The year 2026 dawns with a chilling warning from a former FBI agent: the surge in political violence isn't a fleeting anomaly, but a terrifying new beginning. The seeds of unrest, sown over years of escalating rhetoric, have begun to bear a deadly harvest, and the worst may be yet to come.
The most visible sign of this escalating danger arrived in September 2025 with the shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative voice. Authorities labeled the killing a “political assassination,” a stark admission of the growing threat posed by ideologically-driven attacks within the United States. The motive remains officially undisclosed, but the details are deeply unsettling.
Investigators discovered a bullet allegedly used by the suspect, Tyler Robinson, etched with the chilling message: “Hey fascist, catch.” This detail ignited a furious debate, forcing a confrontation with the uncomfortable question of whether increasingly inflammatory political language is directly fueling real-world violence.
The Department of Homeland Security reported a staggering increase in attacks against government personnel, specifically a more than 1,150% surge in assaults against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in 2025 compared to the previous year. This wasn’t simply protest; it was targeted aggression.
The violence escalated to a deadly attack in late September when a gunman opened fire on an ICE facility, killing one detainee and injuring two others. Joshua Jahn, the suspect, had meticulously researched the locations of ICE agents and left behind a handwritten note expressing a desire to instill “real terror” in the agency’s personnel.
Even the President wasn’t immune. Donald Trump faced two separate assassination attempts in 2024. In July, a 20-year-old fired shots at a rally in Pennsylvania, striking Trump in the ear. Months later, a man was arrested near Trump’s golf club in Florida, armed with a rifle and positioned in a sniper’s hide.
Jonathan Gilliam, the former FBI agent, sees a disturbing pattern connecting these events. He argues that the death of Charlie Kirk isn’t an isolated incident, but a symptom of a much larger, and deeply troubling, trend: the normalization of political violence.
Gilliam points to cases like that of Luigi Mangione, an insurance CEO who was fatally shot, noting that a segment of the population appeared to condone the act, even elevating the perpetrator to a heroic status. This acceptance, he warns, is a dangerous indicator of a shifting moral landscape.
He fears that as acts of violence become more commonplace, a growing number of individuals will begin to rationalize and even justify them. The line between passionate disagreement and violent action is blurring, and the consequences could be catastrophic.
“I believe that political violence, as we know it now, has just started,” Gilliam stated, his words carrying the weight of experience and a profound sense of urgency. He describes a disturbing trend of increasingly targeted and brutal attacks, not just against political opponents, but against religious groups and those attempting to foster dialogue.
The violence isn’t simply about disagreement; it’s about silencing opposing voices, shutting down debate, and imposing a particular ideology through fear and intimidation. This, Gilliam warns, is a path towards a deeply fractured and dangerous future.
The escalating violence extends beyond traditional political divides, targeting Jewish and Christian communities, and anyone perceived as attempting to bridge ideological gaps. Instead of encouraging understanding, violence is being used to suppress dialogue and enforce conformity.
