U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media before boarding Marine One upon departure for New York, in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 11, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Editor's Note: This article has been updated to include a comment from the White House.
A top economic adviser to former President Bill Clinton warned on Monday that President Donald Trump is inciting violence in America — and his political opponents are helping him do it.
After describing how Trump, his top officials and former President Barack Obama denounced the recent White House Correspondents Dinner assassination attempt against Trump, economist Dr. Robert J. Shapiro wrote in Washington Monthly that violence is increasingly baked into America’s political culture. Citing a recent University of California, Davis survey of more than 7,000 Americans from all political backgrounds, the former Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs broke down what the Violence Prevention Research Center discovered.
“[Eighty-three] percent of its sample of 1,128 MAGA followers said the American way of life was disappearing so fast that force may be required to save it, and 61 percent endorsed violence and force to stop protests by those with whom they disagree,” Shapiro wrote. “More disturbing, when MAGA believers were asked whether they would personally be willing to use violence against a federal or state official to advance their political objectives, 11 percent said yes; based on surveys of the MAGA movement, that translates to 4.4 million people. Some 5 percent also said they would be personally willing to attack people who don’t share their views.”
Shapiro added that “liberals cannot feel smug about these numbers: MAGA believers are not alone in their willingness to consider violence. Democrats, Independents, and non-MAGA Republicans may be less likely to endorse violence in politics or participate in it. But most Americans are Democrats, Independents, or non-MAGA Republicans, so those who do agree add up.”
Indeed, when asked if they believed force or violence could be required to save America’s way of life, “28 percent of Democrats and Independents and 48 percent of non-MAGA Republicans said yes, alongside the 83 percent of MAGA believers. It suggests that 57 million non-MAGA Americans see a potentially legitimate role for violence in our politics, a signal that violence-as-legitimate-recourse is well embedded in the culture.” Even though support for violence somewhat declined when pollsters asked about specific scenarios, “some 17 percent of Democrats and Independents and 14 percent of non-MAGA Republicans join the 22 percent of MAGA who say force or violence is justified to advance political ends they see as important. That translates into some 28 million non-MAGA Americans open to tolerating violence when the political cause matters to them.”
This support for violence appears again and again, in various permutations of the poll’s questions. If the question is whether force or violence should be used against the government as a matter of principle, “17 percent of non-MAGA Republicans and 13 percent of Democrats and Independents are on board, along with 27 percent of MAGA followers. That suggests that some 24 million Americans consider legitimate the use of force and violence to oppose the government when it does not share their beliefs.”
Perhaps most ominously, “the study found that 6 percent of non-MAGA Republicans and 7 percent of Democrats and Independents joined 11 percent of MAGA believers in saying they would personally be willing to engage in force or violence against an elected official when it was justified to advance an important political objective. That adds up to 11.6 million Americans.” Similarly, when asked if they would use a gun to achieve a political objective, “about 2 percent of non-MAGA Republicans, 3 percent of Democrats and Independents, and 4 percent of MAGA followers responded that it was somewhat likely, and another 1 percent of each group said it was ‘very or extremely likely.’ That hardcore 1 percent who expect to personally use a gun to advance or protect their political goals add up to nearly 2 million Americans.”
Shapiro then listed examples to demonstrate that this propensity for political violence is not merely theoretical. In addition to the three documented attempts on Trump's life, Shapiro noted that were three gunfire attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris’ various campaign offices during the 2024 election; the 2022 kidnapping and severe beating of Paul Pelosi, husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; the 2025 arson attack against Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro; the 2025 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk; the 2025 assassination of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman; the 2024 assassination of United Health CEO Brian Thompson; acts of violence against Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota; and various acts of violence, some deadly, directed toward Jewish groups, CDC headquarters, the New Mexico GOP and ICE facilities. Even ICE agents killing political protesters Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Shapiro pointed out, can be characterized as political violence.
The list includes a mix of liberal individuals and institutions (Harris, Pelosi, Shapiro, Hortman, Omar, Good, Pretti, the CDC), conservative individuals and institutions (Trump, Kirk, the New Mexico GOP, ICE) and neutral ones (Jewish groups, the United Health CEO).
“Experts on political violence also warn that unless leaders stop partisan finger-pointing and accept more responsibility, political violence in the United States could worsen,” Shapiro concluded. “Drawing on extensive data analysis, Taegyoon Kim, the Korean social scientist, has concluded that ‘the inflaming effect of partisan elites’ threatening rhetoric—and the absence of counteracting behavior—suggest a potentially pernicious dynamic where partisan elites and their followers mutually escalate violent hostility.’”
Wrapping things up, Shapiro wrote that Kim “suggests that Americans’ growing acceptance of political violence may lead to escalating bloodshed: ‘Once violence begins, it fuels itself,’ she warns. ‘Far from making people turn away in horror, political violence in the present is the greatest factor normalizing it for the future.’”
When asked by AlterNet about scholars who argue Trump’s rhetoric is similar to that of Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler, and therefore should be described as such regardless of claims that it incites violence, Shapiro agreed that anti-Trumpers should not feel intimidated into silence when making those observations.
“There is no question that Trump’s approval about violence by his supporters has been an incitement—most obviously, in the January 6th attacks—and made worse by his pardons that said clearly, political violence to promote me and my personal power is beyond the law,” Shapiro told AlterNet. “The piece tries to step back from the Trump debate to show that approval of political goes beyond Trump and his supporters and is embedded more broadly in today’s political culture, though that approval is much higher among his dedicated MAGA supporters.”
AlterNet also noted to Shapiro that, with both sides eager to entirely blame the other for political violence, it could be “political suicide” to call out both sides.
“I don’t think it’s political suicide to call out violence on your own side—Trump himself could certainly do it, if he were less narcissistic—and I think it strengthens condemnations of violence the other side,” Shapiro told AlterNet. “And if some media and pundits would criticize those on their side who condemn violence of their side, that’s what leadership is about. Otherwise, as those who’ve studied political violence caution, we’re caught in an ever-heightening cycle of violence, slanted responses, and more violence.”
Speaking to this journalist for Salon in 2024, shortly after the second assassination attempt against Trump, New School historian Dr. Federico Finchelstein argued that Trump reminded him of Hitler because he "follows Hitler's playbook in projecting onto his enemies all his desires, fantasies, and aspirations. This includes, of course, as he said, 'retribution' and violence."
In response to Finchelstein and others who compare the president to Hitler, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Salon at the time that "it's been less [than] 72 hours since the second assassination attempt on President Trump's life and the media is already back to comparing President Trump to Hitler. It's disgusting. This is why Americans have zero trust in the liberal mainstream media." The White House also commented on this article.
"As the survivor of multiple assassination attempts — and watching his dear friend Charlie be assassinated last year — no one understands the dangers of political violence more than President Trump," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson spokeswoman told AlterNet. "And President Trump, and the entire Administration, will not hesitate to speak the truth and call out Democrats for smearing their opponents as Nazis, fascists, and more.”