Political Violence Escalates: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and the Fragility of Democracy

The appalling assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk while speaking at Utah Valley University marks another escalation in the dangerous normalization of political violence in the U.S. The murder of such a high-profile political figure underscores the fragility of democracy when disagreement is expressed not through debate or ballots but through the barrel of a gun. The tragedy must be understood as part of a broader pattern of radicalization, identity threat, and inadequate safeguards for candidates and elected officials.

After the assassination of a state legislator in Minnesota, we published an analysis on the psychological roots of political violence. That piece examined how violence is often driven more by deep psychological insecurity than by ideology, which political psychologists refer to as “defensive extremism.” Individuals who feel excluded, humiliated, or stripped of control can come to see violence as the only way to regain significance. This is especially true in contexts of rapid change, social isolation, or echo chambers that amplify grievances. As research indicates, the majority of violent acts are expressive rather than strategic eruptions of anger and fear, which are framed as moral or political necessities.

Although the search for Kirk’s killer is ongoing as of this writing, his assassination seems to fit this broader pattern. It represents both an attack on a political figure and a symbolic expression of alienation, grievance, and fear. Like the Boulder Pearl Street Mall attack, Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman’s assassination, ICE’s kidnappings and abductions, and the Jan. 6 riot in the Capitol, it reveals how vulnerable our democracy becomes when individuals translate perceived threats to identity into violent action.

Understanding the psychology of political violence is only the first step. As the July Democracy Exchange Network meeting highlighted, combating this threat requires practical reforms to protect those who step forward to serve. At that meeting, Sarah Hague of Vote Mama introduced the organization’s Campaign Funds for Security (CFS) initiative, which builds on their earlier success in securing approval for campaign funds to be used for childcare. CFS would extend that principle to candidate safety, allowing campaign dollars to pay for security measures, legal protections, and cyber defense.

Representative Liz Berry of Washington State powerfully illustrated why such measures are essential. After receiving violent threats tied to her work on gun safety, she described the inadequacy of current protections and emphasized the need for clear rules, training, and resources to safeguard candidates and their families. Her testimony makes clear that political violence is a lived reality for many who seek to serve, and an especially high barrier for women and mothers considering public office. She and her legislative colleagues aim to introduce legislation that reflects her experience and learning later this year.

Taken together, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the psychological dynamics of defensive extremism, and the testimony we heard through the Democracy Exchange Network point toward a sobering truth: American democracy cannot thrive if political participation carries the constant risk of violence.

That means three things for reformers and advocates. First, we must deepen our understanding of the psychological and social roots of extremism, ensuring that prevention efforts address alienation and identity threat, not just increasing law enforcement. Second, we must scale commonsense protections, such as Vote Mama’s CFS proposal, which enable more diverse candidates to run without fear for their safety. Third, we must insist that violence is never an acceptable form of political expression, no matter one’s ideology.

Political violence thrives when democracy feels like it has failed. To honor victims, protect future leaders, and safeguard democratic participation itself, we must build systems that ensure both representation and security.

Expanding democracy means expanding not only who can run and who can vote but also ensuring that they can do so without fear of attack.

This piece was featured in the Expand Democracy 3, a weekly briefing on breakthrough reforms and promising practices to promote a healthy democracy. Here is a link to the Expand Democracy newsletter archive

Dr. Eveline Dowling is a Senior Fellow and Research Analyst at Expand Democracy. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis, specializing in public opinion, political behavior, survey research, and election reform.