Trump Assassination Attempt Poses New Test for U.S. Democracy
from National Security and Defense Program and Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy
from National Security and Defense Program and Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy

Trump Assassination Attempt Poses New Test for U.S. Democracy

Supporters of former U.S. President Donald Trump attend a prayer vigil hosted by Turning Point Action near the venue for the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.
Supporters of former U.S. President Donald Trump attend a prayer vigil hosted by Turning Point Action near the venue for the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Jeenah Moon/Reuters

After a shooting that injured former President Donald Trump and killed a spectator at a campaign rally, leaders of both parties must unite behind efforts to calm and stabilize the political climate.

July 14, 2024 7:31 pm (EST)

Supporters of former U.S. President Donald Trump attend a prayer vigil hosted by Turning Point Action near the venue for the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.
Supporters of former U.S. President Donald Trump attend a prayer vigil hosted by Turning Point Action near the venue for the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Jeenah Moon/Reuters
Expert Brief
CFR scholars provide expert analysis and commentary on international issues.

Jacob Ware is a research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, focusing on domestic and international terrorism and counterterrorism. Together with CFR fellow Bruce Hoffman, he is the author of God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America.

The shooting at a Trump rally in Pennsylvania this week confirmed the concerns you expressed in a recent CFR paper about political violence. As details still emerge, what are the most important next steps for authorities?

More From Our Experts

Authorities will need to significantly raise their guard against the imminent threats of more violence. President Joe Biden’s announcement of improved security measures around Trump and of reviewed protocols for the Republican convention are welcome first steps. Coordination needs to be improved to ensure gaps in defenses are plugged, and security perimeters will likely broaden after this breach. But most critically, politicians of both major political parties need to commit to more productive and uniting political rhetoric, rather than language that continues to divide Americans.

More on:

Election 2024

Terrorism and Counterterrorism

Radicalization and Extremism

Donald Trump

Democracy

The attack continues an ongoing trend of political extremists seeking to silence their political rivals through violence, rather than the ballot box. At this moment, little is known about the 20-year-old perpetrator, beyond his name, hometown, and a voting form listing his registration as Republican. His motive, or how he evaded the security cordon, are unknown. 

It is worth noting that this was not the first move toward political violence to strike this U.S. election cycle. For instance, in May, law enforcement apprehended a white supremacist who was traveling to Atlanta to commit a mass shooting, hoping to start a race war before the election. That would-be terrorist would have joined a long line of violent far-right extremists to target minority communities in the United States over the past several years. The political temperature is steadily rising, and as Graham Allison and Michael J. Morell argued in Foreign Affairs in June, “The Terrorism Warning Lights Are Blinking Red Again.” This is unlikely to be the end of the violence between now and the November elections, with the Republican convention in Milwaukee this week the next major focus of concern. 

Recent polling conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute suggests that almost a quarter of Americans support the statement that “American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save the country,” including 33 percent of Republicans and 13 percent of Democrats. 

More From Our Experts

How would you assess the response of U.S. political leaders to the Butler, Pa. shooting?

President Biden’s initial response, calling the attack “sick” and speaking with his stricken adversary to express support, were encouraging, as were statements by other prominent Democrats including former President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as more prominent Republicans such as former President George W. Bush and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The response of some on the right, finger-pointing and blaming Democrats for their heated rhetoric, is less productive. Possible vice presidential candidate JD Vance, for instance, asserted that Biden campaign “rhetoric led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination,” seemingly a response to recent Biden comments that "It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye."

Political violence, however, has already been normalized in the United States. The reaction to this incident, for example, contrasts greatly with the reaction of many right-wing political figures to the terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, which included calls to assassinate a sitting vice president, after which perpetrators have been hailed as “political prisoners,” “martyrs,” “heroes,” and “warriors.” The assassination attempt against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in October 2022 was similarly met with conspiracy theories, featuring a dose of homophobic mockery. America urgently needs a bipartisan condemnation of rising political violence, from all actors and against all targets.

More on:

Election 2024

Terrorism and Counterterrorism

Radicalization and Extremism

Donald Trump

Democracy

Can you compare U.S. environment with political violence seen in other democracies?

Allies and adversaries responded swiftly to the shooting with expressions of concern and will be closely watching the U.S. response in the days to come. 

Allied countries, who have regarded the escalating division and political violence in the United States with horror, have reacted with sweeping condemnations of the continued dismantling of norms against political violence in democracies. Although several of them, including the United Kingdom and Japan, have already suffered high-profile assassinations in the past several years, the attempt on the former and possible future leader of the free world may offer permission for seditious elements in other countries to similarly make attempts on their political leaders.

Moreover, the assassination attempt struck just days after the Department of Justice announced it had disrupted a Russian effort to use generative AI to spread disinformation in the United States ahead of the election. Needless to say, this dark day in American history will provide even more ammunition to the Russian disinformation machinery, as well as adversaries in China and Iran, who would welcome the further erosion of American democracy and its influence in the world.

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

This publication is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy.


 

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Europe

On the eighty-first anniversary of D-Day, CFR President Michael Froman and senior fellows discuss the Trump administration’s diminished appetite for engagement in European security affairs—even as the Russia-Ukraine war drags on.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.