Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist who has studied terrorism for 35 years, argues that America has entered a new era of “violent populism” — mass support for political violence across the political mainstream — driven by a demographic tipping point and a wealth shift to the top 1%, and that the 2026 midterms and the January 6, 2027 certification of Congress could trigger the most dangerous election cycle in living memory.
Violent Populism Is a New Paradigm, Not Business as Usual
Political violence has always existed in America, but the current era is distinct because tens of millions of ordinary citizens now support violence as a legitimate political tool, not just fringe groups.
Pape defines violent populism as mass support for political violence lodged in the body politic, which fundamentally changes the scale of violence a society can expect.
This is not merely polarization or peaceful protest; it is a historical anomaly last seen in the 1920s (right-wing) and 1960s (left-wing), but now occurring on both sides simultaneously.
Three assassination attempts against Donald Trump in five years, plus attempts against Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Brett Kavanaugh, Josh Shapiro, and Charlie Kirk, signal a pattern far beyond lone wolves.
Survey Data Reveals Stunning Levels of Support for Political Violence
The University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats has conducted 21 nationally representative surveys over 5.5 years; the latest (fielded September 2025) shows support for political violence “jumped off the charts.”
25% of American adults (≈65 million) support the use of force to prevent Trump from being president — up from 14% a year earlier and 6–9% several years ago.
44% of self-identified Democrats support force to prevent Trump from being president.
55% of those endorsing “use of force” explicitly mean assassinating Trump with rifles (per survey experiments and focus groups).
16% of Americans (≈40 million, almost all Republicans) support Trump using the military to suppress Democratic protesters.
Combined, roughly 100 million Americans support political violence on one side or the other as the midterms approach.
Left and Right Are Symmetrical in Structure, Not Just Rhetoric
Studies claiming violence comes mostly from the right rely on data starting in 1990; since 2015, violence is heavily balanced between left and right.
The era of violent populism dates to Trump’s first term: pro-Trump violence and anti-anti-Trump violence (reaction to reaction) now dominate.
Perpetrators on both sides share a striking profile: well-educated, middle-class, homeowners with 401(k)s — not unemployed, rural, militia-affiliated young men.
January 6 defendants: 45% were business owners, doctors, nurse practitioners, gynecologists; only 10% had militia ties; they came from affluent suburbs, not the panhandle.
Luigi Mangione (Ivy League, generational wealth) and Cole Allen (engineer, 31, manifesto framing himself as a social-justice Robin Hood) fit the same pattern.
Manifestos and jailhouse interviews reveal perpetrators expect social approval from their political community; mass support nudges volatile individuals over the edge.
Collective Violence Follows a “Wildfire” Pattern: Peaceful by Day, Violent by Night
Summer 2020 George Floyd protests: 28 million participants; 5–7% (1.4–2 million) engaged in violence, overwhelmingly after dark when peaceful conveners went home.
January 6: 120,000 at the Ellipse → 10,000 surrounded the Capitol → 1,600 breached the building (beating police with flagpoles and bike racks); Trump did not call them off for ~3 hours.
Campus protests after October 7, 2023: similar splintering dynamic; less property damage than 2020 but students feared escalation; another instance of violent populism on the left.
In each case, a small violent core exploits a mass peaceful mobilization; the 5–7% rule holds across events.
The Archetype of a Violence Supporter Shatters Stereotypes
The old profile (unemployed, rural, militia, male, 18–25) held until ~2015; the new profile is educated, middle-class, suburban, with something to lose.
These people support violence because they believe they are about to lose everything — their way of life, their children’s future — if the other side wins.
East Palestine, Ohio (MAGA country) saw no Democratic leaders show sympathy after a toxic derailment; the left fears Republicans will erase birthright citizenship and voting rights.
Both sides perceive the other as existential: “zeroing out” their benefits when in power.
Two Structural Drivers: Demographic Tipping Point and Wealth Shift to the Top 1%
Demographic shift: In 1990, the U.S. was 76% non-Hispanic white; today 57%; in 15–20 years it will be ~49% (white minority democracy). This is unprecedented in 250 years.
The Republican coalition is disproportionately white; Trump’s 2015 escalator moment and signature immigration/deportation platform reflect a desire to stop or reverse this shift.
Survey data: believing whites are being deliberately replaced makes you 4× more likely to support pro-Trump political violence; believing America is fundamentally racist makes you 2.5× more likely to support anti-Trump violence.
Wealth shift: Top 1% held 17% of wealth in late 1980s; now ~26%. The bottom 99% have lost ground for 30 years — housing, rent, intergenerational mobility all negative.
Combined, each side fears the other will capture the state and redirect dwindling resources to their own coalition, making elections existential focal points.
The Domestic Escalation Trap: Three Stages to January 6, 2027
Stage 1 — Legitimacy shock: Razor-thin midterm margins; losers refuse to accept defeat, convinced the other side cheated (already visible on both sides).
Stage 2 — Certification flashpoint: January 6, 2027 (a Wednesday), when Congress seats the winners. If Republicans lose, will Trump pressure Congress? If Democrats lose, will they protest the Mall? Trump has already invoked the Insurrection Act and military suppression of Democratic protesters.
Stage 3 — Prolonged violent opposition: A second January 6–style event would not end the crisis; it would inaugurate sustained violent resistance.
Pape’s June 2025 New York Times op-ed predicted the Charlie Kirk assassination, Operation Midnight Blitz in Chicago, and Metro Blitz in Minneapolis — all occurred within months. Current sentiment is higher.
Foreign Influence Is Marginal; the Fire Is Homegrown
Cambridge studies on Russia’s 2016 Internet Research Agency show modest amplification (10–20%), not creation from whole cloth.
Iran’s “Lego videos” mocking Trump on social media failed to move MAGA support for the Iran war — the first war since WWII with no rally-around-the-flag effect.
Support for the Iran war splits along preexisting violent-populism cleavages, not foreign propaganda.
Russia and China benefit from U.S. internal division (a “house divided” cannot project power), but they are not the primary cause.
Trump Is a Symptom and Accelerant, Not the Root Cause
Pape estimates: 50% structural social changes (demographics + wealth), 25% Trump’s rhetoric and behavior, 25% social media and other factors.
Media and political elites over-weight Trump and social media because they are visible; they under-weight the slow-moving structural forces that produce figures like Trump on the right and Mamdani on the left.
Deplatforming Trump and Tucker Carlson did not reduce violent sentiment — the underlying anger persists and finds new vessels.
New meteoric politicians on both sides run explicitly on the existential stakes of demographic and economic change.
The Silent Majority Abhors Violence but Lacks a Vehicle
65–70% of Americans consistently reject political violence across surveys — a silent majority.
No major political leader has made ending political violence their #1 issue; leaders only condemn the other side’s violence, excusing their own.
Podcasts and some media figures are the primary outlets giving voice to this majority; without leadership, the cascade continues unchecked.
Pape’s prescription: leaders must restrain their own constituents; the missing “weapon” against violent populism is political courage to speak for the silent majority.
