Skip to main content
main content, press tab to continue
Article

Political violence and the U.S. election

An attempted assassination foreshadows a tense run up to November 5

By Patrick Johnson , Patrick Rogers and Peter Bransden | July 30, 2024

On July 13, a gunman opened fire at a campaign rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Credit and Political Risk|Crisis Management|Financial, Executive and Professional Risks (FINEX)|Risk Management Consulting
N/A

Overview

On July 13, a gunman opened fire at a campaign rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump was injured after a bullet grazed his ear; one rally attendee was killed, and two others were seriously injured in the attack.

The attempted assassination of a former president and presidential candidate is without recent precedent in modern U.S. politics and has raised significant concerns about heightened political violence ahead of the November election.

Potential impacts

What it means for the election

The effects of the assassination attempt on the election remain uncertain. While both sides have called for calmer rhetoric and a return to civility, this is unlikely. American politics have become increasingly fraught since 2016, with both Democrats and Republicans depicting each other’s candidates as existential threats to the U.S.

There is no indication that the attempt on Trump’s life has significantly affected support for either party. The presidential election is likely to remain close and will be decided by slim margins dependent on swing voters in battleground states, although the latest polling suggests Trump is a slight favorite to win[1]. While public perceptions about Biden and Trump were largely entrenched, Kamala Harris’s presumptive nomination gives and her running mate an opportunity to alter the dynamics of the race. Still, the election is likely to remain centered on controversial issues – including abortion and immigration.

What it means for political violence

Trump’s attempted assassination follows a series of politically motivated acts of violence which have become increasingly common in recent years. Political violence is present on both sides of the political spectrum, particularly at the extremes, where individuals are often motivated by online rhetoric, ideology, and conspiratorial thinking. High-profile incidents include the 2022 assault of Paul Pelosi, the husband of then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, at their home in California by a far-right assailant, and the 2017 shooting by a left-wing extremist at a congressional baseball game in Washington, D.C that seriously injured Republican Representative Steve Scalise and five others. Other forms of political violence are more organized and may arise during bouts of civil unrest or political demonstrations such as the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol in 2021 or rioting associated with racial justice protests in the summer of 2020.

Little is known about Trump’s would-be assassin, who left no evidence of any underlying extremist beliefs or political motivations. The initial profile of the assailant matches a growing trend of violent attacks carried out by individuals driven by a general sense of nihilism and disaffection with society, rather than firm beliefs in extreme ideologies or conspiracy theories. While these assailants may become radicalized in online spaces, they frequently hold incongruent and conflicting political views that do not map onto the mainstream understanding of left-right politics.

Similarly minded assailants could conduct attacks in the lead up to and following the election, targeting elected officials and political candidates. These attacks may be difficult for law enforcement to detect and disrupt given that recent incidents have been carried out by lone individuals who do not show any clear signs of desiring to commit violence. The activities of individuals who undergo political radicalization are also often difficult to pre-empt as many have self-radicalized online and have no obvious ties to established extremist groups.

Organized violence by street groups is a more tangible risk that has emerged in recent years. Groups like the Proud Boys and Patriot Front – as well as anti-fascist and other left-wing groups – have staged provocative demonstrations across the U.S., often with the goal of engaging in violence with police or left-wing counter-protesters. These organizations could step up protests over the election period, particularly in the event of a narrow Trump loss. Other recent violent incidents have occurred during pro-Palestine protests on college campuses across the U.S. Although not explicitly related to the election, these demonstrations have resulted in similar confrontations with law enforcement and rival protest groups.

What to look out for

The risk of political violence will largely depend on the outcome of the election and how each candidate navigates the results. A narrow victory by either party is likely to motivate the opposing side to organize demonstrations. Although typically peaceful, election-related protests have become volatile in recent years. Unrest and incidents of violence have often been fuelled by accusations of voter fraud or conspiracy theories spread online. Political discourse has only eroded further since the 2020 election, when accusations of fraud culminated in the January 6 unrest, and social media companies remain poorly equipped to handle the spread of disinformation and incendiary rhetoric.

Some demonstrations, such as those organized by the Proud Boys, Patriot Front, or anti-fascist groups may be announced ahead of time given the significant law enforcement presence needed to secure these gatherings. Other protests by left- and right-wing groups may be more spontaneous and could target county clerks’ offices in battleground states and other election infrastructure. Businesses may also be targeted due to their perceived ties to candidates or political causes. There have already been incidents throughout 2024 of businesses being targeted for harassment and vandalism by demonstrators for their perceived support for Israel.

Key dates

  • 19-22 August – Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois
  • 18 September – Trump scheduled to be sentenced in his New York criminal case
  • 5 November – Election Day
  • 11 December – Deadline for resolving any disputes over Electoral College electors
  • 17 December – The Electoral College formally elects the president and vice president
  • 6 January – Election results are recognized by a joint session of Congress
  • 20 January – Inauguration Day

What can you do?

  1. 01

    Risk assessment

    Conduct a risk assessment of election-based political violence specific to your organization. This should account, as a minimum, for any association of your brand to the political spectrum, insider risk, and operational impacts to your footprint, e.g. assets or operations close to known or potential protest locations and political events. Continue to monitor events and regularly review your risk assessment as the election cycle evolves.

  2. 02

    Contingency plan

    Based on the outcome of a risk assessment, develop any necessary contingency plans to maintain your operations and mitigate impacts. These plans will vary dependent on your identified risks, but may incorporate components such as; relocation of services or functions, work from home orders, asset lockdowns, stock and delivery planning, financial hedging, and additional security (physical and cyber).

  3. 03

    Communications

    As appropriate, proactively communicate with internal and external stakeholders about any measures you intend to take or restrictions you will put in place during the election cycle. Work with stakeholders, including your customers, to identify risks and implement mitigation.

Fortifying your insurance program

As we approach November 6th, any increase in political violence may expose the coverage gaps and shortcomings within traditional property & casualty programs. On the one hand, specific exclusionary language leaves clients facing uninsured losses from riots, civil commotion and malicious damage – either through damage to physical assets and/or as result of business downtime. Equally, the nature of violence in the U.S. has demanded a paradigm shift in crisis management, with risk and security teams valuing a greater emphasis on expert service provision, lasting victim care, and proactive resiliency.

WTW’s Active Assailant Protection is often purchased by organizations – particularly within the retail, real estate, hospitality, healthcare and higher education/public entity sectors – as a permanent upgrade to their risk management programs. In some cases, however, policyholders have sought increased limits around specific locations that are particularly exposed to election-related activity (e.g. convention centers). The capacity offered by insurers backing this coverage has traditionally been unaffected by the hardening of the wider political violence market. However, premium rates have begun to respond to a perceived deterioration in the risk environment, with carriers citing concern over liability coverages, aggregation exposures and demonstrating caution with high-profile events.

For ways to help define your vulnerability to active assailant incidents and close any gaps in coverage, speak to our team. Our specialists will guide you through the options available on standalone basis or through an enhancement to your current program.

Footnote

  1. Polling Kamala Harris Trump. Return to article

Authors


Risk Analyst
email Email

Head of Risk Advisory
email Email

Head of Sales, North America
email Email

Contacts


Leonard Chan
Head of Terrorism & Political Violence

Marcus Chew
Risk Advisory Lead
email Email

Tristan Simpson
Crisis Support Team Leader
email Email

Contact us