In Minnesota, America's Luck Ran Out

Early this morning, a gunman apparently impersonating a police officer targeted two Democratic Minnesota state lawmakers in their homes. First, he shot State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, who were seriously wounded. Law-enforcement officials believe the same gunman then shot Melissa Hortman, who served as Minnesota's speaker of the House from 2019 to 2024. She was killed, along with her husband, Mark.
In September 2023, shortly after Donald Trump yet again encouraged direct political violence against his opponents, I wrote this: 'As a political scientist who studies political violence across the globe, I would chalk up the lack of high-profile assassinations in the United States during the Trump and post-Trump era to dumb luck … Eventually, all luck runs out.'
That luck has now run out, in an idyllic Minneapolis suburb.
Although details are still emerging, law-enforcement officials are searching for a former appointee of Democratic Governor Tim Walz in connection with the killings, which Walz called 'politically motivated.' The gunman reportedly had a manifesto and a list of targets that included the names of other Minnesota politicians as well as abortion providers in the state. Law-enforcement authorities intercepted but were not able to arrest the shooter shortly after he assassinated Hortman. Had they not, it's possible that he would have made his way to the homes of other Minnesota officials, trying to murder them too.
Political violence—and assassinations in particular—are notoriously difficult to predict, precisely because the violence is often carried out by 'lone wolf' attackers. Just one deranged zealot is sufficient to carry out an act of consequential violence. In a country of 340 million people and even more guns, there will always be a small pool of potential killers eager to wreak havoc on the political system.
That's why researchers who study political violence, including myself, try to understand what elevates or reduces the risk of violence, even if it can never be fully eradicated. In a context such as the United States, three key factors stand out: easy access to deadly weapons, intense polarization that paints political opponents as treasonous enemies rather than disagreeing compatriots, and incitements to political violence from high-profile public figures. When you combine those three social toxins, the likelihood of political violence increases, even as it remains impossible to predict who will be targeted or when attacks might be carried out.
Again, law-enforcement officials still don't know the attacker's precise motivations, and trying to draw conclusions from any single act of political violence is foolish. Because they are rare, randomness plays a role in these instances, and many perpetrators are mentally unwell. But consider this comparison. Although we can't say that climate change caused a specific hurricane, we know that climate change produces stronger hurricanes. Similarly, we may not be able to draw a direct link from rhetoric to a specific act of violence, but we do know that incitements to violence make killings more likely.
The United States has repeatedly refused to do anything about easy access to deadly weapons, despite having, by far, the highest rate of mass killings among developed democracies. As a result, the only feasible levers are reducing polarization and stopping high-profile incitements to commit violence. Instead, during the Trump era, polarization has sharply increased. And over the past decade, Trump himself has been the most dangerous political actor in terms of routinely inciting violence against his opponents, including against specific politicians who could become assassination targets.
Such incitements matter. When a person with a massive public platform spreads information that encourages violence, attacks become more likely.
From the April 2023 issue: Adrienne LaFrance on America's terrifying cycle of extremist violence
From the beginning of his first campaign for president, Trump encouraged supporters to beat up hecklers at his rallies, saying he'd cover their legal bills if they ' knock the crap ' out of them. He floated the ideas of shooting looters, shooting shoplifters, and shooting migrants crossing the border. Trump also targeted the press, sharing a variety of violent memes involving specific outlets. He endorsed Greg Gianforte, now the governor of Montana, specifically because he violently attacked a reporter. ('Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type,' Trump said, to cheers.) And, at the end of his first term, Trump's speech on the National Mall on January 6 doused an already incendiary environment, culminating in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol building.
Trump's rhetorical incitements to violence extend to politicians, too. He has called his political opponents ' human scum.' Even more worrying are Trump's endorsements of violence against specific Democrats. In 2016, he suggested that maybe there was something that ' Second Amendment people ' could do to deal with Hillary Clinton. In October 2022, when a QAnon disciple who had peddled Trump's lies about the 2020 election attempted to assassinate then–Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi—and fractured her husband's, Paul's, skull with a hammer—Trump made light of the incident. (His son Donald Trump Jr. posted a photo on Instagram of a hammer and a pair of underwear like the ones Paul Pelosi had been wearing during the attempted murder, with the caption: ' Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.') Less than a year later, Trump openly mused that Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be killed.
When such language becomes normalized, deranged individuals may interpret rhetoric as marching orders. In 2018, Cesar Sayoc, a die-hard Trump supporter, mailed 16 pipe bombs to people who frequently appeared as targets in Trump's tweets. (Nobody died, but only because Sayoc wasn't skilled at making bombs.) In 2020, Trump tweeted that people should 'LIBERATE MICHIGAN!' in response to its COVID policies. Thirteen days later, armed protesters entered the state capitol building. A right-wing plot to kidnap the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, was narrowly foiled months later.
It also matters that Trump is one of the biggest vectors for spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation in the United States. When a major political figure disseminates lies about shadowy plots and treasonous acts carried out by the 'human scum' on the other side of the aisle, that can increase the likelihood of violence. (Several followers of QAnon, which Trump has repeatedly amplified himself, have carried out political violence based on the conspiracy theory.)
Trump often makes a brief show of condemning political violence—as he has with the killings in Minnesota. While trying to play both the arsonist and the firefighter on social media, his actions in power make clear where his true loyalties lie, sending much stronger signals. One of his first official acts at the start of his second term was to pardon or grant clemency to people convicted for their involvement in the January 6 riots, including those who had violently attacked police officers and were targeting lawmakers. In recent weeks, Trump has floated the possibility of pardoning the far-right zealots who sought to kidnap Governor Whitmer in Michigan. The message is unmistakable: Use violence against my political opponents and there may be a pardon waiting. Joe Biden abused his pardon power to protect his son from tax-evasion charges. Donald Trump abused his pardon power to condone those who attacked cops and hoped to murder politicians. Both abuses were bad. But they are not the same.
Trump, more than anyone, should be aware of the risks of political violence. After all, he narrowly escaped an assassin's bullet last summer. He would be dead, but for a gust of wind or a slightly different tilt of his head. But when that assassination attempt happened, Biden didn't mock it; Kamala Harris didn't float the idea of pardoning the assassin; and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries hadn't previously mused that Trump should be executed, or that he was human scum, or that Jeffries would pay the bills of people who used violence against Republicans.
Neither party has a monopoly on the risks of political violence. Democrats and Republicans in public office are targets who face credible threats in a hyper-polarized political climate. Likewise, supporters of Democrats and supporters of Republicans are both capable of carrying out political violence. (There have also been a small number of statements by Democrats that could be interpreted as incitements to violence, including some by Representatives Maxine Waters of California and Dan Goldman of New York. Goldman apologized for his phrasing the following day.)
The difference is that only one party is led by someone who uses his megaphone to routinely normalize and absolve acts of political violence. There is overwhelming evidence of this asymmetric rhetoric between those in party leadership.
The United States is a fraying society, torn apart by polarization, intense disagreement, and ratcheting extremism. Cheap weapons of mass murder are readily available. And into that tinder box, Trump adds incendiary rhetoric. We don't know when or where the deadly conflagration will strike next, but more flames will no doubt come. We may still be shocked by tragic acts of political violence like the assassination in Minnesota, but we can no longer feign surprise.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CNBC

16 minutes ago

• CNBC

The Israel-Iran conflict and the other big thing that drove the stock market this week

It's been a tense and dynamic week for the world at large. The market action on Wall Street over the past four sessions was been anything but that. For the week, the S & P 500 lost 0.15%, the tech-heavy Nasdaq ticked up 0.21%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was basically flat, up a mere 0.02%. Beneath the surface, though, there was plenty of news for investors to digest. Here's a closer look at the biggest market themes during the holiday-shortened trading week. 1. Geopolitics: The major news story was — and still is — the intensifying war between Israel and Iran. The big question on everyone's mind is whether the U.S. will get involved. As of Friday, reports indicate that while President Donald Trump is actively reviewing options to attack Iran, nothing has been authorized. The White House has said Trump he will make a decision in the "next two weeks". As a result of the Israel-Iran conflict, investors spent the week keeping an extra close eye on the movement in safe-haven assets like gold and the dollar, as well as risk assets such as oil. Gold prices pulled back this week after their initial spike last Friday, which is when Israel's first attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure jolted markets. The U.S. dollar index , meanwhile, strengthened this week but still remains near multiyear lows. Oil rose again for the week, with international benchmark Brent crude climbing nearly 4%. For those looking to gauge what the market thinks will happen with Iran, look to oil. The commodity is currently acting as something of proxy on the odds of the conflict intensifying and America directly entering the fray. 2. Fed updates: The other big theme of the week centered on the health of the U.S. economy in the lead up to Wednesday afternoon, when we got the Federal Reserve's latest interest rate decision and revised economic projections. Ultimately, the Fed kept its benchmark lending rate unchanged on Wednesday following its two-day policy meeting. The decision followed lackluster updates on the state of the consumer and the housing market , along with lower-than-expected inflation readings the week prior. As we outlined earlier this week , the Fed is in a tough spot when it comes to abiding by its dual mandate of ensuring price stability and low unemployment. The state of play requires nuance. On the one hand, there is evidence in support of rate cuts, namely some cracks in the consumer — even if the consumer has remained largely and impressively resilient — and the Fed's own updated outlook for lower real GDP growth and higher unemployment this year. On the other hand, the Fed is now expecting higher inflation this year than it did in March, which would support the need for higher interest rates. Given these dueling dynamics and the uncertainty around tariff impacts, the central bank's decision to keep interest rates steady makes sense. While the Fed certainly doesn't want to wait too long and make the same mistake we saw coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic, we must acknowledge that the causes of a potential rebound in inflation are different this time around. Tariffs will likely push up prices, but that may be a one-time increase, as opposed to the sustained inflation we saw exiting the pandemic, which was driven by massive supply chain disruptions and shifts in consumer behavior. As a result, we believe the apparent bias to be more worried about the job market and overall economic growth — and therefore cut rates later this year — makes sense, too. Indeed, the Fed's updated projections still pencil in two rate cuts in 2025, the same as in March despite the aforementioned revisions to its inflation and growth outlook. Fed Governor Christopher Waller made the case Friday that the cuts should start as early as July, arguing that the inflation risk posed by tariffs is not significant and ensuring resiliency in the labor market should be a higher priority. Waller's argument is basically that it's better to move now than wait for a jump in unemployment. Our biggest focus at the Club is staying nimble, given the highly volatile nature of geopolitics at the moment. No doubt, rate decisions are important to think about, but they're only one small part of the investing puzzle to navigate each day. For this reason, we continue to focus more on individual company fundamentals and industry trends rather than higher-level dynamics, important as they are to shaping our worldview. Cybersecurity stocks are one example that we highlighted this week. Another example would be the news we got from Club names Meta Platforms and Amazon this week on their artificial intelligence efforts. We think the implications that AI will have on the cost structures, revenue opportunities and efficiency gains should weigh far more heavily in the minds' of long-term investors than whether the Fed will cut in July or September. (Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust is long META, AMZN. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.

New York Times

16 minutes ago

• New York Times

B-2 bombers head across the Pacific and Trump is scheduled to return to the White House as he considers strike on Iran.

Multiple U.S. Air Force B-2 bombers appeared to be airborne and heading west from the United States across the Pacific, and President Trump is scheduled to return to the White House late on Saturday afternoon from New Jersey as he deliberates about whether to join Israel's efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear sites. Air traffic control communications indicated that several B-2 aircraft — the planes that could be equipped to carry the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs that Mr. Trump is considering deploying against Iran's underground nuclear facilities in Fordo — had taken off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. Some flight trackers said on social media that the destination of the aircraft is Guam, the U.S. territory, which has several military installations, although that could not be independently confirmed. The bombers appeared to be accompanied by refueling tankers for portions of the journey, the flight tracking data showed. Moving planes does not mean a final decision has been made about whether to strike. It is not unusual to shift military assets into position to provide options to the president and military commanders even if they are not ultimately deployed. The White House schedule for the weekend said that Mr. Trump would return from his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., and would meet with his national security team at 6 p.m. on Saturday and again on Sunday. Mr. Trump typically spends both weekend days out of town at one of his properties. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment. Mr. Trump has made clear he is weighing whether to have the U.S. join Israel's effort to curtail Iran's ability to acquire a nuclear weapon, a line he has drawn repeatedly over the years. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

The Hill

24 minutes ago

• The Hill

Why tariffs are already driving some healthcare premiums higher

Related video above: How patients and doctors can reduce healthcare costs (NEXSTAR) – Despite the focus on the price of cars, iPhones and other consumer goods, the Trump administration's tariffs are starting to drive up prices in an entirely different industry – healthcare. On Monday, Matt McGough, with nonprofit health policy organization KFF, wrote that several individual insurance companies have already notified state regulators that they will be raising premiums to offset the potential impact of tariffs on pharmaceuticals. Trump hasn't yet targeted pharmaceuticals with tariffs, but has repeatedly brought it up, including on Monday aboard Air Force One. 'We're going to be doing pharmaceuticals very soon,' Trump said, according to Reuters. 'That's going to bring all the companies back, into America.' In a May filing, the Independent Health Benefits Corporation (IHBC) said it was submitting a premium rate change of 38.4% for 2026, 'primarily due to increased costs due to inflation and tariffs, and changes in risk adjustment.' An IHBC spokesperson told Axios that roughly 3% of that increase was to directly account for the impact of tariffs, specifically on drug prices. McGough notes that there are other insurers who either haven't specifically mentioned the potential effect of tariffs or who declined to include an offsetting increase in 2026 premium rates. 'A large proportion of medical goods currently comes from international sources, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices and personal protective equipment, as well as other low-margin, high-use essentials like syringes, needles and blood pressure cuffs,' Tina Freese Decker, board chair of the American Hospital Association, wrote in a May post. 'Tariffs on these items could impact patient care by jeopardizing the availability of vital medications and essential health care devices. They also could raise costs for hospitals and heighten shortages and supply chain disruptions.' Meantime, millions of Affordable Care Act (ACA) enrollees could see an over 75% average increase in premiums if Biden-era subsidies aren't extended by Congress before they expire at the end of the year, according to KFF estimates. How much tariffs are weighing on the calculations of insurers will become a bit more clear on Aug. 1, Axios notes, when proposed 2026 premium rates are posted.