“GREAT NEWS, ANOTHER CEO IS DEAD!”
That disturbing message on a random Discord server was how we found out about the death of Blackstone executive Wesley LePatner. Moments later, another member referenced the shooting of Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare.
Their deaths were celebrated because some people did not support the kind of people the CEOs represented, but that doesn’t change the fact that, at the end of the day, they were still human beings.
Just a few months later, in September, right-wing Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at Utah Valley University during his “American Comeback Tour.” According to Axios, thousands of people were later flagged by the Charlie Kirk Data Foundation for celebrating or joking about his death online.
Instead of reflecting on the tragedy and condemning the murder, the public further split. The irony is striking: A nation that prides itself on the First Amendment now sees people being killed while exercising free speech. Regardless of how you feel about your political “opponents,” murder is terrible and leaves lasting societal damage.
We claim to agree as a society that murder is among the most serious crimes — punishable by life sentences or even death. Yet people increasingly justify the killing of political figures simply because of their ideology. According to a survey by CloudResearch, a leading online research platform, 22% of Americans under 30 said Kirk’s death was justified. The main reason? Karmic justice for gun rights advocacy.
There have been multiple cases of politically motivated violence in our country. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro was firebombed at his home for his stance on Palestine. Our current President, Donald J. Trump, was himself the target of multiple assassination attempts. There have been numerous cases of politically motivated violence in our country.
Just a few months before Kirk’s death on June 14, two Minnesota lawmakers were shot inside their homes, resulting in the death of Democratic State Representative Melissa Hortman.
Hortman represented millions of constituents; our elected officials need to fight for us to protect our interests.
To do so effectively, they need to hear from us too. However, if people are scared to express their needs because of the threat of physical retaliation, that process breaks down. Our democracy functions only when people can express opinions without fear of physical retaliation.
We cannot accept a nation where elected officials are targets of violent acts. Violence chills free speech rather than addressing the underlying issues. When we silence voices through intimidation, we lose the chance to understand one another. After Kirk’s shooting, Politico reported that Democratic Reps. Delia Ramirez of Illinois and Sydney Kamlager-Dove of California moved events indoors, while CBS found that many others postponed or canceled public engagements.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) described the atmosphere inside Congress after the murder of Kirk.
“People are scared to death in this building. … They’re running to the House Speaker, talking about security. … People are scared, really scared,” he told NBC News.
We must be able to compromise with those who disagree with us, for that is the foundation of democracy. But rising polarization has made that increasingly difficult. As early as 2014, the Pew Research Center found deep partisan animosity, Americans increasingly viewing the opposing party’s policies as an existential threat to the nation’s stability and future.
In our diverse country, we’ll always have some disagreements. Former U.S. President and diplomat said we should prioritize peace over violence.
“There should be an honest attempt at the reconciliation of differences before resorting to combat,” Carter said.
When compromise erodes, violence fills the void. It’s a failure of communication. According to a 2023 study by U.C. Davis with 8,620 participants, 32.8% considered violence to be usually or always justified to advance a political objective.
However, most respondents who endorsed political violence were unwilling to resort to violence themselves. Still, by endorsing this behavior, it normalizes it to the few who are willing to engage in political violence. According to AP U.S. History teacher Katya Villalobos, political violence is incompatible with democratic governance.
“We are not always going to agree with things,” Villalobos said. “In a democratic republic, sometimes we ‘win,’ sometimes we ‘lose,’ but we’re not going to hurt each other in the process.”
Public awareness of political violence appears to be rising. A 2025 Pew survey found that 85% of respondents believe the rate of politically motivated violence is increasing. Awareness of the problem is a good start, but it’s not enough — we need action, not fear.
Villalobos also warns of online echo chambers that could block us from listening to other opinions.
“[There is] your truth and my truth, but then the facts get lost. … You stay in a bubble, and that bubble becomes a cement bubble, where no information can come through.”
Do we want a nation where people are shot for disagreeing on policy? Do we want the image of the United States to be one of perpetual turmoil and unrest?
If not, then it is up to all of us to change that narrative. Violent political rhetoric should never be tolerated. Normalize keeping an open mind, not violence.