New wave of political killings raises alarm about an “assassination culture” in the U.S.
Researchers and officials warn of a growing “assassination culture” in the U.S., citing high‑profile killings of Charlie Kirk and Brian Thompson and federal concerns that suspected assassin Luigi Mangione could spur copycats and deepen political violence nationwide.
Key takeaways
- The killing of activist Charlie Kirk at a public event in Utah has become a focal point in warnings about an “assassination culture” in the U.S.
- Coverage groups the deaths of public figures, including Brian Thompson, with Kirk’s slaying as a potential pattern of targeted attacks; public details on Thompson remain limited.
- Federal prosecutors warn the case of suspected assassin Luigi Mangione could inspire copycats and intensify political violence.
- Experts point to extremist ideas, social media amplification and political hatred as drivers of a dangerous trend some analysts call “assassination culture US.”
What happened in Utah: the Charlie Kirk assassination
On Sept. 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, a prominent right‑wing activist and co‑founder of Turning Point USA, was shot while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem. Law enforcement reports state a sniper on a nearby roof fired a shot that struck Kirk in the neck as he spoke with a student about mass shootings; he was taken to a hospital and pronounced dead.
Police arrested 22‑year‑old Tyler James Robinson and later indicted him for murder. Prosecutors described the killing as politically motivated and indicated they would pursue the death penalty. Eyewitness accounts describe sudden chaos: students and attendees ran from the auditorium, many recording the panic on cellphones and social media. The slaying of a public political figure on a campus shocked the nation and raised urgent questions about security at public events.
For background reporting, see The killing of activist Charlie Kirk.
Reactions, partisan fallout and the social cost
Condemnation came swiftly from across the political spectrum, but public response quickly fractured into partisan debate. Some conservative leaders, including former president Donald Trump, blamed left‑wing rhetoric and groups for creating a climate that enabled the attack. Commentators called for action along differing lines — from crackdowns on hate speech to new gun control measures and expanded mental‑health services.
Media outlets and private groups cataloged posts that appeared to celebrate the killing. That scrutiny reportedly led to job losses, threats and arrests in several instances where people were accused of praising the slaying or making follow‑up threats. The public mix of grief, anger and revenge rhetoric has alarmed researchers who study political violence.
“The public debate — and the way violent acts are hailed online — can create incentives for further attacks,” said a federal official summarizing prosecutor concerns.
Brian Thompson and the pattern of targeted killings
Brian Thompson’s murder has been grouped in coverage with the Charlie Kirk slaying as part of a broader trend of targeted attacks on public figures. Reporting on Thompson remains sparse in available material, but experts cite his case as another example showing how public figures — and ordinary people connected to politics — can become targets.
Investigative gaps persist: many incidents that feed this pattern are not yet fully understood or publicly documented, hindering researchers’ ability to map connections or motives.
For context discussed in reporting and analysis, review the Podcast discussion about Kirk’s killing and broader trends.
Federal warnings about Luigi Mangione and copycats
Federal prosecutors have publicly warned that the case of suspected assassin Luigi Mangione could be a model for further violence. They highlighted how alleged attackers can be praised or mythologized online, and how that praise may motivate new attackers seeking notoriety.
Prosecutors’ warnings emphasize a law‑enforcement fear: one high‑profile attack can become a template that others imitate, eroding a core democratic norm that political disagreement not be resolved by murder. When attackers are called martyrs or heroes on social platforms, it creates a dangerous incentive structure.
“Salad‑bar extremism” and the mixing of threats
Analysts use the phrase “salad‑bar extremism” to describe how individuals mix beliefs from different extremist ideologies into novel, unpredictable threat profiles. Cross‑pollination of ideas in online forums and private chats can normalize violence against political opponents.
Social media platforms are central to this dynamic: celebratory posts and how‑to content can be copied, shared and amplified by algorithms, turning isolated calls for violence into wider trends. Experts warn this amplification increases the risk of copycat attacks and deepens a sense of impunity among would‑be attackers.
What experts say about political violence in America
Researchers warn the killings of high‑profile figures and a steady stream of threats against public actors could signal a breakdown in norms that protect political life. Traditionally, political disagreement is resolved through debate, voting and laws — not assassination.
Drivers identified by scholars include: intensifying polarization of language, the growth of private militias, erosion of trust in institutions, and online radicalization. Proposed remedies range from stricter enforcement of laws against threats and better moderation of violent content online to local de‑escalation programs, community interventions and expanded mental‑health services.
Investigative angles: gaps and questions that remain
- Brian Thompson: public details remain thin; further reporting is needed to assess whether his case fits the same pattern.
- Luigi Mangione: public filings and fuller court documents would clarify the nature of the threat and any links to broader extremist networks.
- Social platforms: transparency about moderation practices and data on how celebratory or instructive content spreads would help evaluate progress against online glorification of violence.
Implications for the Inland Empire, California
Economic impact: The Inland Empire — a growing region east of Los Angeles that hosts colleges, civic spaces and public events — could see higher security costs for concerts, lectures and political rallies. Local governments and universities may face new expenses to protect speakers and students, straining budgets and potentially canceling events that draw visitors and revenue.
Political consequences: Local leaders may feel pressure to take clearer stands against violent rhetoric and back measures that reduce threats. Campaigns and town halls could become more guarded, and national figures planning appearances may require tighter policing or private security.
Social effects: As a diverse and politically mixed area, the Inland Empire could see deeper divisions. Schools and community groups may need to increase programs promoting civil discourse; parents and students could experience rising anxiety about campus safety. Community leaders will be called on to foster local dialogue to reduce anger and fear.
Practical steps: Local law enforcement and school officials should review safety plans for public events. Universities and civic centers can update emergency protocols and communication plans, establish hotlines or reporting tools for threats, and expand media‑literacy and conflict‑resolution programs to reduce the appeal of violent rhetoric.
Sources and reporting notes
- Shooting of Charlie Kirk
- Podcast discussion about Kirk’s killing and broader trends
- Federal prosecutor warnings about Luigi Mangione and concerns about copycat violence were reported to researchers in compiled materials; further public court filings may provide more detail.
Bottom line: Researchers, prosecutors and local leaders say more reporting and transparency are needed to track how an “assassination culture” in the U.S. is taking shape and to prevent the chain that turns one killing into a dangerous model. Communities such as the Inland Empire could feel direct effects in safety costs, political tensions and public willingness to speak in public.
