SHOCK POLL: Majority of Left-of-Center Americans Now Justify a Trump Assassination
By David LaGuerre
Political violence as a tool for political change has long been considered anathema to democratic norms. Yet a new poll by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) reveals that a majority of Americans identifying as left-of-center now find it at least somewhat justifiable to assassinate Donald Trump. This startling finding raises urgent questions about our current political climate, the state of American democracy, and where we must go from here.
A nation once built on the promise of peaceful political transformation now finds itself contending with growing support for violent measures in pursuit of political ends. The NCRI poll, conducted in early April 2025 among 1,264 U.S. citizens, found that over half of respondents who identify as left-of-center believe that, under some circumstances, the assassination of Donald Trump could be justified. While not an outright call to arms, these results are symptomatic of deep-seated divisions, intense polarization, and a distressing shift in the boundaries of acceptable political discourse.
This blog post examines the NCRI poll in depth—from its methodology and related biases to the broader context of political violence in American history. We also explore the roles of hyper-partisanship, social media-driven radicalization, and inflammatory political rhetoric, before considering potential counterarguments and examining strategies to restore confidence in democratic processes.
Background and Context
The Poll and Its Findings
The poll conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute has been widely circulated. Among respondents who self-identify as left-of-center, 55% reported that assassinating Donald Trump would be “at least somewhat justifiable.” In a related finding, 48% of left-of-center respondents felt the same about Elon Musk, an influential figure allied with Trump in various political endeavors. Notably, 13.2% of left-leaning respondents went as far as to say that assassinating Trump was “completely justified.”
These responses must be understood against the backdrop of a turbulent political climate. In 2024, the nation experienced two attempted assassinations targeting Trump, one of which nearly cost him his life at a Pennsylvania rally. The NCRI describes these troubling sentiments as evidence of an emerging “assassination culture”—a term that encapsulates the increasing willingness among citizens to consider violent actions as acceptable means of addressing political grievances.
Historical Context of Political Violence in the U.S.
The United States has a long, complicated history with political violence. From the infamous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr to the politically charged assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X, violence has intermittently punctuated American political life. Each of these events marked a turning point in public sentiment, sometimes leading to lasting institutional changes.
Recent history, however, has seen a rekindling of these divisions. The 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the 2021 Capitol riots, and other incidents have underscored how partisan divisions can escalate into violent confrontations. These events reflect a broader global trend: as societies become more polarized, political violence emerges as a dangerous byproduct of ideological extremism and societal discord.
Analysis: Drivers Behind the Normalization of Political Violence
Hyper-Partisanship and Polarization
Political polarization in the United States has reached unprecedented levels. The “us vs. them” mentality is now deeply entrenched. As Americans identify more exclusively with their political tribes, the other side is increasingly seen not as a legitimate adversary but as an existential threat.
The psychological process of dehumanization plays a key role here. When political opponents are painted as embodiments of evil, the moral inhibitions against violence weaken dramatically. Academic studies from institutions like the Peace Science Digest have found a strong correlation between polarization and the increased acceptance of political violence. In this environment, extreme views no longer remain confined to the fringe; they seep into mainstream political discourse, rendering once-unthinkable actions as conceivable.
The Role of Political Rhetoric
The language used by political leaders can catalyze dangerous shifts in public attitudes. In recent years, the rhetoric coming from both elected officials and media personalities has sometimes bordered on inflammatory—and in some cases, it has crossed the line into overt incitement. When leaders frame political conflicts in terms of a struggle between fundamentally good and evil forces, they create fertile ground for extreme actions.
Dehumanizing language has the particularly pernicious effect of lowering the psychological barrier to violence. When opponents are described as sub-human or as direct threats to the nation’s survival, violence ceases to be seen as a last resort and begins to appear as a legitimate form of political expression. The NCRI poll can be viewed in this light: its alarming figures may be as much a product of a culture steeped in hyperbolic rhetoric as they are an indicator of genuine public support for violence.
Social Media and the Spread of Extremism
Social media stands at the nexus of modern political discourse—and also of modern radicalization. Platforms such as Twitter, BlueSky, and Facebook have democratized information but have also amplified extremist views. Algorithms that prioritize sensational and polarizing content create echo chambers, intensifying existing biases and fostering the spread of conspiracy theories and disinformation.
A study conducted by researchers at NYU Stern and reported on various media analyses has shown that sensational content is far more likely to be shared than nuanced political opinions. As a result, inflammatory content that legitimizes violence can gain traction rapidly. Online communities not only disseminate extreme ideas but sometimes celebrate them, effectively gamifying political violence and normalizing what would have once been considered outrageous actions.
Counterarguments and Critiques
Methodological Concerns
Although the NCRI poll has sparked widespread discussion, it is not without its critics. Several methodological issues have been raised concerning its design and execution. Sampling bias is one such criticism, as online surveys may inadvertently favor younger, more digitally engaged populations over older or less tech-savvy demographics. Critics warn that such biases can exaggerate the acceptance of extreme views.
The phrasing of survey questions also merits scrutiny. Questions regarding whether a violent act is “justifiable” can be interpreted in various ways. Some respondents might have provided answers reflecting transient emotional states—especially in the wake of recent political violence—rather than considered, long-term beliefs.
Alternative Interpretations
Some analysts argue that the poll may capture momentary sentiment rather than a stable shift in political ideology. Factors such as the emotional aftershocks of recent attempted assassinations or the heightened sense of insecurity felt after the Capitol riots may have temporarily skewed opinions. Additionally, nonresponse bias is a persistent issue in survey research. If segments of the population that disapprove of political violence are less likely to participate in such polls, the results might overstate support for radical measures.
Media and Reporting Critiques
The media’s handling of the poll results has also been contentious. Many outlets have sensationalized the findings, reducing complex survey data to a single, inflammatory statistic. Overemphasis on headline numbers without sufficient context—such as margins of error or the nuances of the survey questions—risks misinforming the public and exacerbating partisan divides. Selective reporting can further polarize audiences by emphasizing data that fits particular political narratives while ignoring subtler, mitigating factors.
Implications for Democracy and Political Stability
Erosion of Democratic Norms
The normalization of political violence is a dire threat to democratic institutions. Trust in government and its processes is fundamental to the functioning of a democracy, yet recent polls show that many Americans now harbor deep suspicions about the very institutions designed to serve them. With only about half of U.S. voters believing that democracy functions well, the legitimacy of the political system is increasingly in question.
When a significant portion of the electorate becomes willing to justify violent measures, the social contract that underpins democratic governance is undermined. Violence—or even the mere ideological acceptance of violence—can serve to legitimize authoritarian impulses, encourage vigilantism, and perpetuate cycles of retribution that destabilize political discourse.
Consequences for Political Stability
The broader consequences of these developments extend well beyond partisan debates. Internationally, the United States has long been seen as a beacon of democracy. A decline in public confidence and increasing tolerance for political violence erode this image, weakening America’s ability to advocate for democratic norms on the global stage. Studies from Pew Research Center indicate that only around 40% of adults in 34 countries view U.S. democracy as a positive model, a figure that continues to decline as domestic unrest grows.
Furthermore, intensified polarization and the emboldening of extremist rhetoric can lead to a vicious cycle where increased violence fosters further polarization, which then paves the way for additional episodes of political violence. This cycle is particularly dangerous as it can disrupt policy debates, inhibit cooperative governance, and lead to crises that challenge the very foundation of pluralistic society.
Strategies to Address Political Violence
Strengthening Democratic Institutions
Restoring confidence in our democratic institutions is critical. Electoral reforms ensuring free and fair elections, independent monitoring, and secure voting systems can help rebuild trust. Transparency initiatives within government can demystify decision-making processes, further reinforcing the legitimacy of public institutions. Importantly, a robust civic education program can empower citizens with a clearer understanding of democratic principles, emphasizing nonviolent methods of political engagement and conflict resolution.
Reducing Polarization
Mitigating the current polarization requires deliberate steps aimed at fostering civic dialogue. Bipartisan initiatives that focus on common goals—be it economic recovery, education, or infrastructure development—can bridge the widening ideological gaps. Media literacy campaigns, designed to educate the public about bias, misinformation, and echo chambers, serve as an essential countermeasure against divisive narratives. By encouraging critical thinking, these initiatives can help individuals distinguish between temporary emotional responses and long-term ideological commitments.
Addressing the Role of Social Media
To tackle the disruptive influence of social media, regulation must evolve to address algorithm-driven radicalization. Social media platforms have the responsibility to monitor content that glorifies violence while simultaneously promoting constructive, factual dialogue. By developing better community standards and recalibrating algorithms to favor credible sources over sensationalist content, policymakers can mitigate the spread of extremist views online.
Promoting Global Democratic Leadership
The role of the United States as a global leader in promoting democratic values is at stake. International cooperation with allied nations to counter authoritarian influences is more important than ever. By reaffirming commitments to safeguarding democratic institutions both domestically and abroad, the United States can work to rebuild its stature on the world stage. Supporting democracy promotion programs and engaging in international dialogue about best practices in civic governance are vital steps in this process.
Economic and Social Stability
Underlying many of these issues are economic and social factors that contribute to discontent. Addressing economic inequality through progressive policies not only enhances social cohesion but also weakens the conditions that lead to political radicalization. Investment in community programs and social safety nets is a long-term strategy that builds resilience against both economic shocks and the lure of extremist solutions. When citizens feel secure and valued, they are less likely to resort to or endorse violent means of political expression.
The NCRI poll is a stark reminder that the norms and values which have long underpinned American democracy are under serious threat. The alarming acceptance of political violence among a substantial segment of left-of-center Americans is both a symptom and a cause of deeper societal divisions. Hyper-partisanship, incendiary political rhetoric, and unchecked social media influence are all compounding factors that have allowed fringe ideas to seep into mainstream discourse.
However, the challenges are not insurmountable. By strengthening democratic institutions, reducing polarization, enforcing accountability on social media platforms, and addressing the root socio-economic causes of discontent, there is a path forward—a path that prioritizes dialogue over division, transparency over secrecy, and hope over fear. As citizens and defenders of democracy, it is incumbent upon us to reject violence in all its forms and work tirelessly to restore trust in our shared political system.
The time for complacency has passed. Recommitting to democratic ideals and fostering an environment where differences are debated, not bloodied, is essential for the health of our nation. Only by acting together can we ensure that violence never again becomes a sanctioned tool of political discourse.
