Democrats Blame Trump, Media Fuel Political Violence Surge

I’ll argue that left-wing actors and rhetoric, not a single politician, have been the proximate drivers of recent politically motivated violence; I’ll list specific incidents from 2017 through 2025 to show a pattern; I’ll explain the legal distinction between “but for” and proximate cause; I’ll note examples of left-wing propaganda that predate the Trump era; and I’ll call out congressional figures who push narratives that invert responsibility.

On Monday night a leading congressional Democrat claimed that President Donald Trump had caused a “consistent spike in the violence when it comes to politics.” That quote is exact and sharp, but it flattens a complex reality into a single scapegoat. Plenty of political actors rile up supporters, but causation in law and in public life is messy, and intent matters.

People on the left have certainly reacted angrily to Trump and other conservatives, and some individuals have crossed the line into violence. However, treating Trump as the sole or proximate cause ignores the demonstrable fact that many of the violent acts were planned and executed by left-wing perpetrators. The distinction between being a background grievance and being the proximate mover of violence is critical.

Consider a string of violent incidents spanning nearly a decade that involve people hostile to conservative politicians or to immigration enforcement. On June 14, 2017, James Hodgkinson walked onto a congressional baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, and opened fire on Republican members practicing, almost killing U.S. House Republican Whip Steve Scalise and seriously wounding four others. Before he started firing, Hodgkinson checked to make sure the House members playing baseball were Republicans.

• On July 13, 2024, Thomas Crooks, who was virulently anti-Trump, grazed Donald Trump’s ear with a bullet at a political rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and killed rallygoer Corey Comperatore while seriously wounding two others in the crowd.
• On September 15, 2024, Ryan Routh attempted an assassination at a Trump golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida, hiding in bushes and pointing a semiautomatic rifle with a scope at Trump from about 400 yards away.
• On January 28, 2025, U.S. Capitol Police arrested Riley English on the National Mall after she revealed she was carrying a folding knife, two Molotov cocktails, and a lighter, and stated an intent to kill senior U.S. officials and to attack the conservative Heritage Foundation.
• On July 4, 2025, eleven leftists launched a “planned ambush” on an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas, wearing tactical gear, detonating fireworks, and opening fire; law enforcement said the assailants had hoped “to kill ICE corrections officers.”
• On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated by a left-leaning young man while speaking on a college campus; the shooter fired through the jugular at a Turning Point USA event.
• On September 24, 2025, Joshua Jahn climbed on top of a building and fired at an ICE field office in Dallas, Texas, killing one detainee and wounding two others, with writings expressing a desire to inflict “real terror” on agents executing deportation orders.

Those incidents share a common thread: perpetrators motivated by anti-government or anti-right-wing beliefs who took violent action. That pattern points away from a simple, single-person causal story and toward a broader culture of animus and radicalization on parts of the left. Labeling Trump as the sole cause misses who actually pulled triggers or planted explosives.

Legally, a “but for” cause is different from proximate cause. Yes, “but for” the existence of Donald Trump and his political prominence, some people might have redirected their fury. But proximate cause asks who directly produced the dangerous condition or committed the violent act. In these high-profile examples, left-wing perpetrators performed the proximate acts that harmed people and threatened institutions.

Political leaders and media figures bear responsibility when they amplify dehumanizing rhetoric or ratchet up outrage without checks. Elected officials who publicly claim that a single opponent is responsible for rising violence simplify complex social dynamics and deflect from the conduct of those who actually committed violent acts. That rhetorical environment matters because it shapes what some people take as permission to act.

There is also a cultural history of violent fantasy and propaganda that predates current events. For example, the 2006 British mockumentary “Death of a President” imagined the assassination of President George W. Bush and portrayed a post-assassination terror regime. Creative works like that normalize lethal fantasies against political leaders and can feed extremist fringes that consider violence an option.

Pointing out a pattern of left-wing violence and propaganda is not a call to ignore any threat from the right; political violence is unacceptable from anyone. But accuracy matters: assigning responsibility should follow evidence about who acted and why. When congressional figures offer sweeping claims that place the blame solely on one politician, they risk misleading the public and avoiding accountability for violent actors and for the rhetoric that radicalizes them.