Donald Trump’s rhetoric during his 2024 campaign has been the darkest in modern memory. He has emphasized grievance and demagoguery ever since he first ran for president, most infamously with his build-up to the January 6 insurrection. But in recent months he has gone to new extremes. In numerous speeches and media appearances, he has peddled false conspiracy theories about the two assassination attempts against him and stoked fear and anger nonstop about an alleged “invasion” of murderous migrants, who he claims are “poisoning the blood of” America and “conquering” cities and towns nationwide.

Throughout the election homestretch, Trump has woven these virulent strands into his core message about a supposed grand conspiracy by Democrats to steal the White House from him. Trump and multiple top surrogates have spent months asserting that his political opponents “even tried to kill him” as part of this plot—a canard Trump further amplified when he returned for a second rally at the site in Butler, Pennsylvania, where a gunman opened fire in mid-July.

During a speech in Atlanta, Trump reiterated lies about Democrats conspiring to use undocumented migrants to transform America. “It’s so sinister,” he said, “but they want to sign these people up to vote, and if they do that, this country is destroyed. We’d become a dumping ground for the entire world.” Trump has drawn on such “Great Replacement” themes—an extremist ideology embraced by multiple mass shooters—ever since he was in the White House. And Trump’s biggest financial backer, Elon Musk, is now also advancing this theme, speaking at Trump rallies and posting with massive reach on his social media platform, X.

Most news media rarely, if ever, frame Trump’s rhetoric for what it is: methodical, sustained incitement. Proving a direct connection between Trump’s incendiary messaging and acts of violence can be all but impossible—a gap of plausible deniability that is central to the method of stochastic terrorism, as it’s known to national security experts. Nonetheless there is a long history of Trump’s rhetoric correlating strongly with subsequent menace and violence: a surge in threats targeting journalists as “the enemy of the people,” a Trump supporter attacking an FBI field office after Trump raged against the raid on Mar-a-Lago, threats to kill FBI agents over a “stolen election” and the Hunter Biden case.

The intensifying demagoguery from Trump this election season has caused high concern among threat assessment and law enforcement experts, as I’ve been reporting since June. Fortunately, their worst fears about the kind of catastrophic violence it might provoke have yet to be realized. But according to two senior federal law enforcement sources I spoke with in recent weeks, Trump’s extremism has been accompanied by a rise in violent threats reflecting his messaging.

According to these sources, multiple cases of threats have involved individuals citing or parroting Trump’s ongoing claims about violent migrants invading and taking over the country. Trump’s continual focus on that alleged menace has produced a noticeable hardening effect, one source told me: “We see that the longer it’s talked about, the more it becomes perceived as fact.” Other cases have included talk of “payback or revenge” against Trump’s political adversaries for the assassination attempts, including threats focused on elected officials.

“It’s really poisonous, and it’s giving justification to people who are on the edge to take extreme actions.”

Trump’s hyperbole at recent rallies has included macabre descriptions of alleged rape and murder by migrants, such as telling his supporters, “they’ll cut your throat.” After his rally last Saturday in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, most media coverage focused on his lewd comments about golf legend Arnold Palmer’s genitals, but less noted was that Trump also conjured a specter of war against migrants: “We will not be invaded, we will not be occupied, we will not be conquered. That’s what they’re doing. This is an invasion into our country of a foreign military.”

He has continued to blame Vice President Kamala Harris for this non-reality: “She’s letting vicious gangs take over whole communities,” he inveighed at a rally on Monday in Greenville, North Carolina. “She’s bussing and flying them in by the millions.”

A threat assessment expert who consults for federal law enforcement told me that the fear and contempt generated by such rhetoric is potent, and can be interpreted by some people as permission to commit violence. “It’s really poisonous, and it’s giving justification to people who are on the edge to take extreme actions.”

In September, the town of Springfield, Ohio, endured waves of paralyzing bomb threats and other harassment after Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, spread lies about Haitian immigrants supposedly stealing and eating neighbors’ pets. Risk for violence escalated in the southeastern US when Trump and his allies seized on the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, falsely accusing FEMA and the Biden administration of abandoning victims. These repeated lies were debunked by state and local leaders, including Republicans, but that didn’t stop Trump. “They spent their money on illegal migrants,” he declared again at Monday’s rally in Greenville. “They didn’t have any money left for North Carolina.”

Trump has continued to tell this lie in his stump speech—even after a Trump supporter armed with multiple guns was arrested in western North Carolina in mid-October for allegedly threatening to harm FEMA workers. That and other armed threats disrupted the agency’s efforts to help hurricane victims.  

Risk for violence around Election Day remains a high concern and a focus for law enforcement, the sources confirmed to me. As one longtime election official in Georgia explained this week to the Wall Street Journal: “People have had four years of just marinating in all sorts of different conspiracy theories, and we worry they’ll come in looking for a problem. Then you got, ‘Hey everyone come down to the polling place,’ and mobs showing up, maybe armed, and it can really snowball very quickly.” 

The temperature also has been rising with adversarial partisan crowds, as seen in Pennsylvania on Sunday in the vicinity of a McDonald’s where Trump posed briefly as a fry cook. Concern will extend well beyond Election Day, through a period of uncertainty about voting results that is likely to follow—and that undoubtedly will be further weaponized by Trump and his allies using baseless claims of fraud, sand-in-the-gears litigation, and beyond.

National security and threat assessment experts told me after the January 6 insurrection that quashing the violent extremism unleashed by Trump requires a fundamental change in what political leaders treat as acceptable rhetoric. But through the years of Trump’s continuing grip on the Republican Party, that standard has trended in the wrong direction, with many Republican politicians excusing or even joining in on Trump’s tactics.

With Election Day fast approaching, no Republican member of Congress or high-profile figure in the party is speaking out forcefully against Trump’s dark rhetoric. House Speaker Mike Johnson and others stick to misdirection or feigned ignorance, if they address the matter at all. As one threat assessment source told me: “Silence is its own form of participation.”

Donald Trump has faced two assassination attempts in the past three months—horrifying events that he has used to spread unfounded conspiracy theories and smear Democratic leaders with false blame. He has been aided in this effort by vice presidential candidate JD Vance, his sons Eric Trump and Don Jr., multiple Republican members of Congress, and backers of Project 2025. Their coordinated messaging—that Democrats supposedly “tried to kill” Trump—has been featured at the Republican National Convention, at Trump’s campaign rallies, and in numerous media appearances, from Fox News to Dr. Phil’s show.

Trump and his surrogates took the effort to the next level when the former president held a large rally on Saturday at the same site in Butler, Pennsylvania, where he was wounded by a would-be assassin during a July 13 appearance. The Trump campaign billed the heavily produced event—which included a live opera singer and an awkward performance by Elon Musk—as a return to “the very same ground where he took a bullet for democracy.”

“They tried to kill him,” Eric Trump said, “and it’s because the Democratic Party, they can’t do anything right.”

Speaking ahead of the former president, Eric Trump highlighted the familiar theme: “They’ve tried to get my father every single second since he went down that golden escalator,” he declared from the podium, standing alongside his wife Lara Trump, currently co-chair of the Republican National Committee. “They tried to smear us, they tried to bankrupt us, they came after us, they impeached him twice, they went after his Supreme Court justices, they weaponized the entire legal system…and it has not worked.”

As the audience cheered, Eric Trump emphasized: “And then guys, they tried to kill him. They tried to kill him, and it’s because the Democratic Party, they can’t do anything right.”

Eric Trump has sought to directly blame Democrats ever since the attack in Butler, including in multiple appearances on Fox News. Trump himself repeated the theme from the podium on Saturday: “Over the past eight years, those who want to stop us from achieving this future have slandered me, impeached me, indicted me, tried to throw me off the ballot, and who knows: maybe even tried to kill me.”

This was a planned element of the former president’s speech; he read the lines from a teleprompter.

Amid multiple investigations by the FBI, Homeland Security, and Congress, no evidence has emerged that either of Trump’s would-be assassins had any connections to Democratic leaders. Neither perpetrator appears to have been driven fundamentally by partisan politics—a common, if somewhat counterintuitive pattern among political assassins, as I documented in previous reporting and in my book, Trigger Points.

The motive of the man charged with targeting Trump in Florida remains unclear; his background indicates that he voted for Trump in 2016 but later turned against him and grew sharply critical of his foreign policy. The FBI has said that the motive of the deceased 20-year-old who shot Trump and others in Butler, who was a registered Republican voter, remains unknown.

Notably, Vance used a slightly modified approach at the Butler rally, four days after conspicuously working to soften his political rhetoric and image during the vice presidential debate with Democratic Gov. Tim Walz.

“Just look at everything they’ve done to President Trump,” Vance said on Saturday. “First, they tried to silence him. When that didn’t work, they tried to bankrupt him. When that didn’t work, they tried to jail him. And with all the hatred they have spewed at President Trump, it was only a matter of time before somebody tried to kill him.”

Vance then reiterated that the assassination attempts had resulted from Democrats calling Trump “a threat to democracy.” No evidence supporting that claim has emerged in either investigation.

Vance has led the way with this blame, starting in the immediate hours after the Butler shooting, and in subsequent campaign speeches, as I highlighted in my previous reporting. This time, he subtly shifted that blame to “somebody” while keeping the the litany of accusations essentially the same.

Other top GOP leaders continue to play along with this false messaging, which threat assessment and national security experts have told me is fueling potential retaliatory violence. On Sunday, ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos confronted House Speaker Mike Johnson in an interview about the rhetoric from the Butler rally, after Johnson called out Democratic campaign messaging as overheated.

“Eric Trump actually did specifically reference Democrats,” Stephanopoulos said. “He said, ‘They tried to kill him. And it’s because the Democratic Party, they can’t do anything right.’ Do you support those comments or not?”

“I don’t know what Eric was saying because I only heard just a snippet there,” Johnson replied. “I don’t know the context.”

For much of 2024, Donald Trump has used demagoguery against migrants to campaign for the White House. In numerous recent speeches and media appearances, he has continued to inveigh about an alleged “invasion” coming across America’s southern border. He has falsely claimed that hordes of violent and “insane” foreigners have been taking over “hundreds” of cities and raping and killing “thousands of Americans.” His repeated vows to deport millions of undocumented immigrants draw roars of approval at his rallies.

Inflaming Americans’ fears about immigration and border security was a hallmark of Trump’s presidency and previous campaigns—and his extreme rhetoric, as I’ve previously reported, has marked spasms of violence, including a horrific mass shooting in 2019 in El Paso, Texas. Earlier this month, he and his running mate, JD Vance, magnified racist lies about Haitian immigrants supposedly stealing and eating pets in Springfield, Ohio—provoking a wave of fear, bomb threats, and major disruption in that community.

Now, in the final weeks of the presidential campaign, Trump’s rhetoric about migrants has grown even darker and more foreboding. In three campaign speeches since Friday, he conjured disturbing images of mayhem and death and spoke of the nation as if it’s on the brink of destruction. With no basis in reality, he blamed this cartoonishly grim portrait of American carnage on his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.

“She let our American sons and daughters be raped and murdered at the hands of vicious monsters. She let American communities be conquered,” Trump said at a rally in Michigan on Friday, emphasizing, “They’re conquering your communities.”

“They’ll walk into your kitchen,” Trump said of migrants. “They’ll cut your throat.”

“These migrants,” Trump said the following day in Wisconsin, “they make our criminals look like babies. These are stone-cold killers. They’ll walk into your kitchen, they’ll cut your throat.”

In a lengthy diatribe that followed, he falsely claimed that Harris had “let in 425,431 people convicted of the worst crimes.” (This was one of several ways in which Trump wildly distorted data recently released by US Homeland Security that covers a 40-year period.) He declared that these were legions of criminals who “Kamala set loose to rape, pillage, thieve, plunder and kill the people of the United States of America.”

“Lock her up!” shouted someone in the crowd.

Trump further railed against Harris as being “mentally disabled” and supposedly responsible for tens of thousands of murderers pouring into the country. “I’ve been saying this for three years,” he went on, soon adding: “She’s letting in people who are going to walk into your house, break into your door, and they’ll do anything they want. These people are animals.”

Later in the speech, he again highlighted alleged violence by “illegal aliens” and declared: “I will liberate Wisconsin from this mass migrant invasion of murderers, rapists, hoodlums, drug dealers, thugs, and vicious gang members. I will liberate our nation.”

Trump even used an impromptu moment to dehumanize migrants in ugly terms. He claimed that English was fast disappearing from the schools in Springfield, Ohio, and warned that if Harris is elected president, towns in Wisconsin and all over America “will be transformed into a third-world hellhole.” As he continued, a fly apparently landed on the podium.

“Oh, there’s a fly,” he said, shooing it away, his tone turning sardonic. “I wonder where the fly came from.”

The crowd erupted with laughter.

“See, two years ago I wouldn’t have had a fly up here,” he said, grinning. “You’re changing rapidly.”

He delivered more of the same on Sunday in Pennsylvania: “The massive number of savage criminal aliens that Kamala Harris has allowed to invade our country, this is an invasion.” He further claimed, “Last week a lot of people came in from the Congo, a big prison in the Congo in Africa. Welcome to the United States.”

“Send ’em back!” a person in the crowd yelled angrily.

This was all building to a specter of national demise—an invasion, Trump claimed, that will be larger than half the size of the current US population.

“Wait till you see what’s going to happen,” he said. “Oh, and if I don’t get in, it’s going to be the worst thing that this country has ever suffered…you’ll have 150, 200 million coming, you will have, this country will no longer be recognizable.”

That rhetoric is indistinguishable from the “Great Replacement” ideology that motivated the mass shooter who attacked in El Paso when Trump was in the White House.

“Dehumanizing a population—whether it’s Trump smearing migrants for spreading flies, ‘eating the dogs,’ or ‘poisoning the blood of our country’—increases the likelihood of violence.”

As I have reported previously, dehumanizing a population by instigating feelings of contempt and disgust—whether it’s Trump smearing migrants for spreading flies, “eating the dogs,” or “poisoning the blood of our country”—increases the likelihood that his extremist followers will be inspired to commit acts of violence. The danger from this type of incitement, documented in behavioral science research, has been rising with Trump’s rhetoric, according to threat assessment and national security experts I’ve spoken with in recent weeks. “There’s nothing normal about any of this,” as one source put it. “We’ve already seen where this goes, and it can easily go there again.”

While America faces profound challenges with immigration, a top issue for voters, Trump’s depictions are as demonstrably false as they are deeply troubling. Immigrants commit crime at lower rates than native-born Americans, extensive research shows. The nation has experienced a sharp decline in violent crime under the Biden-Harris administration, according to FBI data. And in recent months, migrant encounters at the border dropped to the lowest level in four years.

It is important to recognize that Trump’s demonizing rhetoric is clearly by design. He is well known for improvising and wandering off on long tangents that turn bizarre and incoherent. But much of the incendiary rhetoric above was written into Trump’s speeches. He read most of it from a teleprompter.

When I reported in August on this demagoguery from Trump, I contacted three of his senior campaign advisors separately, asking them for comment about experts’ concerns that the ex-president’s rhetoric could provoke further violence. None of those Trump advisors responded, nor did they reply to my follow-up inquiries for this story.

For much of 2024, Donald Trump has used demagoguery against migrants to campaign for the White House. In numerous recent speeches and media appearances, he has continued to inveigh about an alleged “invasion” coming across America’s southern border. He has falsely claimed that hordes of violent and “insane” foreigners have been taking over “hundreds” of cities and raping and killing “thousands of Americans.” His repeated vows to deport millions of undocumented immigrants draw roars of approval at his rallies.

Inflaming Americans’ fears about immigration and border security was a hallmark of Trump’s presidency and previous campaigns—and his extreme rhetoric, as I’ve previously reported, has marked spasms of violence, including a horrific mass shooting in 2019 in El Paso, Texas. Earlier this month, he and his running mate, JD Vance, magnified racist lies about Haitian immigrants supposedly stealing and eating pets in Springfield, Ohio—provoking a wave of fear, bomb threats, and major disruption in that community.

Now, in the final weeks of the presidential campaign, Trump’s rhetoric about migrants has grown even darker and more foreboding. In three campaign speeches since Friday, he conjured disturbing images of mayhem and death and spoke of the nation as if it’s on the brink of destruction. With no basis in reality, he blamed this cartoonishly grim portrait of American carnage on his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.

“She let our American sons and daughters be raped and murdered at the hands of vicious monsters. She let American communities be conquered,” Trump said at a rally in Michigan on Friday, emphasizing, “They’re conquering your communities.”

“They’ll walk into your kitchen,” Trump said of migrants. “They’ll cut your throat.”

“These migrants,” Trump said the following day in Wisconsin, “they make our criminals look like babies. These are stone-cold killers. They’ll walk into your kitchen, they’ll cut your throat.”

In a lengthy diatribe that followed, he falsely claimed that Harris had “let in 425,431 people convicted of the worst crimes.” (This was one of several ways in which Trump wildly distorted recently released data from US Homeland Security covering a 40-year period.) He declared that these were legions of criminals who “Kamala set loose to rape, pillage, thieve, plunder and kill the people of the United States of America.”

“Lock her up!” shouted someone in the crowd.

Trump further railed against Harris as being “mentally disabled” and supposedly responsible for tens of thousands of murderers pouring into the country. “I’ve been saying this for three years,” he went on, soon adding: “She’s letting in people who are going to walk into your house, break into your door, and they’ll do anything they want. These people are animals.”

Later in the speech, he again highlighted alleged violence by “illegal aliens” and declared: “I will liberate Wisconsin from this mass migrant invasion of murderers, rapists, hoodlums, drug dealers, thugs, and vicious gang members. I will liberate our nation.”

Trump even used an impromptu moment to dehumanize migrants in ugly terms. He claimed that English was fast disappearing from the schools in Springfield, Ohio, and warned that if Harris is elected president, towns in Wisconsin and all over America “will be transformed into a third-world hellhole.” As he continued, a fly apparently landed on the podium.

“Oh, there’s a fly,” he said, shooing it away, his tone turning sardonic. “I wonder where the fly came from.”

The crowd erupted with laughter.

“See, two years ago I wouldn’t have had a fly up here,” he said, grinning. “You’re changing rapidly.”

He delivered more of the same on Sunday in Pennsylvania: “The massive number of savage criminal aliens that Kamala Harris has allowed to invade our country, this is an invasion.” He further claimed, “Last week a lot of people came in from the Congo, a big prison in the Congo in Africa. Welcome to the United States.”

“Send ’em back!” a person in the crowd yelled angrily.

This was all building to a specter of national demise—an invasion, Trump claimed, that will be larger than half the size of the current US population.

“Wait till you see what’s going to happen,” he said. “Oh, and if I don’t get in, it’s going to be the worst thing that this country has ever suffered…you’ll have 150, 200 million coming, you will have, this country will no longer be recognizable.”

That rhetoric is indistinguishable from the “Great Replacement” ideology that motivated the mass shooter who attacked in El Paso when Trump was in the White House.

“Dehumanizing a population—whether it’s Trump smearing migrants for spreading flies, ‘eating the dogs,’ or ‘poisoning the blood of our country’—increases the likelihood of violence.”

As I have reported previously, dehumanizing a population by provoking feelings of contempt and disgust—whether it’s Trump smearing migrants for spreading flies, “eating the dogs,” or “poisoning the blood of our country”—increases the likelihood that his extremist followers will commit acts of violence. The danger from this type of incitement, documented in behavioral science research, has been rising with Trump’s rhetoric, according to threat assessment and national security experts I’ve spoken with in recent weeks. As one source put it, “We’ve already seen where this goes, and it can easily go there again.”

While America faces profound challenges with immigration, a top issue with voters, Trump’s depictions are as demonstrably false as they are deeply troubling. Immigrants commit crime at lower rates than native-born Americans, extensive research shows. The nation has experienced a sharp decline in violent crime under the Biden-Harris administration, according to FBI data. And recently, migrant encounters at the border dropped to the lowest level in four years.

It is important to recognize that Trump’s demonizing rhetoric is clearly by design. He is well known for improvising as he talks and wandering off on long tangents that turn bizarre and incoherent. But much of the incendiary rhetoric above was written into Trump’s speeches. He read it from a teleprompter.

When I reported in August on this demagoguery from Trump, I contacted three of his senior campaign advisors separately, asking them for comment about experts’ concerns that Trump’s rhetoric could provoke further violence. None of the them responded, nor did they reply to my follow-up requests for this story.

In the early afternoon on Sunday, a suspected gunman got within several hundred yards of former President Donald Trump at his golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida. The suspect was shot at by a Secret Service agent, fled the scene in a black SUV, and was quickly apprehended by police. Over the next 24 hours, Trump and his allies unleashed a deluge of blame against Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats for what the FBI said was being investigated as an assassination attempt against Trump, the second in just over two months.

As of Monday, the motive of the suspect, 58-year-old Ryan Wesley Routh, remained unclear. His social media history indicated that he voted for Trump in 2016 but turned against him later. Routh was critical of Trump’s Putin-friendly policy on Ukraine; in 2022, he’d gone on an unsuccessful quest to help recruit foreign fighters to join the battle against the Kremlin’s invasion. He also donated to a Democratic PAC in the 2020 election cycle. On Monday, authorities announced two federal gun charges against Routh, with additional charges possibly to come.

Whatever Routh’s motive may have been for allegedly targeting Trump with an AK-47-style rifle, law enforcement authorities have cited no evidence that his actions were connected to or caused by the rhetoric of top Democrats, who have long emphasized the rejection of political violence. But that has not stopped Trump and his allies from moving immediately to exploit the disturbing near-miss in Florida for political gain—just as they did after a gunman wounded Trump in a horrific attack at his July 13 campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Shortly after the news broke about the danger on Sunday, the Trump campaign sent out an email to supporters with a statement from Trump linking to his fundraising page and saying he was safe and well. “But there are people in this world who will do whatever it takes to stop us,” the Republican presidential candidate said in the statement. “I will Never Surrender!”

“He believed the rhetoric of Biden and Harris, and he acted on it,” Trump said, providing no evidence to support that claim. 

On Monday morning, Trump declared in an interview with Fox News Digital that Routh’s alleged actions were caused by President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, his 2024 opponent for the White House.

“He believed the rhetoric of Biden and Harris, and he acted on it,” Trump said, providing no evidence to support that claim. “Their rhetoric is causing me to be shot at, when I am the one who is going to save the country, and they are the ones that are destroying the country—both from the inside and out.” Trump added that Biden and Harris are “the enemy from within,” according to Fox News Digital. “They are the real threat.”

Biden and Harris both put out statements on Sunday expressing relief that Trump was unharmed and denouncing political violence. Biden also said that he had directed his team “to continue to ensure” adequate protection for Trump from the Secret Service.

Trump added to his partisan blame with a post on his Truth Social platform on Monday: “The Rhetoric, Lies, as exemplified by the false statements made by Comrade Kamala Harris during the rigged and highly partisan ABC Debate, and all of the ridiculous lawsuits specifically designed to inflict damage on Joe’s, then Kamala’s, Political Opponent, ME, has taken politics in our Country to a whole new level of Hatred, Abuse, and Distrust. Because of this Communist Left Rhetoric, the bullets are flying, and it will only get worse!”

Top surrogates piled on the partisan attack. Trump’s son, Donald Jr., railed on social media about telling “my 5 young children about [a] radical leftist trying to kill their grandfather.”

“The incitement to hatred and violence against President Trump by the media and leading Democrats needs to stop,” posted billionaire supporter Elon Musk, in response to Don Jr.’s comments.

Since the Trump shooting in Pennsylvania, the ex-president and his allies have carried out a sustained, coordinated effort to promote baseless conspiracy theories and smear Trump’s political opponents.

Longtime Trump advisor and right-wing media commentator Steve Cortes called his former boss “the most persecuted public figure in American history” and said that the danger to Trump’s life both in Pennsylvania and Florida was caused to a great extent by “the corporate media” disparaging the ex-president.

The deluge of partisan messaging adds a whole new layer to an ongoing effort to cast unfounded blame for violence on Biden, Harris and the Democrats. As I’ve been documenting in the two-plus months since the Trump shooting in Pennsylvania, the ex-president and his allies have carried out a sustained, coordinated effort to promote baseless conspiracy theories and smear Trump’s political opponents with such blame. Participants have included Trump’s running mate, JD Vance; his sons, Don Jr. and Eric Trump; his wife, Melania Trump; and a multitude of Republican congressional members, including Cory Mills, Eli Crane, Ryan Zinke, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Mike Collins.

This propaganda effort, as I first reported in early September, now also involves backers of Project 2025.

During the presidential debate on ABC News on Sept. 10, watched by 67 million people, Trump reiterated baseless blame for the shooting at his rally in Butler.  “I probably took a bullet to the head because of the things that they say about me,” he inveighed, pointing at Harris. “They talk about democracy, I’m a threat to democracy—they’re the threat to democracy.”

These efforts may be intended in part to distract from Trump’s own incitement of violence. He has used the tactics of stochastic terrorism, as national security experts call the method, for many years. This has continued apace with his incessant demagoguery on the campaign trail against migrant “invaders.” Most recently that has included the Haitian immigrant community in Springfield, Ohio—falsely smeared by Trump, Vance, and their allies for supposedly stealing and eating other residents’ pets. Schools and government offices in Springfield have since been under siege with bomb scares and other threats of violence.

Several threat assessment and law enforcement leaders have told me since this summer that Trump’s incitement is a top concern when it comes to potential political violence during the election season. According to these sources, the rhetoric from Trump and his allies about the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania—and now with the apparent close call in Florida—is deepening that danger.

In the aftermath of the bloodshed on Wednesday at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, state authorities arrested Colin Gray, whose 14-year-old son, Colt Gray, allegedly shot four people to death and injured nine others before surrendering to police. The father is charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, eight counts of cruelty to children—and, most significantly, two counts of second-degree murder.

The murder charges are unprecedented, the most severe ever filed against the parent of a school shooter. Late Thursday, the director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said at a news conference that the charges against Colin Gray are “directly connected with the actions of his son” and that the father “knowingly allowed him to possess the weapon.”

Authorities have not provided further details about evidence they may have, but according to news reports, Colin Gray owned the type of AR-15 that his son allegedly used in the attack. And Colt Gray had been “begging for months” for mental health help but had received none, according to an aunt of his who spoke to the Washington Post. (Colt Gray has been charged with four counts of murder and will be tried as an adult, authorities said.)

For more than a decade, I’ve studied and reported on the American epidemic of mass shootings. Over the past several years, and particularly since early 2024, a dramatic shift has taken shape: a reckoning for the parents of school shooters. Today, with more than 400 million guns and a lack of political will to regulate them more effectively nationwide, it may be that America has begun to find another route—a legal end-run of sorts—to bring accountability for these events of catastrophic gun violence.

The arrest of the school shooter’s father in Georgia comes just seven months after James and Jennifer Crumbley, the parents of a 15-year-old school shooter in Michigan, were convicted of involuntary manslaughter—also a first. What is publicly alleged so far about the role of Colin Gray appears to echo the case of the Crumbleys, who were found to have ignored their son’s mental health crisis and supplied him with the gun he used to commit his attack at Oxford High School, where four died and seven were injured.

The prevailing theme has long been that no one can see the violence coming, the parents included. But that theme no longer holds.

It is a near certainty that in the days and weeks ahead, more details will emerge about warning signs given off by the school shooter in Georgia, one of 20 states now requiring plans for violence prevention in public schools. School shootings are almost always preceded by such warning signs. Significant questions also loom about what may have been done regarding concerns about Colt Gray by law enforcement or the school district, after anonymous tips about threats posted online put him on the radar of the FBI and local authorities in 2023.

Another parental role—starkly different—came into public view this spring, when we published my two-year investigation, “Lessons From a Mass Shooter’s Mother,” in Mother Jones and aired a companion audio investigation on our radio show Reveal. These chronicle the experience of Chin Rodger, whose son Elliot Rodger committed mass murder in the California college town of Isla Vista in 2014. Chin Rodger hadn’t been able to recognize her deeply troubled son’s suicidal and homicidal warning behaviors, but she had gone to great lengths to get him help and care before his attack. Years later she began working with violence prevention experts at the FBI and beyond, sharing myriad details about her son’s life with them—and eventually with the public—in hopes of raising awareness about warning signs and helping avert future violence.

As I wrote in the story: “The public rarely hears from parents of mass shooters apart from brief statements of sorrow in the aftermath. The prevailing theme has long been that no one can see the violence coming, the parents included. But that theme no longer holds, especially in light of a recent tragedy that could remake the legal landscape.”

There I was referring to the new criminal precedent established with the Crumbleys—one with the potential to expand, it now appears, with the case in Georgia. The recurring mass murder of school kids and their teachers drives intense public calls for finding culpability among parents (and others), which may well be warranted in some cases. But this nascent trend of criminalizing parents is not without possible pitfalls, including, legal experts have said, for mothers and fathers of minority children exposed disproportionately to gun violence.

Another notable development in the past several years has been a trend of civil liability for gun manufacturers who market their AR-15s and other firearms aggressively to America’s youth. In early 2022, Remington, the company that made the AR-15 used in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, agreed to a landmark $73 million civil settlement with victims’ families. In late 2022, the family of a 10-year-old victim in Uvalde, Texas, filed suit against Daniel Defense, the maker of the AR-15 used in the massacre at Robb Elementary School, accusing the company of using militaristic marketing appeals to target “young male consumers.”

The devastation in Georgia this week is far from the first to involve a shockingly young perpetrator. The shooter at Oxford High School in 2021 was only one year older, just 15 at the time. Other cases going back in time, documented in our mass shootings database and in my book on prevention, Trigger Points, have involved shooters as young as 13 and 11 years old.

In January 2023, a 6-year-old child brought a pistol to school in Virginia and shot his first grade teacher—a case in which the mother was later imprisoned for gun-related federal crimes. (The child used the mother’s unsecured firearm; her prosecution involved drug use and lying related to the gun purchase.)

What happened in Georgia this week serves as a particularly stark reminder: In America, a teenager can easily get his hands on a military-grade rifle and use it to gun down his classmates and teachers. Why we have this problem—and tens of millions of AR-15s in civilian hands—is complicated and arises from a recent history that many Americans know relatively little about.

Another reminder about this problem worth repeating is that, despite popular opinion, it is not an unsolvable one. Now, deterrence for gun-owning parents may be a growing part of a broader solution.

Just hours after the assassination attempt against Donald Trump on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, high-profile allies of the ex-president began promoting unfounded conspiracy theories and blaming President Joe Biden and Democrats, without evidence, for causing the horrific attack. Trump and his surrogates have continued nonstop ever since with this coordinated messaging, which security experts have told me could provoke retaliatory violence from pro-Trump extremists. In late August, backers of Project 2025 joined the effort pushing this dangerous propaganda.

On Aug. 29, podcast host Monica Crowley interviewed Trump and proposed without evidence that he may have been targeted for murder from within the Biden administration.

“The more we see what happened that day, the more suspicious it all looks,” said Crowley, a former Trump administration spokesperson and a credited contributor on the Project 2025 policy tome detailing a hard-right agenda for a second Trump presidency. “Does it look increasingly to you like this was a suspicious—maybe even inside job?”

“Well, it’s strange,” Trump replied. Then he speculated about the deceased gunman’s father hiring “the most expensive lawyer” and suggested a partisan conspiracy involving former Justice Department prosecutor Andrew Weissmann and Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias. Weissmann quickly denounced Trump’s comments as false on social media. A spokesperson for Elias Law Group told me that no one from the firm has had any involvement in any aspect of the case.

Trump further claimed in the podcast interview, first reported by Media Matters for America, that the FBI had failed to gather evidence from the gunman’s cellphone. That’s untrue: FBI Director Christopher Wray and other FBI officials have spoken publicly about the bureau’s extensive investigation into the gunman’s background and activity, including his various digital communications.

Trump and Crowley then riffed about the JFK assassination, with Crowley reiterating the baseless conspiracy theory about the attack on Trump: “You were shot five or six weeks ago, and the imperial media, the regime, they’ve all buried it. They don’t want anybody talking about it, which also lends credence to this idea that this is very suspicious and could have been an inside job.”

“Yeah, true,” Trump interjected. “They don’t wanna talk about it.”

“Of course not,” she said.

“Tells you bad things,” Trump said, starting to draw a connection with the broader conspiracy theory at the core of his campaign.

“It raises big suspicions,” Crowley agreed.

“Well they didn’t want to talk about the election of 2020 either,” Trump said. “They just don’t want to talk about it because they know they’re guilty as hell. And the only way you can stop it—it’s amazing. People that want to have a fair election are indicted. The people that cheated on the election are allowed to keep cheating.”

Three days prior, on Aug. 26, the Heritage Foundation—home of Project 2025—hosted the “J 13 Forum,” a faux congressional hearing on the assassination attempt. Billed as an “independent” investigation, it was led by Reps. Cory Mills of Florida and Eli Crane of Arizona and framed as a necessary circumvention of ongoing federal investigations, including a bipartisan congressional task force on the shooting convened by Republican Speaker Mike Johnson. In his opening remarks, Mills stated that he and his MAGA colleagues from the House were certain to uncover not just “criminal gross negligence” but “purposeful intent” attributable to the Biden administration.

“I think everyone’s heard me say before, ‘DEI equals DIE.’”

Participants in the testimony-style interviews included former Secret Service agent and right-wing media personality Dan Bongino, and former Blackwater CEO and Trump political operative Erik Prince. Attacks on DEI policy and its alleged role in the catastrophic security failure on July 13 were a focal point, also teed up by Mills from the outset. The hearing at Heritage, he said, “is a message to all of Congress, that if we are not selecting people based on meritocracy, that independent investigations such as this will continue to move forward.”

Project 2025 includes detailed plans to purge the US government of DEI policies. Midway through the hearing, Bongino went off on DEI as having supposedly led to unqualified agents working for the Secret Service. Citing unnamed whistleblower sources, he claimed that deficient personnel included trainees who had failed shooting tests and had filed “nuisance” employment complaints—and who were then given high-stakes jobs. “Many are out on protective assignments now,” Bongino said, without providing any evidence to support his claims.

“So what you’re saying is that DEI plays a major role, not meritocracy with regards to the current culture,” Mills said.

“No, the major role,” Bongino emphasized. “The Secret Service right now is dominated by DEI.”

Mills replied: “I think everyone’s heard me say before, ‘DEI equals DIE.’”

Project 2025 also calls for the mission of the Secret Service to be narrowed to protective operations only, and to have all of its criminal financial investigations moved under other law enforcement agencies—an argument Bongino also made in his remarks. Agents should be able to focus on protective work, Bongino said, “without running out cheap $20 counterfeit notes at Seven Eleven on a Friday night while the president is getting shot in the head.”

At the closing, Mills reiterated his takeaways, including on federal hiring policy. “Again, I think that we’re understanding that we’ve investigated the culture of the Secret Service and what needs to change, and why DEI is not healthy for our military, for our security services or otherwise.”

In his own closing remarks, Rep. Crane thanked the “witnesses” for participating, including a SWAT operator who had offered what he described as “secondhand” information about some of the tactical failures on July 13. “Any time you’re in law enforcement and you take the risk to come and testify before Congress,” Crane said to the small audience in the Heritage Foundation conference room, “it takes a lot of courage.”

Just hours after the assassination attempt against Donald Trump on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, high-profile allies of the ex-president began promoting unfounded conspiracy theories and blaming President Joe Biden and Democrats, without evidence, for causing the horrific attack. Trump and his surrogates have continued nonstop ever since with this coordinated messaging, which security experts have told me could provoke retaliatory violence from pro-Trump extremists. In late August, backers of Project 2025 joined the effort pushing this dangerous propaganda.

On Aug. 29, podcast host Monica Crowley interviewed Trump and proposed without evidence that he may have been targeted for murder from within the Biden administration.

“The more we see what happened that day, the more suspicious it all looks,” said Crowley, a former Trump administration spokesperson and a credited contributor on the Project 2025 policy tome detailing a hard-right agenda for a second Trump presidency. “Does it look increasingly to you like this was a suspicious—maybe even inside job?”

“Well, it’s strange,” Trump replied. Then he speculated about the deceased gunman’s father hiring “the most expensive lawyer” and suggested a partisan conspiracy involving former Justice Department prosecutor Andrew Weissmann and Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias. Weissmann quickly denounced Trump’s comments as false on social media. A spokesperson for Elias Law Group told me that no one from the firm has had any involvement in any aspect of the case.

Trump further claimed in the podcast interview, first reported by Media Matters for America, that the FBI had failed to gather evidence from the gunman’s cellphone. That’s untrue: FBI Director Christopher Wray and other FBI officials have spoken publicly about the bureau’s extensive investigation into the gunman’s background and activity, including his various digital communications.

Trump and Crowley then riffed about the JFK assassination, with Crowley reiterating the baseless conspiracy theory about the attack on Trump: “You were shot five or six weeks ago, and the imperial media, the regime, they’ve all buried it. They don’t want anybody talking about it, which also lends credence to this idea that this is very suspicious and could have been an inside job.”

“Yeah, true,” Trump interjected. “They don’t wanna talk about it.”

“Of course not,” she said.

“Tells you bad things,” Trump said, starting to draw a connection with the broader conspiracy theory at the core of his campaign.

“It raises big suspicions,” Crowley agreed.

“Well they didn’t want to talk about the election of 2020 either,” Trump said. “They just don’t want to talk about it because they know they’re guilty as hell. And the only way you can stop it—it’s amazing. People that want to have a fair election are indicted. The people that cheated on the election are allowed to keep cheating.”

Three days prior, on Aug. 26, the Heritage Foundation—home of Project 2025—hosted the “J 13 Forum,” a faux congressional hearing on the assassination attempt. Billed as an “independent” investigation, it was led by Reps. Cory Mills of Florida and Eli Crane of Arizona and framed as a necessary circumvention of ongoing federal investigations, including a bipartisan congressional task force on the shooting convened by Republican Speaker Mike Johnson. In his opening remarks, Mills stated that he and his MAGA colleagues from the House were certain to uncover not just “criminal gross negligence” but “purposeful intent” attributable to the Biden administration.

“I think everyone’s heard me say before, ‘DEI equals DIE.’”

Participants in the testimony-style interviews included former Secret Service agent and right-wing media personality Dan Bongino, and former Blackwater CEO and Trump political operative Erik Prince. Attacks on DEI policy and its alleged role in the catastrophic security failure on July 13 were a focal point, also teed up by Mills from the outset. The hearing at Heritage, he said, “is a message to all of Congress, that if we are not selecting people based on meritocracy, that independent investigations such as this will continue to move forward.”

Project 2025 includes detailed plans to purge the US government of DEI policies. Midway through the hearing, Bongino went off on DEI as having supposedly led to unqualified agents working for the Secret Service. Citing unnamed whistleblower sources, he claimed that deficient personnel included trainees who had failed shooting tests and had filed “nuisance” employment complaints—and who were then given high-stakes jobs. “Many are out on protective assignments now,” Bongino said, without providing any evidence to support his claims.

“So what you’re saying is that DEI plays a major role, not meritocracy with regards to the current culture,” Mills said.

“No, the major role,” Bongino emphasized. “The Secret Service right now is dominated by DEI.”

Mills replied: “I think everyone’s heard me say before, ‘DEI equals DIE.’”

Project 2025 also calls for the mission of the Secret Service to be narrowed to protective operations only, and to have all of its criminal financial investigations moved under other law enforcement agencies—an argument Bongino also made in his remarks. Agents should be able to focus on protective work, Bongino said, “without running out cheap $20 counterfeit notes at Seven Eleven on a Friday night while the president is getting shot in the head.”

At the closing, Mills reiterated his takeaways, including on federal hiring policy. “Again, I think that we’re understanding that we’ve investigated the culture of the Secret Service and what needs to change, and why DEI is not healthy for our military, for our security services or otherwise.”

In his own closing remarks, Rep. Crane thanked the “witnesses” for participating, including a SWAT operator who had offered what he described as “secondhand” information about some of the tactical failures on July 13. “Any time you’re in law enforcement and you take the risk to come and testify before Congress,” Crane said to the small audience in the Heritage Foundation conference room, “it takes a lot of courage.”

Ever since the July 13 assassination attempt against Donald Trump, the former president and his allies have promoted unfounded conspiracy theories and blamed Democrats directly for the violence. The effort appears highly coordinated: From JD Vance to Trump’s sons and MAGA Republicans in Congress, many have used the same rhetoric to declare that Trump’s political opponents sought to have him murdered at his campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. No one has furnished any evidence to support that claim. And while Trump himself was relatively quiet in this regard during the initial aftermath, he has since been pouring fuel on the fire, starting with a campaign speech on Aug. 5 in Atlanta, where Vance introduced him by emphasizing that Trump’s opponents had “even tried to kill him.”

Trump took the narrative to the next level in a softball interview with TV host Dr. Phil that aired this week. The first quarter of the hour-long conversation focused on Trump’s brush with death as a divine miracle, which was a major theme of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee just days after the attack. “It has to be God,” Trump said to Dr. Phil about surviving the shooting. He went on to claim that the assassination attempt could’ve ended up like the 2017 massacre on the Las Vegas Strip, where hundreds of people were gunned down.

Later in the interview, Trump returned to the shooting unprompted, focusing blame on President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

“I think to a certain extent it’s Biden’s fault and Harris’ fault. And I’m the opponent. Look, they were weaponizing government against me, they brought in the whole DOJ to try and get me. They weren’t too interested in my health and safety,” he claimed without evidence. He further suggested that they played a role in undermining his security: “They were making it very difficult to have proper staffing in terms of Secret Service.”

“I’m not saying they wanted you to get shot,” Dr. Phil said, “but do you think it was OK with them if you did?”

“I don’t know,” Trump replied. “There’s a lot of hatred.” (Biden, Harris, and other Democratic leaders condemned the shooting in the aftermath and Biden phoned Trump to offer prayers and support—a call Trump said was “very nice” in a leaked conversation with RFK Jr.)

Trump then reiterated the same claim he made in his Aug. 5 speech: “They’re saying I’m a threat to democracy,” he told Dr. Phil. “They would say that, that was [a] standard line, just keep saying it, and you know that can get assassins or potential assassins going…Maybe that bullet is because of their rhetoric.”

The deceased 20-year-old gunman was a registered Republican voter, as noted throughout national media coverage—and as I reported in the days and weeks after the attack, there appears to be no solid evidence that he was driven by partisanship or ideology. A sweeping FBI investigation, including analysis of his digital devices and interviews with more than 450 people, has found no clear motive, according to congressional testimony from FBI Director Christopher Wray. FBI officials reiterated those findings on Wednesday in a call with reporters. They suggested that the gunman, who also considered attacking a Biden event, was seeking infamy and selected the Trump rally as a “target of opportunity.” (I reported five days after the attack about the emerging indicators of this behavioral profile—a common one among political assassins, as I documented in my book, Trigger Points.)

The provocative rhetoric from Trump and his allies isn’t just unfounded but also carries a disturbing risk: Threat assessment and law enforcement leaders have told me that the messaging is fueling the danger of political violence headed into the election. Sources also told me that Trump’s political incitement more broadly—increasingly focused on a supposed grand conspiracy to steal the election from him—has made potential violence from MAGA extremists a top concern. As one source put it, “they’re piling on the idea that the opposition is so out to get Trump that they even tried to kill him, and therefore retaliation is justified.” Another described how conspiracy theories about the Trump shooting give extremist groups “a really big plot point” for retaliatory violence.

The “J 13 Forum,” a faux congressional hearing held by Trump allies at the Heritage Foundation, leaned into speculation and innuendo.

The blame narrative from Trump and his allies also expanded this week when Republican Reps. Cory Mills of Florida and Eli Crane of Arizona convened an “independent” hearing they called the “J 13 Forum” at the Heritage Foundation (home of Project 2025). They and several colleagues conducted congressional testimony-style interviews with participants including former Secret Service agent and right-wing media personality Dan Bongino, and former Blackwater CEO and Trump political operative Erik Prince. Many key questions indeed still loom about the catastrophic security failure that occurred in Pennsylvania; ongoing investigations by the FBI, Homeland Security, and a bipartisan congressional task force will last many months, if not years. Nonetheless, the “J 13 Forum” leaned into speculation and innuendo about what could explain the disaster, with Mills suggesting from the outset that a nefarious plot would inevitably be uncovered.

“You will see at this stage, where I think that criminal gross negligence and purposeful intent will be indistinguishable,” he said.

The faux congressional hearing included various unsubstantiated claims about the tactical response to the gunman in Butler and heated rhetoric from Bongino about the alleged role of DEI policy at the Secret Service. At one point, Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida prompted Prince to highlight the risk of a foreign terrorist team carrying out such an assassination attempt on US soil. “I’m very concerned,” Prince responded. “I don’t think they have any idea what’s coming at them.”

Notably, Mills has been involved in the blame narrative from the start—he was among the Trump allies using the same attack lines in the initial aftermath. “What about the rhetoric said by President Biden, when he said it’s time to put Trump in the bullseye?” Mills asked on Fox’s Varney & Co. five days after the shooting. (Biden went on to apologize for that previous word choice, despite the fact that it clearly was taken out of context by Mills and others in the aftermath.) With that setup, Mills landed his allegation: “They tried to silence him. They tried to imprison him. And now they’ve tried to kill him.”

On the morning of August 3, 2019, a 21-year-old man walked into a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, and opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle. He murdered 23 people and injured 22 others. Most who died were Latino, including eight people from Mexico.

The gunman had driven to the border city from 650 miles away. In custody, he told police he’d come to kill Mexicans. Some writings he’d posted online said his attack was “a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas” and that his mission was “defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.” He cited an extremist ideology known as “The Great Replacement.”

These were not obscure ideas. The gunman wrote that he agreed with a recent mass shooter in New Zealand who had espoused them. He also knew some of these themes were being championed at the time by President Donald Trump. With help from Fox News pundits, Trump was whipping up fear and hatred of an alleged “invasion” coming across America’s southern border—the message was central to Trump’s reelection campaign in 2019, a focus of his ads and speeches warning ominously of a national demise.

At the end of the shooter’s screed posted online, he sought to validate his attack with a pseudo-clever twist, suggesting that his views predated Trump in the White House. “I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric,” he wrote. Then he used Trump’s own rhetoric as supporting ammo: “The media is infamous for fake news.”

Today, Trump is running again using the same potent demagoguery he wielded during his presidency and prior campaigns. Five years to the day after the massacre in El Paso, he held a rally in Atlanta with running mate JD Vance, and, over the course of an hour, warned a half dozen times about hordes of murderous foreigners overrunning America.

“Forty or fifty million illegal aliens will invade our country during the next four years if they’re in,” Trump said of his Democratic opponents at the outset. He soon continued: “Many of them that are coming in are from prisons and jails and mental institutions, insane asylums.” He taunted media covering the rally as he referenced the fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter, a provocation he now uses to depict migrant “insanity” and brutality.

He went on to vow he would “stop the invasion” and expanded on the peril: “These people are so violent and vicious…These are the worst people anywhere in the world coming into our country. They’re coming in at levels that nobody’s ever seen before.”

“We’ve already seen where this goes and it can easily go there again,” one threat assessment source told me.

Audience reaction was relatively subdued as Trump recited these lines from a teleprompter, perhaps because they are such a familiar fixture of his speeches. But deep into this speech, the next escalation played differently. The danger, Trump now further alleged, came from a grand conspiracy against him, one involving migrants. He warned that his political opponents who “hate our country” are “actually trying to get them to sign up and vote.” Then came the climax: “It’s so sinister,” he said, “but they want to sign these people up to vote, and if they do that, this country is destroyed. We’d become a dumping ground for the entire world, and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

A close listener could hear echoes of Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump invoked loss of country and the danger of inaction against an election that he falsely claimed was stolen from him. Now, in his telling, that conspiracy promised to use legions of evil foreigners against him and his supporters.

The crowd cheered, beginning to stir more as Trump recounted a recent murder of a university student at the hands of a Venezuelan man illegally in the country. “Kamala Harris let in the savage monster who murdered Laken Riley,” Trump declared. He railed against “migrant crime” and falsely claimed that “thousands” of Americans were being killed in this way.

He continued: “If Harris wins, a never-ending stream of illegal alien rapists, MS-13 animals, and child predators will flood into your communities. If I win, on day one we will begin the largest deportation operation in American history.”

The crowd roared at this signature line from his speech.

“We have no choice,” Trump said.

Who was listening? Perhaps some disturbed young man there in the crowd, or elsewhere watching Trump live on YouTube—perhaps someone who might feel enraged, like the El Paso mass shooter surely did when he wrote down the lie that Democrats “intend to use open borders, free healthcare for illegals, citizenship and more to enact a political coup by importing and then legalizing millions of new voters.”

Shortly after Trump’s speech in Atlanta, I talked to a longtime threat assessment source with expertise in counterterrorism and far-right extremist groups. His response was blunt when I noted that no major media focused their coverage on Trump’s inflammatory language, almost as if all that rhetoric was just business as usual.

“There’s nothing normal about any of this,” the source said. “We have the First Amendment and he can say whatever he wants, that’s our democracy. But it really disturbs me how politicians in his party won’t stand up and say one word against it now. The country really needs that. We’ve already seen where this goes and it can easily go there again.”

The use of Trump’s rhetoric to justify racist and organized political violence began early in his presidency. Strained denials of that reality crumbled for good with the horrific events at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. This June, I reported again on Trump’s years of incitement against his many perceived enemies, a method known to national security experts as stochastic terrorism. The results, as I’ve reported, grow even worse when a high-profile figure emphasizes themes of contempt and disgust.

Security and law enforcement sources told me that topping the list of concerns now for election-year violence are threats stemming from white supremacist groups and Trump’s MAGA movement. After the assassination attempt against the ex-president in mid-July, sources told me that the promotion of conspiracy theories and false blame on Democrats by Trump allies could provoke retaliatory attacks.

At the Aug. 3 rally in Atlanta, JD Vance doubled down on that very blame, declaring in his speech that Trump’s political opponents “tried to kill him.” Meanwhile, a new intelligence report from the FBI and Homeland Security focused on the upcoming Democratic National Convention highlights similar concerns about retaliatory violence.

I contacted three people with the Trump campaign asking specifically for comment on these warnings about political violence: spokespersons Brian Hughes and Steven Cheung, and Trump senior advisor Alina Habba. None of them responded.

America faces immense challenges with immigration, a top issue for voters. It is precisely that reality Trump seeks to exploit.

Trump shows no signs of stopping the incitement. Last Thursday, in a rambling speech to reporters assembled for a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, he again emphasized that America was under invasion by millions of migrants “from prisons, from jails, from mental institutions, insane asylums.” They are flooding in “from all over the world,” he claimed. “Prisons are being emptied into our country.”

He delivered more of the same at a rally on Friday in Montana: “Fifty million of them… they’re destroying our country, they’re ruining our country… migrants praying on our women and our girls.”

Fear and loathing, dressed up as just another stump speech.

Trump’s incitement focused on migrants is not mutually exclusive with the fact that America faces immense challenges with immigration, a top issue for voters. It is precisely that reality Trump seeks to exploit. In early 2024, Congress was poised to pass a bipartisan border security bill, with President Biden ready to sign it. Trump killed the deal. No one bothered trying to hide why he pressured Republicans to do his bidding: He wanted immigration to remain his political weapon.

“The fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and Congress people that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem, because he wants to blame Biden for it, is really appalling,” Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah told reporters in January, the deal dead.

Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, who helped author the legislation, later revealed how “a popular” media commentator had threatened him: “If you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year,” that Trump ally told him, according to Lankford, “I will do whatever I can to destroy you. Because I do not want you to solve this during the presidential election.”

What else might follow when the leader of a major political movement smears a population as a menace to public health and safety and even national survival?

Trump’s relentless fear-mongering against migrants underscores how he has always seen immigration and the border as essential to his political power. There is zero doubt that his current trajectory—begun nearly a decade ago when he announced his first campaign and inveighed against Mexican criminals and “rapists”—will continue to the November election.

Most news media are no longer paying any of this much attention. But that carries risk of the public forgetting about the violence that has already occurred. More broadly, shouldn’t we be asking: What else might follow when the leader of a major political movement smears a population as a menace to public health and safety and even national survival?

According to one of Trump’s own senior national security advisers in the White House, Trump was informed explicitly and repeatedly about how his rhetoric had been used to justify acts of violence. Credible evidence of his awareness—and his demonstrated unwillingness to respond meaningfully against the violence—suggests that, for him, more bloodshed will be welcome.

Campaigning in Atlanta on Saturday, Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance blamed Democrats without any evidence for the recent assassination attempt against Donald Trump.

In his brief remarks introducing the former president at a Georgia State University arena, Vance told the crowd: “They couldn’t beat him politically, so they tried to bankrupt him. They failed at that, so they tried to impeach him. They failed at that, so they tried to put him in prison.” Then, gesturing emphatically, Vance declared: “They even tried to kill him.”

After three weeks of intensive FBI investigation, no evidence has emerged supporting that claim. The motive of the deceased 20-year-old gunman, who was registered as a Republican voter but appears not to have been driven by partisanship or political ideology, remains unknown.   

As I’ve reported in the weeks since the horrific shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, top Trump allies repeatedly have promoted unfounded conspiracy theories and blamed Trump’s political opponents without evidence. Multiple threat assessment and law enforcement leaders have told me that this rhetoric is fueling already heightened concerns about political violence heading into the November election. Those concerns, they said, stem foremost from domestic far-right extremist groups and Trump’s MAGA movement.

This has been a clear pattern of incitement from high-profile supporters of Trump.

As one threat expert put it regarding the rhetoric from Trump world since the assassination attempt: “Now they’re piling on the idea that the opposition is so out to get Trump that they even tried to kill him, and therefore retaliation is justified. Only a small number of people might take violent action on this, but you don’t need much for things to get worse.”

This has been a clear pattern of incitement from high-profile supporters of the former president. Trump backers pushing baseless narratives about the shooting have included congressional members Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mike Collins of Georgia, Trump’s sons Don Jr. and Eric, and Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana, a former Trump cabinet official. Vance’s rhetoric on Saturday echoed comments that Don Jr. made during the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where he declared that Democrats had targeted his father: “They’re now trying to kill him.” Vance has participated in this messaging since the first hours after the shooting, when he posted on social media that Biden campaign rhetoric focusing on Trump as a threat to democracy “led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”

Trump himself made that claim during his speech in Atlanta on Saturday: “Remember the words they use, ‘they are a threat to democracy,’” he said. “They’ve been saying that about me for seven years. I think I got shot because of that, OK.”

Two days after the assassination attempt, Vance was officially nominated for the ticket at the RNC, where Trump’s brush with death led to his being hailed repeatedly as a divine political martyr. Trump had long made violence a more accepted part of Republican politics, and now he was at the center of showcasing it in a stark new context.

Campaigning in Atlanta on Saturday, Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance blamed Democrats without any evidence for the recent assassination attempt against Donald Trump.

In his brief remarks introducing the former president at a Georgia State University arena, Vance told the crowd: “They couldn’t beat him politically, so they tried to bankrupt him. They failed at that, so they tried to impeach him. They failed at that, so they tried to put him in prison.” Then, gesturing emphatically, Vance declared: “They even tried to kill him.”

After three weeks of intensive FBI investigation, no evidence has emerged supporting that claim. The motive of the deceased 20-year-old gunman, who was registered as a Republican voter but appears not to have been driven by partisanship or political ideology, remains unknown.   

As I’ve reported in the weeks since the horrific shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, top Trump allies repeatedly have promoted unfounded conspiracy theories and blamed Trump’s political opponents without evidence. Multiple threat assessment and law enforcement leaders have told me that this rhetoric is fueling already heightened concerns about political violence heading into the November election. Those concerns, they said, stem foremost from domestic far-right extremist groups and Trump’s MAGA movement.

As one threat expert put it regarding the rhetoric from Trump world since the assassination attempt: “Now they’re piling on the idea that the opposition is so out to get Trump that they even tried to kill him, and therefore retaliation is justified. Only a small number of people might take violent action on this, but you don’t need much for things to get worse.”

Trump backers pushing baseless narratives about the shooting have included congressional members Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mike Collins of Georgia, Trump’s sons Don Jr. and Eric, and Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana, a former Trump cabinet official. Vance himself has participated since the first hours after the shooting, when he posted on social media that Biden campaign rhetoric focusing on Trump as a threat to democracy “led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”

Two days later, Vance was officially nominated for the ticket at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where Trump’s brush with death led to his being hailed repeatedly as a divine political martyr. Trump had long made violence a more accepted part of Republican politics, and now he was at the center of showcasing it in a stark new context.

In the two-plus weeks since a gunman opened fire at Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, some details have emerged about the catastrophic security failure. The 20-year-old perpetrator, who wounded the former president and three people in the crowd, killing one, was on authorities’ radar for more than 90 minutes before he attacked. He eluded law enforcement agents at the rally site, eventually reaching an unsecured rooftop about 150 yards from where Trump spoke. He fired at least eight rounds from an AR-15 before being killed by a Secret Service counter-sniper.

Major questions remain about the disaster as three federal investigations move forward. In the meantime, Trump allies continue trying to exploit the assassination attempt politically, whether by raising unfounded conspiracy theories about the Biden administration or attacking FBI leaders, as Trump himself long has done.

Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana, a former Secretary of the Interior under Trump, suggested on Fox News on Monday that the security failure may have resulted from some sort of government plot. “We know there was incompetence,” he said, “but was this incompetence willful and knowing? Did you willingly and knowing [sic] put the president in a position by atrophying the security and allowing this to happen?” Zinke gave no evidence, but speculated emphatically, “that brings it from assassination attempt into the area of a plot—big difference between an attempt and a plot.”

Appearing on Fox News on Sunday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis blasted the FBI over its investigation of the shooting. Fox host Maria Bartiromo set him up by insisting that FBI Director Christopher Wray had “tried to throw doubt” on Trump being shot when Wray testified before Congress last week that investigators were still determining whether the ex-president had been hit on his ear by a bullet or shrapnel. (The FBI soon clarified that it was either a bullet or a fragment of one.)

“I think these agencies have lost the trust of the American people,” DeSantis responded. “Go back to the Las Vegas shooter: We never learned a thing about him.” (Hundreds of pages of FBI documents and a lengthy investigative report on the case are publicly available.) He continued: “Now you have the FBI director casting doubt what we saw on TV live, that President Trump was shot in his ear. These agencies are failing the American people. They lack the credibility.”

Conspiracy theories from both the political right and left have run rampant since the horrific shooting on July 13. But while some Democratic voters have baselessly speculated that the violence was somehow staged to benefit Trump, few if any leaders on the left have gone there. (The closest was an aide to major Democratic donor Reid Hoffman who later apologized.)

Numerous high-profile Trump allies, however, immediately began accusing Democrats—without any evidence—of orchestrating the shooting. They included Congress members Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mike Collins of Georgia, and Trump’s sons Donald Jr. and Eric. Bartiromo also played host to Eric Trump when he claimed that Democrats “would stop at absolutely nothing” and had intended to have his father murdered: “I’ve said on this show before I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried something even worse, alluding to exactly what happened, and I was right.” (And it was on the radio show of a former Fox host, Megyn Kelly, where Don Jr. said Trump’s political foes were “now trying to kill him.”)

During the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, which began just two days after the shooting, various speakers used Trump’s brush with death to declare his survival and candidacy nothing short of a divine miracle. The sweeping visual backdrop for Trump’s acceptance speech played to the theme of martyrdom, showcasing the iconic news photo of Trump bloodied and defiant in the moments after the attack.   

Threat assessment and law enforcement leaders told me after the assassination attempt that partisan exploitation of the bloodshed will fuel political violence—already a serious concern ahead of the election—by exacerbating “a really big plot point” for extremist groups.

On Monday, the FBI announced that the shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, had begun buying gun-related items and bomb-making materials more than a year before the attack. He took firearms training courses and did online research into mass shootings, assassination attempts, and various potential targets. He planned carefully and “made significant efforts to conceal his activities,” said Kevin Rojek, the FBI special agent in charge in Pittsburgh.

According to the Wall Street Journal, FBI investigators have interviewed more than 450 people, including dozens of Crooks’ coworkers, family members, and former classmates. The FBI reiterated that it has found no evidence indicating he was driven by partisanship or political ideology. As I reported five days after the attack, barring some extraordinary revelation to come, Crooks is more likely to fit a different pattern of motive, a murkier one shared by many of his predecessors.

Top image: clockwise from top: Donald Trump, Jr., Ron DeSantis, Ryan Zinke, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Eric Trump, Maria Bartiromo and Mike Collins. Credits: Mother Jones illustration; James Manning/PA Wire/ZUMA; Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/ZUMA; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/ ZUMA (3); Pat A. Robinson/ZUMA; Prensa Internacional/ZUMA

One certainty about the assassination attempt two weeks ago on former President Donald Trump is that rampant conspiracy theories about it will endure—probably forever. The fascination with spectacular, if highly improbable explanations long predates social media. Yet it resonates now with the Trump shooter’s documented search for information about the JFK assassination, which has sustained a cottage industry of books, movies, and other content for more than half a century.

Wild claims about everything from Trump staging the attack to the Biden White House orchestrating it began spreading online just hours after the fateful campaign rally on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania. Gunfire from a rooftop approximately 150 yards from the stage wounded Trump and three supporters in the crowd, one fatally. The tectonic event shook the 2024 presidential race and is the focus of sweeping investigations by the FBI, Homeland Security, and Congress, and has already prompted the resignation of the Secret Service director. But setting aside any outlandish assertions from both the political right and left about what happened, some key questions continue to loom since the horrific attack.

Was Trump actually hit by a bullet?

Unclear. The ex-president and his top allies maintain that he was, but when FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before Congress on Wednesday about the ongoing investigation, he responded to one inquiry saying, “With respect to former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear.” [Update, July 26, 9 p.m. ET: The FBI said in a statement late Friday that it determined Trump was struck by “a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces.”]

The attack is no less consequential either way, but this is a signifcant detail and not just another baseless conspiracy theory, even if GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson insists otherwise. As national security expert Juliette Kayyem noted, “Wray, known for exact phrasing and being careful, didn’t say this on accident.” The specificity of how Trump was wounded is important for public transparency and a full forensic accounting of the attack, relevant to rigorous assessment of the security failures (more on that below), the protective response by Secret Service agents, and the nature of Trump’s injury and his recovery.

It also pertains to how the Trump campaign has used the assassination attempt politically. When Trump was nominated at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee five days later, his brush with death was a major theme. Large images of the iconic news photo of him being pulled from the rally stage, his fist in the air and face streaked with blood, provided a backdrop on the main stage. Multiple speakers referred to his survival as the result of divine intervention. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and others lionized Trump, literally, and declared his survival and candidacy nothing short of a holy miracle.

In his acceptance speech, Trump, his right ear still bandaged, gave a dramatic, graphic account. “I said to myself, ‘Wow, what was that? It can only be a bullet.’” He said he brought his hand down from his ear “covered with blood, just absolutely blood all over the place.” He then emphasized, “There was blood pouring everywhere, and yet in a certain way I felt very safe because I had God on my side.”

Trump has released no official medical records from after the shooting, nor has there been any public account from the doctors who first treated him at Butler Memorial Hospital. Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas, a Trump ally who served as his White House physician, released a memo a week after the shooting describing a bullet wound, but Jackson’s strident partisan role and track record as a doctor raise questions about his credibility.

An analysis published Thursday by the New York Times suggests that Trump’s ear was indeed grazed by a bullet, the first of eight reportedly fired by the gunman. The Times also reported that FBI investigators are seeking to interview Trump directly. Given the swirl of confusion and speculation about his injury, it seems all the more curious that he and his campaign haven’t provided further information.

Is there any clearer picture yet of the shooter’s motive?

No. Wray this week again reiterated the lack of any clear motive, even after extensive FBI investigation. That could still change, but it would be extraordinary, to say the least, to go from no indication of a motive two weeks after an event of this magnitude to a clear one. As I reported last week, the deceased perpetrator, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, appears to have left behind little indication of any political views or his mindset ahead of the attack, according to the FBI and a flurry of media reporting. He was a registered Republican voter, but also made a small donation to a liberal political group and came from a mixed political household.

This lack of a motive is particularly important in light of all the conspiracy theories and partisan exploitation that have filled the void. Indeed, there is a distinct possibility we may never have a clear picture of what drove Crooks, who also searched online, according to investigators, for information about President Biden’s appearances, the Democratic National Convention, and “major depression disorder.”

Ultimately, a thorough investigation of this case may show, as with many assassination attempts in modern history, that political ideology was not a driving factor. It is quite plausible that Crooks was suicidal and wanted to go out in a blaze of infamy, an act that has grown more common among disturbed and desperate young men, as I discussed with threat assessment experts last week. (For more on this: my book on preventing mass shootings, Trigger Points, examines the history and complexity of motives among many perpetrators, including those who target high-profile public figures.)

What explains the catastrophic failures with security?

The public has very little idea thus far. The shooting stands as a disaster of stunning proportions for the Secret Service, whose director, Kimberly Cheatle, resigned this week under intense bipartisan pressure.

The overarching question of the security failure already encompasses a long and troubling list of specific issues: How could the Secret Service not secure a rooftop that was within shooting range and had clear sight lines to Trump? How could the attacker have flown a drone over the rally location just two hours before Trump took the stage? Why was Trump allowed to keep speaking at the podium even after the Secret Service and its law enforcement partners were aware of Crooks’ suspicious behavior, and then even after counter-snipers had him in their sights?

Those are just scratching the surface.

“I’m not going to get into specifics of the day,” Cheatle said during a congressional hearing this week, citing an ongoing investigation. “There was a plan in place to provide overwatch, and we are still looking into responsibilities.”

Voluminous official tomes and many books are sure to be written in the months and years ahead on this epic fiasco.

Will Trump world continue to weaponize the shooting politically?

Almost as surely as the sun rises in the east. In the immediate aftermath, many Trump allies fired off partisan blame—without any evidence—and they haven’t stopped since. The rhetoric has come from Trump supporters in Congress including Rep. Mike Collins (“Joe Biden sent the orders”) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (“They tried to murder President Trump”), and from Trump’s sons Eric (“I said that the Democrats would stop at absolutely nothing”) and Don Jr. (“They’re now trying to kill him”). Not to mention from the man who would become Trump’s running mate two days later, Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, who said Biden’s campaign rhetoric “led directly” to the attack.

But they absolutely should stop. This stewing narrative is not only false but seriously dangerous: Threat assessment and law enforcement leaders told me it is fueling potential violence, already a heightened concern heading into the November election. As one source told me, “They’re piling on the idea that the opposition is so out to get Trump that they even tried to kill him, and therefore retaliation is justified. Only a small number of people might take violent action on this, but you don’t need much for things to get worse.” As another put it: “Extremist groups will take advantage of anything that fits into their narrative and this is a really big plot point for them.”

It is an accelerant on Trump’s continuing campaign of political incitement, aimed at migrants, the FBI and DOJ, judges, prosecutors, Democratic officials, journalists, and the many others he has long targeted. The fundamental premise of it all is that he is the alleged victim of a grand political conspiracy to take him down and steal the presidency from him, which is framed as a supposed Democratic or “deep state” plot. It is now being weaponized to whip up outrage by the same folks who are behind Project 2025. And in Trump’s telling, the ultimate target is not him but rather the Americans who support him: “They’re coming after you,” as he ominously puts it.

Meanwhile, Trump has kept up the steady incitement in recent weeks, including in his long, demagogic RNC speech—although this grim dimension of his campaign has gotten far less media attention than it deserves. As I wrote just a couple of weeks before the assassination attempt: “The question now isn’t about whether Trump will continue to stoke political violence in this way through the election. It’s about when and to what extremes he might do so, and how much more that will boost the odds of further violence to come.”

Since a 20-year-old gunman opened fire more than a week ago at former President Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, the FBI has conducted hundreds of interviews and scrutinized the deceased perpetrator’s background and activity—only to find that his motive for the attack thus far remains a mystery. He was a registered Republican voter, but as threat assessment experts confirmed to me, the shooting likely was not driven by partisanship or political ideology. (That’s the case with many assassination attempts in modern history, as I chronicled in my book on threat assessment.) The experts I spoke with also warned that partisan exploitation of the assassination attempt is fueling rising danger for political violence.

None of that has stopped Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Jr. from fanning the flames. Speaking on Fox News on Sunday, Eric Trump reiterated the partisan blame leveled by various MAGA supporters—without any evidence—immediately after the shooting. “I said that the Democrats would stop at absolutely nothing,” he told Maria Bartiromo, angrily reciting a litany of alleged political persecutions against his father. “I’ve said on this show before I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried something even worse, alluding to exactly what happened, and I was right.”

Donald Trump Jr. has also continued to push this narrative. “They’re trying to jail their political opponents. They’re now trying to kill him,” he said on the Megyn Kelly Show during the Republican National Convention, rattling off grievances similar to those from his brother. (In the interview, Don Jr. also said repeatedly that his father, whose ear was grazed by a bullet, was “shot in the face.”)

This continuing vilification adds to what law enforcement and threat assessment sources have told me is a paramount risk headed toward the election: potential bloodshed stemming from Donald Trump’s long-running campaign of incitement, including his message that he is supposedly the victim of a sweeping conspiracy by his political opponents. That core Trump narrative has now been supercharged by the assassination attempt, in which three attendees also were shot, one fatally. As I reported last week:

“Trump people were already mobilizing around the phony message of ‘we’re going to get screwed again by a rigged election,’” one threat expert told me, “and now they’re piling on the idea that the opposition is so out to get Trump that they even tried to kill him, and therefore retaliation is justified. Only a small number of people might take violent action on this, but you don’t need much for things to get worse.”

“Extremist groups will take advantage of anything that fits into their narrative and this is a really big plot point for them,” said another threat assessment expert. An intelligence bulletin from the FBI and DHS sent earlier this week to law enforcement throughout the country warned of potential “follow-on or retaliatory attacks.”

Notably, Don Jr. has participated in his father’s long-running political incitement also by spreading provocative memes and conspiracy theories on social media, and by mocking violence against Trump’s political adversaries. These tactics are part of the method of stochastic terrorism long used by Trump as president and after he left office, as I’ve documented ever since the runup to the January 6 insurrection.

Perhaps most infamously, Don Jr. ridiculed the home invasion and vicious attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, right before the 2022 midterm elections. Among other memes, he shared a photo of a “Halloween costume” that featured men’s underwear and a hammer, references to a baseless gay-sex conspiracy theory about the intruder and the weapon he used to bash Paul Pelosi’s skull. Since the assassination attempt, Don Jr. has posted a derisive meme targeting Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and another appearing to suggest that the shooter was related to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.  

An Arizona man was charged this month for allegedly threatening on a MAGA website to shoot FBI agents. He had an AR-15, a pistol, a pump-action shotgun, and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

Demonizing partisan rhetoric and rampant conspiracy theories about the assassination attempt—the latter also from the political left—are feeding into a volatile atmosphere that former President Trump himself has done much to foment. His continuing broadsides against the Justice Department and FBI have led to further menace and violent plots from his extremist supporters. A grand jury this month indicted a Georgia man for allegedly posting threats to murder FBI Director Christopher Wray. Also this month, an Arizona man was charged for allegedly threatening on a MAGA website to shoot FBI agents indiscriminately. Investigators found he had an AR-15, a pistol, a pump-action shotgun, and more than 5,000 rounds of ammunition.

Trump’s relentless talk of a migrant “invasion” also has heightened concerns about political violence among security experts. In recent weeks, the ex-president has continued his theme of disparaging migrants as “terrorists” and “mental patients,” declaring again that they are “poisoning our country.”

This demagoguery marked the finale of the GOP convention last week when Trump gave a rambling, grievance-laden speech that lasted more than an hour and a half. He depicted an America under siege from bloodthirsty rapists and murderers “pouring into our country,” likening these alleged hordes to the fictional cannibalistic serial killer, “the late, great Hannibal Lecter.” In case his renewed message of American carnage wasn’t clear enough, he warned: “Bad things are going to happen.”

Five days after the horrific attempt on Donald Trump’s life at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, we have a clear picture fundamentally of what happened. There was a catastrophic failure by the Secret Service to protect the former president from a gunman who, incredibly, was able to occupy a rooftop about 450 feet away and get a clear shot at Trump onstage. Trump was wounded on his ear, a 50-year-old man in the crowd hit by the gunfire died shielding his family, and two other people were critically injured. The gunman was quickly shot to death by a Secret Service sniper.

But a crucial piece of this tectonic event remains missing: We still know virtually nothing about the motive of the perpetrator, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, a recent community college student from suburban Pittsburgh. That information void, unusual after a high-profile attack, may have its own repercussions after being filled by a maelstrom of partisan exploitation and conspiracy theories.

In the immediate aftermath on Saturday—well before the shooter’s identity even began to emerge—Rep. Mike Collins of Georgia claimed that “Joe Biden sent the orders” and should be charged with “inciting an assassination.” His fellow Republican and Trump backer, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, said that “Democrats wanted this to happen” and further declared with no evidence that “they tried to murder President Trump.” Swift partisan blame also came from Trump’s son Eric and a prominent Trump adviser, Chris LaCivita, who said, “they tried to put him in jail and now you see this.”

Anger and threats from partisans with large social media followings flooded X.com and other platforms. “Retribution is coming,” inveighed one prominent MAGA account. “Guarantee you that.” The post drew more than 100,000 views and included the instantly iconic news photo of Trump pumping his fist as he was evacuated from the stage, his face streaked with blood.

“Extremist groups will take advantage of anything that fits into their narrative and this is a really big plot point for them.”

As various MAGA supporters claimed that Biden had ordered a hit on his election opponent, some on the left spread outlandish conspiracy theories about the attack being “staged” by Trump. An adviser to major Democratic donor Reid Hoffman suggested in an email to journalists they should consider whether the shooting had been encouraged or perhaps even arranged so that “Trump could get the photos and benefit from the backlash.”

Ahead of this week’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, some party leaders called for calm and a message of unity—but many, including Trump’s now-running mate, JD Vance, continued to declare that Biden’s campaign rhetoric was the direct cause of the assassination attempt.

This atmosphere is further heightening concerns about violence, according to threat assessment leaders with expertise in counterterrorism and mass shootings who I spoke with. Risk of a cycle of political violence and recrimination, including from the far left, is a growing worry. But their greatest concern remains potential bloodshed stemming from Trump’s long-running campaign of incitement and his message that he is supposedly the victim of a systemic conspiracy—a narrative that has now been supercharged.

“Trump people were already mobilizing around the phony message of ‘we’re going to get screwed again by a rigged election,’” one threat expert told me, “and now they’re piling on the idea that the opposition is so out to get Trump that they even tried to kill him, and therefore retaliation is justified. Only a small number of people might take violent action on this, but you don’t need much for things to get worse.”

“Extremist groups will take advantage of anything that fits into their narrative and this is a really big plot point for them,” said another threat assessment expert. (These sources asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the Trump shooting investigation and their working relationships with federal law enforcement agencies.) An intelligence bulletin from the FBI and DHS sent earlier this week to law enforcement throughout the country warned of potential “follow-on or retaliatory attacks.”

Early investigation suggests that Crooks, from the Pittsburgh suburb of Bethel Park, left behind few if any real clues as to why he targeted Trump. The relatively thin portrait of him is decidedly mixed in terms of any possible political identity or motive. He was registered to vote as a Republican, and neighbors have told reporters they recalled seeing Trump MAGA signs in the yard of the house where Crooks lived with his parents. Crooks also once donated $15 online to a liberal fundraising group. CNN reported that state voter records show his mother is registered as a Democrat and his father as a Libertarian. His father owns more than a dozen guns and a decade ago purchased the AR-15 used in the attack, according to law enforcement officials.

Media interviews with former high school classmates and employees at a skilled nursing home, where Crooks worked as a dietary aide until last week, all suggest he was quiet, kind, and intelligent. He graduated Bethel Park High School in 2022, where he won a math award, and in May he completed an associate’s degree in engineering science from the Community College of Allegheny County. Claims in the media by a couple of former peers that Crooks was bullied in high school have since been strongly contradicted by a school guidance counselor who worked with him and said he knew him well; the counselor told the Washington Post that Crooks never was bullied, had no disciplinary record, and had a group of close friends. (The idea that bullying is a root cause of school and mass shootings goes back to Columbine and is misguided in many cases.)

None of the wave of media coverage has included reports of Crooks expressing strong political or ideological views, let alone personal grievances or threats. He appears to have had scant presence on social media, relatively unusual for a person of his generation. It’s unclear whether his trail will lead to any meaningful “legacy tokens,” as FBI experts call the written screeds, images, videos, or other evidence that many perpetrators leave behind to convey their grievances and influence media coverage.

By Monday, FBI investigators had begun examining data from a cellphone belonging to Crooks, but they have found “nothing significant” so far to help explain his mindset or intent, a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation confirmed to me. There is no indication to date that anyone else was involved, officials have said. Investigators have spoken with Crooks’ parents, who seemed to have little insight into their son’s motive, according to reporting in the Wall Street Journal. A second cellphone and other devices Crooks used could yield further information. FBI Director Christopher Wray said on Wednesday afternoon in a Senate briefing that no motive had been established after extensive investigation. FBI analysis of Crooks’ online activity found that he searched for images of Biden and Trump as well as for dates and places for appearances by both of them.

Claims by former peers that Crooks was bullied in high school have since been strongly contradicted by a school guidance counselor who worked with him.

Threat assessment experts told me that a few things can reasonably be surmised at this point about Crooks. Given the physical circumstances of his attack from the rooftop, he likely had no expectation of escaping the Trump rally site and likely was suicidal, as many mass shooters are. It’s highly probable that further evidence exists of him planning and preparing for the attack—including and going beyond his visit to a gun range and his purchase of ammunition in the days ahead, as has been reported, and his advance surveillance of the attack site, which Wray reportedly discussed in Wednesday’s Senate briefing.

The FBI has said that Crooks had no record of mental health problems, but that doesn’t mean he had no such issues, or that he gave off no warning signs. (Nor would any mental health issues have predicted or fundamentally explained his attack—that’s a myth.) As I examined in my recent deep investigation into the 22-year-old who committed mass murder a decade ago in Isla Vista, California, perpetrators who are intelligent and able to present themselves as normal can be skilled at concealing their inner turmoil and lethal intent—while still also “leaking” signs of their plans far in advance.

Big gaps remain in what is publicly known about Crooks’ pathway to the attack: His home life and his relationships with his parents, with whom he lived in Bethel Park, remain of interest to investigators. Little has yet been reported about his recent time at community college.

Many assassination attempts in modern US history have not been motivated fundamentally by political ideology. One case from the 1960s resonates uncannily with the circumstances of today.

Another threat expert I spoke with suggested that America’s heated political atmosphere may have played a role more generally in the shooter’s choice of target. That is, the Trump rally coming to town may even have been a kind of ultimate crime of opportunity for a disturbed young man who wanted to go out in a blaze of infamy. Many shooters seek attention and notoriety—and after Trump announced the event in Butler 10 days ahead, what nearby target could’ve possibly offered that more?

In fact, seminal research in the field of behavioral threat assessment conducted in the early 1990s found that many assassination attempts in modern US history were not motivated fundamentally by political ideology. One case in particular from the 1960s resonates uncannily with the circumstances of today. After the Trump shooting, the Biden administration announced it would begin Secret Service protection for independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., whose father was slain by an assassin’s bullet as he campaigned for president in summer 1968. The killer, Sirhan Sirhan, had expressed anger about Sen. Bobby Kennedy’s policy on arming Israel. But as I reported in my book Trigger Points, the pioneering threat assessment experts who personally interviewed Sirhan and studied his case as part of their research on assassins concluded that he ultimately was driven by a stew of behavioral disorders, personal failures, and fame seeking—not by any clear political motive. (The same was true of Ronald Reagan’s would-be assassin.) Notably, Sirhan had considered trying to kill several different public figures, and his stated grievances shifted over the years, later even co-opting conspiracy theories about his attack.

Sirhan’s case was rife with evidence of his thinking and behaviors. A few targeted attacks in the decades since have been mostly bereft of such evidence, including the one by the suicidal gunman who massacred concertgoers in 2017 on the Las Vegas Strip, where he used AR-15s outfitted with bump stocks to kill 58 people and injure more than 500 others. That case is still widely considered to lack a clear motive.

Any student of history knows that the already rampant conspiracy theories about the Trump shooting will never go away. A big future revelation about motive in the case might dampen those, but the relatively minimal picture of Crooks so far suggests the possibility that we may never really have a clear explanation for why he did it. Yet, perhaps no case in modern memory reflects a greater urgency for additional facts to surface and prevail.

Thankfully, some people close to or directly hit by the tragedy have expressed sentiments of civility. Some Trump-supporting locals told reporters they rejected the partisan blame, including a disturbing message posted on a billboard in Butler afterward: “DEMOCRATS ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION.” And although the widow of Corey Comperatore, the man killed at the Trump rally, refused to take a call from Joe Biden, she told the New York Post that she has no ill will towards the president: “He didn’t do anything bad to my husband. A 20-year-old despicable kid did.”