On the evening of April 25, a gunman armed with multiple weapons charged a security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton, where President Trump, Vice President Vance, and nearly the entire Cabinet were attending the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
While the investigation is ongoing, it appears that this may have been the third attempt on the president’s life in the last two years. A spate of killings, attacks, and threats against prominent figures in both parties underscores the enormous risks now inherent in American public life. Political violence against any public official is an unacceptable assault on democratic self-governance. When citizens use force to substitute for the ballot, they corrode the foundational premise of democracy, which is that political disagreements are settled through persuasion and elections, not intimidation and bloodshed.
Political leaders in a democracy have a responsibility to uphold norms of nonviolence and eschew inflammatory rhetoric. The president and those around him have not always met that standard. Trump has called his political adversaries “vermin” and blasted the press as “enemies of the people.” When he has been confronted with that language, the pattern has been consistent: a brief note of unity followed by a swift pivot to partisan attack. This time proved no different: within 24 hours, Trump argued in a 60 Minutes interview that peaceful protesters at No Kings rallies contributed to the attacker’s actions, treating constitutionally protected dissent as a precursor to violence. A president who condemns violence against himself while continuing to describe his opponents as enemies — and who treats peaceful protest as a gateway to terrorism — is not lowering the temperature.
It’s important to remember, too, that there are things we can do to lower the temperature:
- We can condemn political violence, regardless of whether it’s directed at figures we support or vehemently disagree with.
- We can intentionally avoid spreading false narratives, fueling conflict, or providing platforms to extremists.
- We can use legal tools to hold those accountable who spread dangerous misinformation, put others at risk, or threaten those engaged in the political process.
We can all collectively choose to obtain our information from trusted, official sources, avoiding the contentious and inaccurate information that often circulates online.