What are the threats of today's political climate in the US?

Threats in Today's U.S. Political Climate

Based on current analysis from researchers, watchdog organizations, and security experts, several interconnected threats are shaping the U.S. political landscape heading into the 2026 midterms:

1. Rising Political Violence

Political violence has become a defining concern. Political violence includes physical violence, threats, or intimidation intended to destabilize public institutions or democratic functions, and while nonpolitical homicides have been dropping, threats and acts of political violence remain high. The data is stark: during the first six months of 2025, more than 520 incidents of terrorism and targeted violence occurred in the United States — roughly a 40% increase compared with the first six months of 2024.

High-profile incidents have punctuated this trend, including assassinations of political figures, including Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and conservative activist leader Charlie Kirk, as well as the June 2025 shooting of Senator John Hoffman and his wife, and the murder of Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, by an attacker whose target list contained 45 Democratic elected officials.

Notably, government-involved violence has also escalated: political violence from the government grew in 2025, especially from ICE, with 32 people dying in ICE custody in 2025, and in 2026 ICE killing two protesting Americans with immigration agents shooting at people in at least 24 incidents.

There is some countervailing data, however — despite an increasingly volatile political climate, researchers found a "broad decrease" in support for political violence from mid-2025 to mid-2026, according to a UC Davis study, though support remained stronger on the political right than on the political left.

2. Affective Polarization and Erosion of "Mutual Toleration"

Beyond policy disagreements, polarization has become identity-based. There is an 80-point partisan gap in Trump approval (90% Republican / 8-10% Democrat) — the highest recorded in the modern polling era — and 63% of Americans see the opposing party as a "threat to democracy," with affective polarization roughly doubling since 1994. Both parties' identifiers increasingly view the other side as not just politically mistaken but morally deficient and threatening to democracy itself.

Political scientists warn this undermines core democratic norms: polarization is dangerous because it can destroy democratic norms — according to Levitsky and Ziblatt's "soft guardrails" framework, the first norm is mutual toleration, where actors view opponents as legitimate and having a right to compete within the political arena. When mutual toleration is low, opponents are framed as adversaries, making actors more inclined to resort to authoritarian measures to defeat them.

Interestingly, this division is more emotional than substantive on many issues — on many policy issues there is actually cross-party agreement, with 79% supporting Medicare drug negotiation, 76% supporting pre-existing conditions protections, and 70% supporting marijuana decriminalization across party lines.

3. Election-Related Threats and Institutional Strain

With midterms approaching, several structural concerns have emerged:

4. Concerns About Rule-of-Law Erosion

Some analysts point to a deeper institutional threat beyond visible violence or polarization: using the Justice Department to harass political adversaries with baseless prosecutions, militarizing the domestic environment by superseding local police and judicial authorities, and defaming judges while encouraging threats of violence against them. One assessment argues the most deadly threat is the vitiation of the republic's democratic form through the undermining of the primacy of law — a threat described as more insidious precisely because it is less sensational than overt violence.

5. Chilling Effects on Civic Participation

The cumulative effect of this climate is discouraging political engagement itself. Research found that due to fears of violence or harassment, 47% were less willing to work on controversial topics, 46% were less willing to run for higher office, 43% were less willing to run for re-election or go to public events, and 37% were less willing to be in public spaces.

Bottom line: Experts largely agree the threats are multidimensional — spanning physical violence (from both non-state actors and increasingly from federal agencies), deep affective polarization that erodes trust in opponents' legitimacy, disinformation around elections, and rule-of-law concerns tied to how institutional power is being wielded. Importantly, these concerns span the ideological spectrum rather than belonging to one side exclusively, though analysts differ on which threats they consider most urgent.