The shootings of two Minnesota state legislators and their spouses this weekend — resulting in the assassination of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband and grievous injury to Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, who were shot multiple times — is the latest horrific episode of political violence across the country.
It won’t be the last.
In the wake of the attacks, prominent right-wing social media commentators and conspiracy theorists were quick to falsely lay blame at the feet of victims and Democrats. After reports surfaced that Gov. Tim Walz had appointed the Minnesota shooting suspect, who was taken into custody Sunday, to a state workforce development board, right-wing social media personality Mike Cernovich asked on X whether Walz had unleashed an “assassin” and “ordered the political hit against a rival who voted against Walz’s plan to give free healthcare to illegals.” Elon Musk was swiftly mocked online after he blamed the “far left” for the killings in a post on X.
Elon Musk was swiftly mocked online after he blamed the “far left” for the killings in a post on X.
These conspiracy theories are patently wrong. The suspect in custody for Saturday’s killings has reportedly voted for Trump and is a supporter of the president, according to a close friend of his who spoke with NBC affiliate KARE of Minneapolis, and he appears to have deliberately targeted progressive and liberal candidates and causes. Police discovered a list of other targets, including Democrats who support abortion rights and Planned Parenthood clinics. He was an ordained Christian minister who had taken several trips to proselytize overseas.
Political vitriol has spiked over the past few years, and violence is right on its heels, reflected in record-breaking hate crime rates, persistent terrorist violence and threats to elected officials, judges, librarians and school board members. In just the first four months of 2025, there were over 170 incidents of threats or harassment to local officials across more than three dozen states.
President Donald Trump survived two assassination attempts last summer. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home was firebombed this spring. United Healthcare’s CEO was gunned down in Manhattan last year. Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked in their home. The Republican Party’s New Mexico headquarters was firebombed.
Across the political spectrum, our climate of increasing political violence and growing acceptance of it are exacerbated by public figures who fail to condemn violence — or worse, encourage it with language that positions the other party as a dangerous, existential threat. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump referred to Democrats as “the enemy within,” warning that they are “dangerous” and “evil.” Three-quarters of Republicans who believe Trump won the 2020 election (and 27% who believe Joe Biden won) either somewhat or strongly agree that Democrats are “downright evil.” Democratic Congressman Kweisi Mfume told a crowd of protesters in February that DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) stood for the “department of government evil.”
When political leaders use rhetoric that demonizes their opponents, declaring them enemies who are worthy of revenge or pledging retribution, their supporters may feel emboldened or empowered to take violent action.
It should be noted that many political leaders and pundits across the political spectrum did get the response right. Republican South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden issued a statement saying that “violence has no place in our political system” and ordered that flags be flown at half-staff at the State Capitol.
But years of Republican rhetoric about Democrats being the enemy (including from Trump, who in the past warned Americans about the potential for violence on election day from who he described as “radical left lunatics”) has helped usher in a view of political disagreements as existentially threatening, based on an “us versus them” positioning of opponents as dangerous and evil. By positioning political opponents as existential threats to the nation, even many of those who are quick to condemn violent actions when they happen are simultaneously seeding the ground for future violence. Responding to egregious acts of political violence by blaming political opponents is dangerous and wrong. This is not a politically gray area or a matter for debate. Responding to egregious acts of political violence by blaming political opponents is dangerous and wrong. There is an absolutely correct way to respond to a tragedy like a political assassination: immediately condemning all targeted violence, no matter the motivation — and an unequivocally wrong way: blaming victims, conspiracizing motivations and valorizing or justifying violence. The latter response increases the risk of more political violence, normalizes assassinations and makes a tragedy a moment for partisanship rather than national unity. What we need now is an unequivocal commitment by all political leaders and pundits to reject language that demonizes the other party and simultaneously welcomes dissent and debate as part and parcel of the democratic process. Democracy can thrive only when political disagreement is normalized as an inherent good. Even vehement differences about public policy deserve a voice, through nonviolent protest, lobbying, citizen actions or campaigning. When we paint those we disagree with as enemies who threaten the health or vitality of the nation, we create the risk that fringe actors will resort to violent action that they perceive as a moral imperative and a patriotic and heroic act. If we don’t find a way to put the genie back in the bottle, we guarantee that the horrific assassinations in Minnesota will be followed by more tragedies like them.
Cynthia Miller-Idriss is an author and expert on extremism. 
