The attack against President Trump has brought to the surface once again the issue of political assassinations. The United States of America is not immune as a country to such events in its political history.

Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, and later his brother Robert Kennedy are just a few examples of how violence can target Republicans and Democrats alike, even politicians that history would agree played a positive role in the development of the country. The conditions surrounding the shooting are currently under investigation, yet the following comments touch upon important parameters like the narratives of hate against Donald Trump as the background scene of the attack, the shooter and operational aspects of the attack revealing ineffective security measures. More specifically:

i. The attack took place against a U.S. President who has been heavily criticised domestically and internationally not just for his politics, but also for his personality. He has been perceived by those who oppose him as a threat to American democracy, as an example of a populist leader with toxic rhetoric. His investigated role during the events of January 6th has played a significant role in this. It could be argued that not even Nixon faced as much negative criticism targeting him personally, outside of his political role. Trump has been vilified and demonised as the epitome of evil, and this is reflected in the rhetoric against him, which has often had a dehumanising narrative, spilling over to aspects of his personal life. His wife and even his youngest son both faced bullying, the former due to certain photos during her modelling career and the latter due to health issues. Furthermore, the hate speech against Donald Trump in social media has reached levels of a worrying oxymoron: there are some who are against Trump fearing he is a corrupting and destructive power to American democracy and institutions, and yet they even joke about the attempt against him and do not reject it as the ultimate threat to democracy and contempt to democratic institutions. It is like they accept political violence as a way to remove a candidate from the presidential race just because they believe he is the worst American President ever. Yet, it is irrelevant if this is true or not for Trump; accepting bullets instead of ballots just creates the most dangerous and antidemocratic precedent.

In a democracy, intense political criticism should be expected and protected as a right, even if it is inflammatory at times. People must be able to verbally express their fierce opposition against politicians and the policies they reject. This expression of freedom of speech is integral to the functioning of politics. Politicians who enter the political arena automatically become targets of criticism and satire, with all aspects of their lives scrutinized by their opponents, the media, and the public. This ability for people to speak critically of political leaders and those in power, even if it involves verbal offense, serves as a safety valve. People can express their discontent through words and refrain from taking further action within the framework of democratic institutions. Some may choose not to vote or may not vote for a different politician from the one they literally curse every day. Their opposition and desire for “political resistance” is satisfied with verbal attacks and internet comments. However, if the narrative turns violent or takes the form of hate speech, with dehumanising and polarizing undertones, and sometimes fuelled by conspiracy theories, it can create an ideal background for radicalization and political violence, especially when disseminated online. Some individuals may be directly influenced by ideologies that condone or advocate violence as a legitimate, and sometimes the only, means of political struggle. Others may be struggling with various social, financial, or personal challenges and may be unable to look beyond a (political) scapegoat whom they hold responsible for their misfortunes, particularly if they are dealing with psychological or mental health issues. These are just a few examples of those who can be impacted by dehumanising and hateful narratives or who may exploit them. By demonising a politician, a legitimate target is created.

ii. Details of the profile of the attacker who was neutralised by the authorities are emerging as the investigation goes on. Authorities have released some information, but the motive is not yet clear, nor is the ideological affiliation certain. Thomas Matthew Crooks, a Pittsburgh resident, appears to have been a registered Republican, yet financially contributed to a political action committee that supports Democrats for public office (Williams 2024). Working as a dietary aide at a nursing and rehabilitation center (Deto 2024), he was quite intelligent (having received an award from the National Math and Science Initiative), with no prior criminal record indicating violent behaviour trends, and no military training that would have prepared him to manage the AR-15 shooting rifle professionally,  (Williams 2024).

There is still no complete picture of the perpetrator’s radicalisation path. Although FBI is reported to have stated the shooter acted alone, he had no mental health problems and his social media profile does not contain threatening language (Borter et al. 2024), the possibility of him belonging to a group/cell or being influenced by it seems to be excluded early. If indeed he was a “lone wolf,” it is puzzling that he did not follow a common lone actor behaviour of posting something or discussing about his plans in social media. Moreover, his offline contacts and online communications must be investigated to see the kind of narratives and messages to which he was exposed. According to media Crooks was wearing a t-shirt promoted by a popular YouTube channel devoted to firearms (Lynch 2024) and this could be relevant to his attempt to enter his school’s rifle team, which was unsuccessful because he was a bad shooter (Biesecker et al. 2024). Although mental health problems seem to be excluded, there is information that he was bullied systematically during his schoolyears (Biesecker et al. 2024) which could have influenced his personality. The investigation should also try to find if the shooter had any grievances, he blamed the policies supported by Donald Trump for. The explosives found in his home, could be suggesting Crooks was planning other attacks as well. As more information emerges, we will gain a better understanding of the perpetrator’s profile and actions. It should be highlighted though that hasty conclusions may not be accurate. This investigation must be thorough, and this requires adequate time.

ii. From an operational standpoint, it is still uncertain whether this was a ‘lone wolf’ attack that the shooter conceived, planned, and executed independently, or if he was following orders from a group or cell. The assassination attempt itself, in terms of the modus operandi, shows no originality. The lack of originality in the attacker’s plan further emphasizes the security gap that allowed the attempt to occur. There is a history in the U.S. (and globally) of targeting political figures during public gatherings and rallies. Common sense risk assessment, considering past attacks on politicians and the intense political climate surrounding Donald Trump’s candidacy, should have led to draconian security measures. Yet, in this instance, even basic security protocols were not implemented. The shooter did not fire from a distance beyond the authorities’ detection capabilities. He managed to position himself on a rooftop at a reasonable distance from his target, within a perimeter that should have been secured. There is a discussion regarding whether the perimeter from which the perpetrator fired was the responsibility of the FBI or the local police. This is a highly problematic discussion, and it only shows the security gap could be deeper. There was a lack of basic oversight to ensure that each security agency carried out its assigned responsibilities. It is yet to be determined if there were additional oversights that may have led to the failure to prevent the shooting initially.

It has been commented that the shooting will favour the former U.S. President, who now enjoys the status of a “martyr,” literally hunted down. What is certain is that Democracy was hunted down and is wounded. It remains to be seen if U.S. society will show the needed reflexes to ensure that the democratic institutions it has been so proud of are protected and political polarization does not divide the country. If a presidential candidate is not successful, it should be because of the power of the ballot and not the bullet.

Biesecker, M., Richer A. D., Mustian J. & Balsamou M. (15 July, 2024) Authorities hunt for clues, but motive of man who tried to assassinate Donald Trump remains elusive, AP, https://apnews.com/article/trump-assassination-attempt-thomas-matthew-crooks-shooter-881581c46c07025898027143fc9132e5

Borter, G.,  Layne, N. &  Clifford, T. (July 15, 2024 ) Suspect came within inches of killing Trump, but left few clues as to why, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/heres-what-we-know-about-thomas-matthew-crooks-suspected-trump-rally-shooter-2024-07-14/

Deto, R. (July 14, 2024) Who was Thomas Crooks, the alleged gunman in the Trump shooting? Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, https://triblive.com/local/who-is-thomas-crooks-the-alleged-gunman-in-the-trump-shooting/

Lynch, N. (July 14, 2024), Trump assassination attempt: What we know so far about gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks, SkyNews https://news.sky.com/story/trump-assassination-attempt-what-we-know-so-far-about-gunman-thomas-matthew-crooks-13177698

Williams, A. (July 14, 2024) What we know about Thomas Matthew Crooks, the alleged shooter at Trump’s rally, FOX 13 Tampa Bay, https://www.fox13news.com/news/alleged-shooter-trump-rally-details-thomas-mathew-crooks