If Donald Trump Dies So Does America as We Know It

There has been much speculation about the future of US politics following the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk. There is no doubt it has set in motion a tectonic shift among the commentary classes. Nothing radicalises people more than realising there is a target painted on their back. Beyond this, Charlie Kirk was, by many accounts, a kind family man and friend to many in the sphere. It is easy to understand why emotions are running incredibly high. This tragic event has now coloured how many see the future of US politics. Many view the escalation of political violence as inevitable. However, this is not necessarily the case; I would argue it is unlikely, though not impossible. Predicting the future is never easy, but the best method is to examine the incentives facing various groups.

Both political elites, and elites more broadly, do not want violence to escalate. They have the most to lose and the largest targets painted on their backs, given the positions they occupy. They can recognise that if their opponents meet an untimely end, which might benefit them in the short term, a retributive attack in their direction is likely, which would clearly not benefit them. If this tit-for-tat spiral of political violence gets out of control, everyone is at risk. Evidence for this self-preservation instinct is clear in the responses to Charlie Kirk’s death. The left-wing activist class seemed either unanimously in favour of his assassination or, at the very least, indifferent. One need not look far for evidence; they posted about it online incessantly. Some even called for more assassinations. Very few actually condemned the act. They likely understand, consciously or not, that they are safe in the crowd since assassins are not targeting them.

This contrasts sharply with the response of many establishment Democrats, epitomised by Bill Clinton’s statement, shared by his wife Hillary:

“I’m saddened and angered by Charlie Kirk’s murder. And I hope we all go through some serious introspection and redouble our efforts to engage in debate passionately, yet peacefully. Hillary and I are keeping Erika, their two young children, and their family in our prayers.”

By all accounts, this is a relatively unobjectionable statement. It is both optically smart and an explicit call to lower the political temperature, a recurring theme among established political figures. House Speaker Mike Johnson urged members of the House to “turn the temperature down”. New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham, a Democrat, and Utah Governor Spencer Cox, a Republican, shared a stage to highlight personal friendship and bipartisan governance. Even late-night talk show host Seth Meyers echoed similar sentiments. The difference between elite and activist responses could not be more stark.

The right, by contrast, responded in two ways. First, they hardened rhetoric against the activist class. Perhaps the most targeted retributive response has been the attempt to get those who celebrated Kirk’s death fired from their jobs, a tactic the left often uses but is rarely employed by the right. Second, they expressed heartfelt sentiment toward Kirk and his family, through thoughts, prayers, and vigils. But there has been no violent response. Despite the bump in the road in 2020, the American right, generally speaking, continues to believe in the political system and that political solutions remain possible. Violence is inherently high risk, and usually people avoid it if other options exist. As Trump currently holds the presidency, and was quick to designate Antifa a terrorist group, the right does not yet feel violent responses are necessary. However, this arrangement depends on one thing. Trump must survive the presidency. If he is assassinated, as many have tried, belief in political solutions would likely evaporate almost immediately.

Trump’s assassination would provide JD Vance unprecedented justification to crush the left. Turning the apparatus of state entirely against them, if both willing and able, and could guarantee lasting political victory that would otherwise be unattainable. But people will not see it that way. As with all human societies, killing the leader of the tribe is seen as a declaration of war against the whole. With the left largely mobilised already, all that is needed is for the right to be willing to meet them, and a tit-for-tat spiral of conflict could begin. In a society as heavily armed as the United States, this situation would be extremely difficult to contain. If Trump survives, however, the entire scenario can be avoided. The elite factions are united in their desire to lower the political temperature and avoid becoming targets themselves. Considering the close calls Trump has experienced leading up to the presidency, his security is likely the most robust in American history. Past failures may also serve as a deterrent to future attempts. While opponents could theoretically interfere with his security behind the scenes, it is in their interest to let him ride out his presidency safely lest they find themselves in the crosshairs next.

The political climate, as it currently stands, is deeply uneven. One recent study found that 55% of those who are left-of-centre would at least partially support the assassination of Donald Trump, a majority. The right, conversely, seems increasingly opposed to political violence. One study of Republicans following the July 2024 attempt on Trump’s life found:

“Republicans, including MAGA Republicans, became significantly less supportive of partisan violence against Democrats. Republicans also did not become more hostile toward Democrats; instead, their attachment to their own party significantly increased.”

This imbalance is obviously alarming, and Trump’s attempts to reduce left-wing violence do not even meet the criteria of half measures quite yet. Trump’s designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation allows federal agencies to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle operations conducted by or claiming affiliation with antifa, including prosecuting those funding them and investigating those who support them. This action is better than nothing but presumes federal agencies have both the will and ability to limit Antifa’s political violence. If the federal agencies were enthusiastic to go after Antifa they would have no doubt done so already. The group has been associated with domestic terrorism for quite some time, as evidenced by an earlier attempt in the Senate in 2019 to designate them as a domestic terrorist organisation.

For Federal agencies, new groups to target means new opportunities for career advancement, more funding, and more prestige; so why haven’t they? Some argue that there are sympathies within these organisations towards the actions of Antifa. If this is indeed the case, expecting them to willingly dismantle them is naive. However, only time will tell whether tangible actions will be taken. Equally, Antifa functions as a banner under which already radical individuals group together for maximal impact. By shutting down their means of organising, on social media for example, it makes it harder but not impossible for them. To prevent this entirely would require monitoring the entirety of the internet, which is simply not possible with current technology; although, attempts are being made.

Activists are capable of acting individually. One individual is capable of causing much political disruption. Charlie Kirk’s assassin is currently thought to have worked alone; whether he was aided by others is currently a point of investigation. Luigi Mangione, who assassinated Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, worked alone. Cody Balmer operated alone when he set fire to the home of Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, and allegedly intended to kill him with a hammer. When political violence can be conducted at the individual level, with no forewarning, it is difficult to control. There may continue to be a few incidents, heavily weighted towards the left, but these will not be enough to trigger an all-out civil war.

Political rhetoric has pushed the American left into a frenzy, and it is unclear if or when violent actions will abate. The past year has revealed how precarious the political balance truly is. Elites have strong incentives to restrain violence, which is why they are so keen to cool the country’s temperature. The right continues to rely on political solutions rather than retaliation, but that restraint depends entirely on Trump surviving the presidency. If he is killed, the symbolism alone could trigger a spiral of revenge, turning isolated acts into widespread conflict. So long as Trump lives, the incentives for both elites and the right remain aligned with restraint, making an escalation of political violence unlikely, though, as is often the case, never impossible.