
Minnesota attacks add to fears of rising political violence
Experts warn that the attacks, which follow an assassination attempt against President Trump and an arson at the home of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D), are part of a broader pattern of political violence that could be on the rise amid heightened polarization as the midterms near.
'Each act has its own unique horror about it, and the details are uniquely awful. But in terms of the big picture, it's the latest in what's become a pattern of politically motivated attacks,' said Matt Dallek, a George Washington University historian and professor.
'For decades, we've been living in an era of partisan polarization, and the polarization has gotten worse over time, and that means that the general political climate has also coarsened and become more toxic.'
Minnesota state Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman (D) and her husband, Mark Hortman, were killed in their home on Saturday in what the acting U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota labeled 'a political assassination' and 'the stuff of nightmares.' State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette Hoffman, were also shot and seriously injured.
A specific ideological motivation remains unclear, but officials revealed that the now-arrested suspect had traveled to the homes of additional Minnesota state politicians and filled notebooks with dozens of additional lawmakers' names.
The tragedy underscored the threat environment for political figures at all levels. It came just a few weeks after an arson attack at the Pennsylvania governor's residence, in which the suspect who set the fire the night after a Passover Seder allegedly 'harbored hatred' against Shapiro, according to officials.
Last year, then-candidate Trump was grazed by a bullet when a gunman attempted to assassinate him at a small-town Pennsylvania campaign rally. In 2022, Rep. Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) husband was wounded by an assailant looking for the then-Speaker. In April of that same year, a man pleaded guilty to an attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
'We saw a lot of political violence in the '60s and '70s and even in the '80s, and then they kind of disappeared in the '90s and 2000s. And so this feels different, having a number of instances in the past year or so,' said Jillian Peterson, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Minnesota's Hamline University and executive director of the Violence Prevention Project.
Direct cause-and-effect lines are hard to draw, but the latest incidents come against a backdrop of intense political polarization and increasingly toxic rhetoric on the national stage.
'We see increasing demonization and delegitimizing political rivals. We see increasing language that portray political rivals as an existential threat to the nation, for democracy and so on. We see increasing … animosity towards people who hold different political views,' said Arie Perliger, an expert on political violence and extremism at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.
As discourse becomes more virulent, political figures are increasingly perceived as 'symbols' of policy and ideas, Perliger said, noting that Trump has been 'a major factor' in fostering that perception.
Trump has repeatedly hurled names and insults onto the political stage, casting rivals as enemies and taking heat for dehumanizing language against immigrants. Across the aisle, Democrats have pitched Trump and Republican policies as a threat to democracy.
'If you are consistently portraying the other side as a threat, it's no wonder that eventually there's some people who take that to the point where they say, 'OK, if the other side is a threat, violence against the other side is justified. That's the only way to save the country,'' Perliger said. 'I think both sides could learn from becoming much more responsible.'
In the wake of the Minnesota shootings, Trump joined a chorus of condemnation from both sides of the aisle, saying 'such horrific violence will not be tolerated' in the U.S.
Former President Biden said 'this heinous attack motivated by politics should never happen in America.' Former Vice President Kamala Harris urged that 'the hate and division that dominate our political discourse must end.' House GOP Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) stressed that 'no public official — or any American — should fear for their safety in their own home.' Others have called to turn down the temperature.
But the flood of condemnation that comes after violent incidents, experts said, doesn't offset divisive political rhetoric year-round.
The current moment seems to lack 'a particularly serious effort to seek any sort of reconciliation or unity or sustained condemnation of this kind of violence,' said Dallek. He pointed out that Trump has said he won't call Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) in the wake of the incident, knocking the blue state leader as 'whacked out.'
There's also a growing cultural normalization of violence across the board.
Back in December, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed in New York City. This week, a satirical musical based on Luigi Mangione, the 26-year-old charged with the killing, opened in San Fransisco.
'I'm not sure if it's a great thing to make people who are murderers cultural heroes. I don't think it's the best idea, as much as we can have different views about their motivations and so on,' said Perliger.
And among Trump's first moves of his second term were sweeping pardons for hundreds convicted in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Though details are still unfolding about the Minnesota shootings, they raise warning signs and security concerns for political figures ahead of what's set to be a high-stakes midterm fight for both parties.
The risk goes up 'the more that these types of really heated or hate-filled types of political rhetoric make it into the public sphere — and of course, during election cycles that happens more,' said Peterson.
'It's sort of that violence begets violence, and so if we don't start to really tone down the rhetoric … I think it's time to really take that seriously as we move into this next election cycle,' she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What is the Mann Act? Here's what to know about the law used to convict Sean 'Diddy' Combs
Sean 'Diddy' Combs was convicted Wednesday of prostitution-related offenses under the federal Mann Act, an anti-sex trafficking law with a century-old history. Though he was acquitted of more serious charges, Combs was still convicted of flying people around the country, including his girlfriends and male sex workers, to engage in paid sexual encounters. Over the years, the law has been applied to prominent convictions, including R&B superstar R. Kelly, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, musician Chuck Berry and more than a century ago, boxer Jack Johnson. Its broad wording and a subsequent Supreme Court interpretation once allowed prosecutors to bring cases against interracial couples, and eventually many others in consensual relationships, according to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute. The law was amended in the 1980s and today it is primarily used for prosecuting interstate prostitution crimes or people accused of taking underage children across state lines for sexual purposes. Here's what to know about the law. Why is it called the Mann Act? In 1910, Congress passed the bill, which was named after Republican U.S. Rep. James Robert Mann of Illinois. It's also known as the 'White-Slave Traffic Act' of 1910. How does it apply to Combs' case? Combs was convicted of counts involving two former girlfriends: the R&B singer Cassie and a woman who testified under the pseudonym Jane. Both women said at trial that Combs had pressured them into degrading sex marathons with strangers, who were paid for the sexual performances. Jane said she was once beaten by Combs for declining to participate. Cassie said that when she tried to walk out of one such event, Combs beat her and dragged her down a hotel hallway. Combs was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering charges but convicted of transporting people to engage in prostitution. What's the history behind it? The 1910 law originally prohibited the interstate or foreign commerce transport of 'any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.' It followed a 1907 congressionally appointed commission to look into the issue of immigrant sex workers, with the view that a girl would only enter prostitution if drugged or held captive, according to Cornell's Legal Information Institute. The law was used to secure a conviction against Jack Johnson, who became the first Black boxer to win a world heavyweight title in 1910. Johnson was convicted in 1913 by an all-white jury for traveling with his white girlfriend, who worked as a sex worker, in violation of the Mann Act. (President Donald Trump posthumously pardoned Johnson in 2018, saying Johnson had served 10 months in prison 'for what many view as a racially motivated injustice.') How has the law changed since 1910? In a 1917 Supreme Court case, the justices ruled that 'illicit fornication,' even when consensual, amounted to an "immoral purpose,' according to Cornell's Legal Information Institute. A 1986 update made the law gender-neutral and effectively ended the act's role in trying to legislate morality by changing 'debauchery' and 'immoral purpose' to 'any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.' The act received additional amendments in 1978 and 1994 to address issues of sexual exploitation of children. Nevertheless, Combs ' legal team made a motion last February to dismiss a Mann Act charge, writing that the law 'has a long and troubling history as a statute with racist origins." Prosecutors said there was nothing racist about pursuing charges under the act. Most of Combs' accusers are people of color.


The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
What is a ‘magic minute,' and why can it last several hours?
Video above: A portion of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' remarks delivered as he extends his 'magic minute' to delay the passing of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' on Thursday, July 3. (NEXSTAR) — For more than seven hours, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) used his 'magic minute' to argue against President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which House Republicans advanced early Thursday morning. Republican holdouts in the House were persuaded to vote in favor of the bill, giving way to final debates in the predawn hours. While the House was wrapping up those debates, Jeffries took to the mic to use his 'magic minute.' He began delivering his address at 5 a.m. ET and, as of 10:30 a.m. ET, he was still speaking out against the massive bill and vowing to take his 'sweet time.' How did this minute of debate turn into a more than seven-hour speech? It's not exactly like the record-setting filibuster Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) employed earlier this year to decry the then-pending spending cuts that were expected to be added to the GOP tax bill. There, Booker could take questions from his fellow Democrats while refusing to yield the floor — which he ultimately held for more than 25 hours. The 'magic minute' is similar, though. The House tradition allows for a leader, like Jeffries, to turn his 60 seconds of speaking time into an even longer period after debate on a bill have ended, The New York Times explains. It's unclear how long Jeffries is expected to use his 'magic minute' on Thursday. If he's eyeing the record, currently held by former Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), he'll need to speak beyond 1:26 p.m. ET. However long Jeffries speaks, it's unlikely to stop the massive bill from making it through the House. It is a narrow margin — Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) can lose only three votes, assuming all members are present — but the bill is still expected to pass. The outcome would be a milestone for the president and his party, a longshot effort to compile a long list of GOP priorities into what they call his 'one big beautiful bill,' an 800-plus page package. With Democrats unified in opposition, the bill will become a defining measure of Trump's return to the White House, with the sweep of Republican control of Congress. Jeffries and other Democrats have encouraged Republicans to reconsider and vote against it. As Jeffries spoke Thursday, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called for voters to call their representatives and urge them to kill the bill. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
WATCH LIVE: First Lady Melania Trump visits Children's National Hospital
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: House lawmakers debate Senate changes to Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'