Greene announced her resignation from Congress, citing threats to her family. She said the level of intimidation had become too high a bar for any American to accept.

“I think that comes to a point where any American can look at that and say that's a high bar and way too much to ask.”

Violence moves to center

Political violence is no longer confined to the fringe, no longer clearly condemned by leaders, and increasingly treated as a legitimate instrument of political pressure across the political spectrum.

Two competing narratives

One dominant story blames the radical right for political violence. A competing narrative insists violence comes equally from the radical left. These claims shape public trust, law enforcement priorities, and whether partisans condemn violence by their allies.

The evidence shows balance

Political violence declined for nearly two decades after the nineteen-nineties, then rose sharply around twenty sixteen. Right-wing violence has been more frequent and deadlier since then, while left-wing violence is more common in mass protest settings.

Different forms, same surge

Right-wing violence targets elections, federal institutions, and public officials. Left-wing violence clusters in mass protest settings like the twenty twenty George Floyd unrest, involving property destruction and police confrontations.

Levels unseen since the sixties

Political violence on both the right and left has reached levels unseen in the United States since the upheavals of the nineteen-sixties. These patterns reflect violent populism: hardened identities, perceived existential threats, and elite rhetoric framing politics as a struggle between enemies.

Defining political violence

Political violence means using or threatening physical force for political ends, including assassination attempts, armed assaults, bombings, and violent intimidation. It excludes ordinary crime, private disputes, and lawful protest.

Intent is the hardest part

Political violence is defined by why it happens, not just what happens. When a crowd burns a police precinct or a gunman attacks a synagogue, determining whether the act is political rebellion, criminal opportunism, or personal grievance is often ambiguous.

Different datasets, different pictures

Federal law enforcement datasets emphasize lethality and threats to institutions. Protest-oriented datasets capture frequency and spread. Terrorism databases prioritize ideological framing. Each captures something real and misses something important.

No single US definition

The United States has no single formal government definition of political violence. Federal agencies use overlapping categories like domestic terrorism, hate crimes, and threats against officials, shaped by legal constraints rather than a unified framework.

FBI warns of persistent threat

Across political administrations, FBI directors have warned that domestic violent extremism is a persistent and elevated threat, with right-wing ideologies, especially white supremacist violence, as the most lethal category among domestic violent threats.

Left-wing violence also documented

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have documented significant spikes in violence associated with mass protest movements, assaults on law enforcement, and arson, most notably during the twenty twenty George Floyd protests.

Data lags behind reality

Much of the FBI's publicly accessible data lags behind current events, with detailed breakdowns often stopping several years short of the present. This gap has widened in the wake of intensified threats against public officials.

Institutional continuity matters

The persistence of the same core warnings across multiple administrations and leadership teams suggests institutional continuity rather than partisan distortion. The FBI's threat assessments provide a comparative judgment about which forms of violence are most likely to destabilize democracy.