Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Gen Z and the Dangerous Allure of Political Violence

Opinion

Gen Z and the Dangerous Allure of Political Violence

The American Flag on pavement with a hole in the center.

Getty Images, Vlad Yushinov

A 17-year-old Wisconsin teenager wanted to kill the president, overthrow the United States government, and kickstart a revolution – so he shot dead his mother and stepfather. This weekend, the FBI revealed that Nikita Casap lived for weeks with their decomposing bodies and stole $14,000 to “obtain the financial means” to assassinate President Trump, the first domino in his far-right extremist plan.

This is not the first time we’ve seen a young man use violence for political ends. Luigi Mangione murdered Brian Thompson, UnitedHealthcare CEO, citing criticisms of the U.S. healthcare system as justification for the murder. Dylann Roof hoped to incite a race war when he walked into a Black church and gunned down nine people. Kyle Rittenhouse traveled to a Black Lives Matter protest with an AR-15-style weapon and fatally shot two people.


Support for political violence among young Americans is disturbingly high. We must take these attitudes seriously and confront them, lest we see more Mangiones, Roofs, Rittenhouses, and now Casaps normalize violence (or the threat of it) as a means to achieve political goals.

Following the first assassination attempt against Trump, about 12% of young Republicans support violence against partisan leaders engaging in financial crimes or corruption. While the perpetrator in Wisconsin identified with a far-right terrorist organization, young people on the left also harbor high levels of support for political violence. In a recent survey (post-Mangione shooting), 38% of Democrats aged 18-34 support the use of violence if a CEO has pursued harmful or exploitative policies. Among the general population, support for killing or harming officials hovers around 6-7%, with Independents slightly more supportive than Democrats or Republicans. Casap’s case illustrates how political violence can twist expectations and transcend partisan lines – he plotted to kill Trump but identified with a far-right terrorist organization.

Historically, political violence follows a pattern: people on the left tend towards property violence while individuals on the right are more likely to attack people. But among young people, these lines are beginning to blur. That could spiral America into tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye, retaliatory violence between young people across the ideological divide.

Not only does Gen Z tend to support political violence at higher rates than other age groups, they value democracy less. While 90% of Millennials, Gen X, and Boomers rate living in a democracy as important, only 62% of Gen Z say the same. Similarly concerning, first-time gun owners in the U.S. are increasingly younger. A generation growing in political power that views violence as a viable tool for policy change and democracy as optional erodes the legitimacy of our democratic institutions.

This generation is not a monolith, of course. About a third are largely disengaged, according to a recent Tufts study. Surprisingly, those who care most about democracy are also, unfortunately, pretty apathetic. What is really concerning is that it’s the most politically engaged and activist – just over 10% – who are also the most likely to justify violence to achieve their policy goals. As a fellow Gen-Zer, I urge us to change course.

I long assumed that nonviolent movements were so successful in part because violent factions made them a palatable alternative – think MLK Jr. and Malcolm X. However, research found that organized armed violent flanks actually increase the chances that nonviolent movements fail, decrease the chance of democratization following the movement, and increase polarization. Political violence is not only wrong, it doesn’t work. While we face significant trials in this country today, there remain nonviolent means to make our voices heard. We must push back against the normalization of political violence in this country and not respond in kind.

This we should be able to agree on – there is nothing political about condemning violence, lest we sanction a society dominated by the weaponization of fear. We must confront online radicalization, the martyrdom of perpetrators, and the dehumanization of victims across the ideological spectrum. Reinforcing and rebuilding a shared norm condemning political violence will not be accomplished lightly nor quickly. But to prevent the disillusionment of our youth from fomenting a violent, polarized, civically disengaged generation, we must act. What would have happened if Casap had succeeded in murdering Trump to start his civil war? To avoid finding out, we need to recognize the dangerous attitudes growing among young people and find the bravery and leadership to start speaking up.

Dalya Berkowitz is a Research Analyst in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on targeted and political violence in the U.S. She has an MA in Security Studies from Georgetown University.

Read More

Mad About Politics? Blame Congress

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leaders celebrate after the vote on President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 3, 2025.

Yuri Gripas/Abaca Press/TNS

Mad About Politics? Blame Congress

The judiciary isn’t supposed to be the primary check on the executive, the legislative branch is.

Whatever you think about American politics and government, whether you are on the right, the left or somewhere in the middle, you should be mad at Congress. I don’t just mean the Republican-controlled Congress — though, by all means, be mad at them — I mean the institution as a whole.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

James Madison foresaw factions tearing apart democracy. Today’s Congress, driven by partisanship and money, proves his warning true.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Our Amazing, Shrinking Congress

James Madison tried to warn us. He foresaw a grave danger to our fragile republic. No, it wasn’t an overreaching, dictatorial President. It was the people’s representatives themselves who might shred the untested constitutional fabric of the nascent United States.

Members of Congress could destroy it by neglecting the good of the country in favor of narrow, self-serving ends. Unity would collapse into endless internecine strife. Madison sounded this alarm in Federalist No. 10: he foresaw the inevitable emergence of “factions”—political parties “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Rebuilding Democracy After Comey’s Indictment
James Comey, former FBI Director, speaks at the Barnes & Noble Upper West Side on May 19, 2025 in New York City.
(Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Rebuilding Democracy After Comey’s Indictment

Introduction – Stress Tests and Hidden Strength

The indictment of former FBI Director James Comey in September 2025 was a stark reminder of how fragile our institutions have become under Trump 2.0. An inexperienced prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, chosen more for loyalty than expertise, pushed through felony charges at the president’s urging. The move broke with the Justice Department’s tradition of independence and highlighted the risks that arise when political power bends justice toward retribution.

This is not just a story about one man. It is a warning that America’s democracy is like a bridge under heavy strain. Crises expose cracks but can also reveal hidden strength. For ordinary citizens, this means a justice system more susceptible to political pressure, a government less accountable, and daily life shaped by leaders willing to bend the rules for personal gain.

Keep ReadingShow less
an illustration of pople walking with brief cases from a UFO.

Echoing Serling’s To Serve Man, Edward Saltzberg reveals how modern authoritarianism uses language, fear, and media control to erode democracy from within.

To Serve Man—2025 Edition

In March 1962, Rod Serling introduced a Twilight Zone episode that feels prophetic today. "To Serve Man" begins with nine-foot aliens landing at the United Nations, promising to end war and famine. They offer boundless energy and peace. Unlike the menacing invaders of 1950s sci-fi, these Kanamits present themselves as benefactors with serene expressions and soothing words.

The promises appear real. Wars cease. Deserts bloom into gardens. Crop yields soar. People line up eagerly at the Kanamits' embassy to volunteer for trips to the aliens' paradise planet—a world without hunger, conflict, or want.

Keep ReadingShow less