Recent Shootings Involving Minnesota Lawmakers Reflect Concerning Trend: Analysis
Violence has expanded its scope in recent years.
The Shooting of Two Minnesota Lawmakers Reflects a Disturbing Shift in Political Violence
The recent shootings of two Minnesota state lawmakers have sent shockwaves across the country, marking a chilling escalation in political violence. While attacks on public officials are not new, the shift toward targeting state and local leaders represents a deeply troubling trend.
Over the past decade, violence against elected officials has steadily increased. Two assassination attempts against former President Donald Trump in 2024 underscore the heightened threat environment. What was once considered a rare anomaly—such as the 2011 attempt on Rep. Gabby Giffords—now appears to have been an early signal of a broader and growing pattern.
That pattern was further underscored in 2017 when a gunman, motivated by political grievances, opened fire on a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia. The attack left five injured, including then-Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and highlighted the very real dangers faced by public servants.
Investigations into such incidents frequently reveal that perpetrators are driven by real or perceived grievances—often political in nature—which they escalate into acts of violence. A 2015 U.S. Secret Service study on attacks against federal officials found that perpetrators were often motivated by retaliation, ideological goals, personal gain, or a desire for notoriety. Nearly half demonstrated obsessive fixation on their targets, over half had prior criminal records or violent histories, and many communicated their intentions before acting—sometimes directly to the target.
The Department of Homeland Security’s 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment echoed these concerns, warning that the 2024 election cycle posed a significant risk. According to the report, domestic violent extremists “likely view a wide range of targets indirectly and directly associated with elections as viable targets for violence,” aiming to instill fear and disrupt democratic processes.
Why is this escalation happening?
A June 2024 Chapman University study points to declining trust in social institutions and growing political polarization as key contributors. The study notes a significant rise in threats against public officials since 2017, tracking alongside the nation's deepening ideological divides. Alarmingly, it suggests a "growing tolerance for violence" as a means of expressing political beliefs or emotional frustration—a culture that may be normalizing violent actions.
The digital age only compounds the problem. With easy access to extremist content, personal data, and communication tools, individuals can more easily identify and target public officials. Platforms on the dark web and elsewhere provide access to violent propaganda and even detailed personal information about officials' homes, routines, and security gaps—making state and local leaders increasingly vulnerable.
In this environment, officials must take proactive steps to ensure their safety. Basic security measures—such as home alarm systems, surveillance cameras, and careful control over personal interactions—can provide meaningful protection. Balancing public service with personal safety has become a pressing challenge for many in office today.
As these trends continue, the risk of violence at every level of government appears likely to grow—making awareness, preparedness, and preventive action more important than ever.
About the Authors
Donald J. Mihalek is an ABC News contributor and a retired senior Secret Service agent who served during two presidential transitions. He is also a former police officer and U.S. Coast Guard member.
Richard Frankel is an Hawk News contributor and retired FBI special agent. He previously led the FBI's Newark Division and the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force.
