THE RISE OF POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

The intensification of political polarization in the United States has coincided with a concerning increase in politically motivated violence, including assassination attempts and targeted killings. While such events have traditionally been associated with countries experiencing institutional instability, such as Mexico or Colombia, the American political landscape is now facing an increasingly urgent and domestic security challenge. From state legislators to Supreme Court justices, public officials are now demonstrably more vulnerable to targeted acts of violence.

The Case: Vance Boelter

In June 2025, former pastor and security company owner, Vance Boelter carried out one of the most coordinated political attacks in recent American history. Disguised as a police officer, Boelter first gained entry to the home of Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and opened fire, shooting both Hoffman and his wife multiple times. The couple narrowly survived due to emergency surgical intervention.

Just over an hour later, Boelter fatally shot Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband inside their home. Authorities later discovered a “target list” of over 70 individuals, including state legislators and abortion-rights advocates, alongside detailed surveillance logs and notes about their routines. Boelter’s capture after a 40-hour manhunt ended the most expansive domestic law enforcement mobilization in Minnesota’s history.

Despite the severity of this incident and its implications, the state’s protective protocols for local legislators had remained essentially unchanged leading up to the attack. Officers who responded had no advanced warning of the credible threats against multiple officials, and only after the shootings were police patrols sent out to try and protect other potential targets.

An Emerging Pattern of Targeted Violence

The Minnesota incident is only the latest in a troubling succession of politically motivated attacks over the past six years:

October 2020 – Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer: A plot by a right-wing militia to kidnap Governor Whitmer was foiled by the FBI. The conspirators had constructed a training site, conducted surveillance of the Governor’s vacation home, and acquired explosives. Their plan included a makeshift trial and potential execution. While federal charges resulted in lengthy sentences for the ringleaders, state-level security procedures for elected officials were not substantively reevaluated until well after the trial.
June 2022 – Justice Brett Kavanaugh: A man carrying a loaded firearm, zip ties, and burglary tools was arrested outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He told police he intended to assassinate Kavanaugh over the leaked Dobbs decision. The incident led to temporary increases in security details for Supreme Court justices, but revealed significant vulnerabilities in home-based threat detection and the slow bureaucratic response to online threats.
July 2024 – Donald Trump (Butler, Pennsylvania): During a campaign rally, a gunman opened fire from a nearby rooftop, injuring several people and narrowly missing former President Donald Trump, who was grazed by a bullet on his right ear. The attacker, armed with a high-powered rifle, was killed by Secret Service agents. This marked the most serious assassination attempt on a former U.S. president in modern history. The incident highlighted both the effectiveness of immediate Secret Service response and the reality that threats against high-profile political figures remain active and evolving.
March 2024 – Donald Trump (West Palm Beach, Florida): While playing golf during a campaign stop, former President Trump was targeted by a shooter who opened fire from outside the perimeter of the golf course. Trump was not injured, though one member of his security detail sustained a minor wound. The attacker fled the scene and was later apprehended by local law enforcement. The motive appeared politically driven, though full details have not been released. This incident further emphasized the difficulty of securing semi-public venues and the constant risk posed by mobile, opportunistic attackers.
February 2023 – Craig Greenberg (Louisville Mayoral Candidate): A local activist entered Greenberg’s campaign headquarters and opened fire at close range. Greenberg was not injured, but a bullet grazed his clothing. The shooter had scouted the location in advance. Though Greenberg won the election, few changes were made to protective practices for candidates campaigning without state or federal oversight.
December 2022 to January 2023 – Solomon Peña’s Shooting Plot: After losing his bid for a seat in the New Mexico House of Representatives, Solomon Peña orchestrated a series of drive-by shootings targeting Democratic elected officials. Bullets struck a ten-year-old child’s bedroom during one attack. Peña was later convicted on federal charges, including solicitation to commit murder. At the time of the attacks, there was no unified emergency coordination among targeted individuals or formal guidelines for legislative protection.
February 2023 – Councilwoman Eunice Dwumfour (Sayreville, NJ): Dwumfour was gunned down in her vehicle outside her home in a targeted ambush. The suspect, a man with ties to the same religious organization as Dwumfour, was arrested months later. Though motive remains unclear, the lack of any personal security support for Dwumfour at the time underscores the vulnerability of local officials.

A Two-Decade Climb in Politically Motivated Attacks

Over the last twenty years, the United States has experienced a marked and sustained escalation in politically driven threats and attacks. High-profile events that were once seen as shocking outliers—such as the assassination of U.S. District Judge John Wood in 1979 or the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in 2011—have become early markers in what is now a deeply entrenched pattern of violence.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), politically motivated violence in the U.S. rose more than 300% between 2010 and 2023. In just the last five years, more than 500 incidents involving threats or direct attacks against public officials have been documented annually—numbers that would have been unimaginable at the start of the 21st century. These statistics, alarming in their own right, likely undercount the full extent of the problem, as many threats go unreported or are not classified as politically motivated under narrow legal definitions.

This sustained upward trajectory reveals not only a growing frequency of incidents but also an increased boldness among perpetrators. Attackers today are more willing to act on violent intent than at any time in recent memory. The evolution from angry rhetoric to actionable violence is increasingly rapid, with home invasions, armed ambushes, stalking, and drive-by shootings becoming disturbingly common tactics.

What’s more, these threats are no longer confined to federal officials or high-profile figures. State legislators, judges, school board members, and even local city council candidates are now within the scope of targeted violence. This expansion of the threat perimeter underscores a troubling new reality: simply holding public office or voicing a controversial opinion is often enough to make someone a target.

The normalization of these acts risks creating a chilling effect on public service. Potential candidates may be deterred from running for office, while sitting officials may withdraw from public visibility. This erosion of participation threatens the democratic process at its roots and demands a robust response at every level of government and civil society.

Institutional Lag

What these incidents reveal is a national security architecture that remains dangerously slow to respond to the evolving threat environment. Protective details are largely limited to federal officials, leaving state lawmakers, judges, and candidates with little to no dedicated support unless a specific threat is already known. This reactive posture often leaves targets vulnerable during the most critical window: before a threat is acted upon but after an individual has been surveilled or publicly targeted.

Even when threats are identified, response times can be slow, coordination between agencies fragmented, and interventions hampered by jurisdictional confusion or bureaucratic inertia. In several of the cases outlined earlier, attacks occurred despite signs of premeditation and behavioral red flags. The lack of standardized threat assessment procedures and limited funding for protective intelligence units at the local and state levels exacerbate these gaps.

Critically, law enforcement and government agencies often fail to implement any form of physical protection for potential targets—particularly for those outside the federal system. Officials are often left exposed until after an incident occurs, and there is little precedent or political will to commit resources to long-term physical protection of vulnerable public figures. In many cases, agencies wait for an attack or a narrowly averted threat before deploying personnel, issuing protective equipment, or even conducting a site visit. The assumption that only confirmed threats justify intervention continues to leave public servants dangerously under protected in a time of heightened volatility.

Additionally, law enforcement’s traditional approach tends to prioritize prosecution over prevention. Investigative resources are generally mobilized after an incident occurs, rather than preemptively based on early indicators. While this may reflect long-standing legal norms, it is mismatched to a threat landscape characterized by fast-moving, ideologically driven lone actors.

Private Protection

By contrast, private executive protection firms operate under an entirely different paradigm—one built around proactivity, customization, and continuity. Private firms are not constrained by bureaucratic red tape or jurisdictional silos. They can deploy cross-regional assets rapidly, tailor risk mitigation strategies to specific individuals, and implement 24/7 surveillance and response protocols.

Private protection programs are deeply integrated with intelligence gathering and early threat recognition. These teams conduct advance work, including site surveys, lifestyle pattern analysis, online threat monitoring, and social engineering detection. Importantly, private protection does not rely on waiting for formal threat validation. This agility allows private teams to implement security changes, alter movement routines, or elevate protective posture based on subtle indicators that would often be dismissed as insufficient grounds for action in a government context.

Private firms also build relationships with local law enforcement, ensuring rapid coordination if escalation occurs. But their value lies in what happens before escalation—anticipating, defusing, and disrupting threats before the public ever becomes aware.

In an environment where high-profile public officials are being targeted in their homes, offices, and public venues, private executive protection has emerged as a necessary complement to overstretched public safety resources. The adaptation gap must be closed. Until then, private security remains the front line for those most at risk.

Confronting a Shifting Threat Landscape

The rise in political assassinations and attempts in the United States reflects not only a growing national security challenge, but also a dangerous normalization of political violence. As these threats evolve, so must our systems for detection, prevention, and response.

The question is no longer whether such violence can happen here—it already has. The challenge now is whether we will adjust our approach fast enough to prevent the next act before it occurs.