Kang Muslim
Public anxieties concerning an imminent surge in domestic political violence leading up to the 2026 midterm elections may be largely unfounded, according to a recent nationally representative survey. Despite an exceptionally polarized political climate characterized by sharp ideological divides and contentious national debates surrounding immigration, government policy, and civil unrest, empirical data points toward a measurable decrease in both the perceived justification for and personal willingness to commit politically motivated physical harm across the United States.
The findings, published as a preprint on SocArXiv and awaiting formal peer review, originate from an ongoing longitudinal research initiative spearheaded by the University of California, Davis, Centers for Violence Prevention. Led by Dr. Garen J. Wintemute, a distinguished professor of emergency medicine and the Baker-Teret Chair in Violence Prevention, the annual survey project offers a granular examination of how Americans perceive, justify, and contemplate political violence during periods of intense national stress. While the data underscores that partisan tensions remain deeply entrenched, the overwhelming majority of U.S. adults continue to reject physical violence as a legitimate mechanism for advancing political agendas.
Understanding the Mechanics and Definitions of Political Violence
To evaluate public sentiment accurately, researchers rely on precise operational definitions. Political violence is defined academically and legally as the deployment of physical force strong enough to cause pain or injury, executed with the intent of forwarding a specific political agenda, influencing public policy, or altering governance. This spectrum of behavior ranges widely from the destruction of public or private property to direct threats, physical assault, and homicide targeting ideological opponents, government officials, or public servants.
Beyond the immediate physical and legal consequences for perpetrators and victims, political violence exerts a corrosive, long-term toll on democratic institutions, public mental health, and foundational social stability. In an era where hyper-partisanship frequently dominates media cycles, prognosticators and citizens alike have frequently warned that the United States is treading a dangerous path toward widespread civil conflict. However, public opinion polling on these sensitive topics has historically suffered from methodological vulnerabilities. Prior research, including a notable 2022 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, demonstrated that poorly structured survey questions often artificially inflate apparent public support for partisan violence, misrepresenting abstract rhetorical frustration as concrete willingness to inflict physical harm.
Chronology of the Research Initiative and Survey Methodology
To capture a more reliable and time-sensitive metric of public attitudes, Dr. Wintemute and his interdisciplinary team at UC Davis launched an annual, nationally representative survey project in 2022. The goal was to establish a rigorous baseline and track longitudinal shifts in public sentiment regarding civil conflict, the justification of political violence, and personal behavioral intentions.
Subsequent waves of the survey yielded complex insights. A study published in 2025 revealed that individuals identifying as "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) Republicans were statistically more likely to view political violence as justified under specific conditions compared to other demographic segments, though this theoretical justification did not directly translate to a higher personal willingness to carry out such acts. Following a slight uptick in overall justification measures between 2024 and 2025, researchers anticipated that the volatile political climate of mid-2026—compounded by high-profile government actions regarding mass deportations, isolated incidents of domestic terror such as a mass shooting at a San Diego mosque, and inflammatory political rhetoric—might trigger a further escalation in public appetite for violence.
To test this hypothesis, the research team administered the fifth wave of their annual survey online between May 15 and June 15, 2026. The sample comprised 7,752 adult participants drawn from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a robust, probability-based panel meticulously calibrated to reflect the precise demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic makeup of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population.
The survey instrument evaluated three primary domains: expectations regarding the potential for a future civil war, justifications for utilizing political violence across 21 explicit political objectives (ranging from preserving a specific American way of life and preventing voter fraud to halting illegal immigration and stopping police brutality), and respondents’ self-reported willingness to personally commit violent acts. Furthermore, the 2026 survey introduced a clarifying metric, asking respondents who completely rejected violence to confirm whether their stance was absolute and unconditional.
Comprehensive Data Breakdown: Declining Support Across the Board
The results of the mid-2026 survey defied prevailing pessimistic expectations. Out of 53 distinct survey items tracking anticipation, justification, and personal willingness regarding political violence, 51 demonstrated small average decreases between mid-2025 and mid-2026. Crucially, 35 of these downward shifts achieved statistical significance.
"The general perception is that political violence is common and increasing," Dr. Wintemute stated. "Neither of those things is true. And in our survey respondents, support for political violence fell from 2025 to 2026, across the political spectrum."
When evaluating specific objectives, no single goal commanded the support of more than 13 percent of respondents who felt violence was usually or always justified. Overall, 35.8 percent of participants indicated that violence was justified for at least one of the 21 listed objectives—a significant drop from the 38.7 percent recorded in 2025. Moreover, among the nearly 24 percent of respondents who maintained that violence was never justified for any of the listed objectives, an overwhelming 91 percent confirmed that their rejection was absolute and unconditional.
Personal willingness to engage in physical violence remained exceptionally rare. Among the subset of respondents who believed political violence could sometimes be justified, roughly 2 percent reported being "very or completely willing" to personally damage property, threaten individuals, injure someone, or commit homicide to advance a political aim. Intentions to act either as a lone actor or within a coordinated group also registered declines compared to previous polling cycles.
Firearm ownership and anticipated weapon usage followed a similar downward trajectory. When asked about the likelihood of carrying a firearm in a situation where they deemed political violence justified, 6.7 percent answered in the affirmative, marking a decrease from 9.1 percent in the prior wave. Only 1.5 percent stated it was very or extremely likely they would shoot another person, while a mere 1.1 percent indicated a high likelihood of threatening someone with a firearm. All four firearm-related metrics declined by statistically significant margins.
The only exceptions to this overarching downward trend involved questions surrounding civil war. The proportion of respondents who strongly agreed that a civil war was anticipated in the future rose from 7.1 percent to 8.0 percent. Similarly, the belief that a civil war was necessary to "set things right" edged upward from 3.3 percent to 3.9 percent, though this nominal increase did not reach statistical significance.
Partisan Nuances and Demographic Divides
While national averages pointed toward broad de-escalation, granular analysis of political affiliation revealed persistent ideological discrepancies. Replicating patterns observed in baseline data from 2022 and subsequent studies published in outlets like PLOS One, support for the abstract justification of political violence was notably higher on the political right than on the left.
Specifically, 50.5 percent of MAGA Republicans and 52.5 percent of non-Republican MAGA supporters considered violence usually or always justified to advance at least one political objective, compared to the national average of 35.8 percent. Conversely, partisan alignment shifted when evaluating hyper-specific grievances; for instance, strong Democrats exhibited the highest levels of support for political violence specifically aimed at removing Donald Trump from the presidency.
Among respondents who acknowledged some level of justification for violence, non-Republican MAGA supporters demonstrated a higher theoretical willingness than other groups to commit violence against 12 out of 14 targeted populations, ranking closely behind strong Democrats regarding hostility toward private armed militias and federal immigration agents. Overall, however, downward trends in support cut across ideological lines, even if internal fluctuations within specific partisan sub-groups remained minor.
External Expert Perspectives and Analytical Context
Independent political scientists have praised the rigorous methodology and nuanced design of the UC Davis study. Dr. James Druckman, a professor of political science at the University of Rochester who was not involved in the research, highlighted the study’s critical distinction between abstract justification and actionable intent.
"They differentiate justification from willingness, which is important, and show that very few people are willing to actually engage in violence," Dr. Druckman noted. He praised the survey’s inclusion of non-political violence items—such as self-defense—prior to political questions, which helps mitigate response bias and provides a reliable baseline for human behavioral tendencies.
At the same time, Druckman cautioned against sweeping generalizations, emphasizing that public opinion is inextricably bound to temporal context. He pointed out that baseline data collected in 2022 occurred under unique socio-political conditions—namely, a Democratic administration holding the White House, lingering economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, and historic spikes in civilian firearm purchases. Contextualizing public sentiment requires acknowledging how contemporary events shape survey responses.
Implications for Civil Society and Future Interventions
The implications of these empirical findings extend far beyond academic journals, offering a vital counter-narrative to sensationalized media coverage that often portrays American society on the brink of total domestic collapse.
In an official statement accompanying the release of the mid-2026 data, the study authors emphasized the profound influence of established public norms. "These findings are clear," the researchers wrote. "Entrapment in a spiral of escalating political violence is not inevitable in the United States. Those who promote political violence should recognize that they do not have the public’s support and that promoting violence may exact a political cost."
The authors issued a call to action for civic responsibility, urging citizens who reject political violence to make their positions explicitly known within their families, friend groups, and broader social circles. Cultivating an unambiguous public climate of non-acceptance, they argue, acts as a powerful psychological deterrent against radicalization and behavioral escalation.
Looking ahead, the research team at the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention intends to transition from observational monitoring to actionable intervention. Dr. Wintemute announced that the team is preparing to launch a randomized controlled trial next year evaluating a targeted intervention designed to actively prevent political violence before it manifests. As the United States navigates subsequent electoral cycles and ideological turbulence, empirical tracking suggests that the foundational commitment of the American public to democratic norms and peaceful coexistence remains remarkably resilient.
