1 in 3 Americans Say Violence Against the Government Can Be Justified Amid Fears of Political Schism and the Pandemic

A rising share of Americans now say that using force against their own government can be justified, signaling a profound strain on the country’s political and social fabric. Drawing on recent polling highlighted by the Washington Post and other national surveys, researchers estimate that roughly one in three U.S. adults believe violence against the government may be warranted in certain situations—far higher than in the late 20th century. This trend is closely tied to intensifying partisan hostility, disputes over election legitimacy, and anger over the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Together, these forces are reshaping how many citizens think about power, authority, and the limits of democratic disagreement.

Political violence as a “justified option”: what the new polls reveal

For much of modern U.S. history, the idea that political disputes should be resolved through voting, courts, and peaceful protest enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. That norm is now under visible pressure. Pollsters increasingly find that a sizeable minority of Americans no longer view nonviolence as an absolute principle in politics. Instead, they describe violence as a possible “last resort” if they believe the government has become corrupt, tyrannical, or unresponsive.

This shift is unfolding in a media environment defined by fragmentation and distrust. Americans consume news from sharply divergent partisan outlets, each with its own interpretation of basic facts. Misinformation spreads rapidly on social platforms, while faith in elections, courts, and Congress has fallen to historic lows. As a result, many people now describe their political opponents not as fellow citizens with different priorities, but as existential threats to their way of life. Research on democratic polarization shows that when opponents are seen as dangerous or illegitimate, justifications for political violence become easier to accept.

Analysts argue that these attitudes bring fringe narratives—about “taking the country back” or “saving America” through force—closer to mainstream conversation. Slogans and memes that once appeared primarily in extremist forums are now echoed by prominent commentators, candidates, and influencers, helping to blur the line between metaphorical “battle” and literal confrontation.

Deepening fractures: how underlying divisions magnify support for force

Experts emphasize that mounting acceptance of political violence did not appear overnight. It has grown out of long-running conflicts over race, culture, identity, and economic inequality, now layered atop unprecedented stress from the pandemic and the 24/7 news cycle. These chronic tensions create a sense of volatility that makes extreme options appear more plausible to some.

Several fault lines stand out:

• Partisan distrust has intensified after disputed elections, impeachment battles, and investigations that many voters believe were politically motivated.
• Pandemic-era grievances over lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, and school closures deepened suspicion of public health authorities and elected officials.
• Conspiracy narratives recast ordinary bureaucratic decisions as evidence of a hidden elite determined to strip away freedoms.
• Online radicalization exposes people to extremist content, recruitment networks, and “us versus them” stories that frame violence as heroic defense.

These perceptions erode the core democratic idea that competing parties and viewpoints can alternate in power without threatening the survival of the nation. Once that assumption collapses, every election begins to feel like a zero-sum struggle in which defeat is intolerable—and force becomes easier to rationalize.

Pandemic politics, partisan media, and the fear of government overreach

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated trends that were already underway. Emergency orders, shifting public health guidance, and uneven economic fallout created fertile conditions for narratives of government overreach. For some Americans, especially those whose livelihoods were disrupted, restrictions were not seen as temporary public health measures but as evidence that elected officials and bureaucrats were indifferent to their suffering or actively hostile to their freedoms.

Media ecosystems, increasingly sorted by ideology, amplified these fears in different ways. Conservative outlets and influencers often portrayed lockdowns and mandates as precursors to permanent control, while liberal sources highlighted the dangers of noncompliance and misinformation. Both sides tended to focus on alarming stories—businesses shuttered permanently, overwhelmed hospitals, protests turning violent—feeding a sense of constant crisis.

On social platforms, algorithm-driven feeds rewarded the most provocative content. Isolated incidents, such as a controversial arrest at a protest or a confusing local directive, circulated widely as proof of systemic abuse. In this environment, it became easier for some citizens to view ordinary public health enforcement as the opening act of authoritarian rule and to conclude that only drastic measures could stop it.

• Perceived double standards in how protests, demonstrations, and riots were policed reinforced beliefs that authorities favored one political side over the other.
• Suspicion of public health data, fueled by shifting recommendations and visible political disputes among experts, undermined trust in scientific institutions.
• Anxiety about emergency powers led many to worry that executive authority would not fully recede once the crisis ended.
• Escalating rhetoric by prominent figures—invoking “tyranny,” “dictatorship,” or “civil war”—made discussions of violent resistance more familiar, even when presented hypothetically.

In recent years, these narratives have been reinforced by highly visible flashpoints, from the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol to plots against state officials over pandemic rules. While such events involve a small fraction of the population, they can normalize the idea of confronting government with force in the minds of those already inclined to see politics as a fight for survival.

Collapse of trust in institutions: why citizens are turning away from traditional channels

Survey data from organizations such as Gallup and Pew Research Center show a broad pattern: confidence in Congress, the presidency, the Supreme Court, and national media has fallen or stagnated near historic lows. Economic inequality, gridlock, and high-profile ethical controversies have convinced many Americans that powerful actors operate under different rules than everyone else.

Legislatures often appear paralyzed by partisan conflict, making it difficult to pass major reforms even when problems are widely recognized. Courts are increasingly viewed through a partisan lens, with decisions interpreted as victories or defeats for “red” or “blue” America rather than as neutral applications of law. National media outlets are frequently accused of sensationalism, bias, or indifference to local realities.

In this environment, compromise is frequently portrayed as weakness instead of a normal part of democratic governance. Ordinary policy disagreements are framed like moral battles in which any concession is betrayal. That framing leaves little room for the slow, imperfect processes by which laws are negotiated, budgets are set, and disputes are resolved peacefully.

• Schools have deprioritized civic learning, emphasizing standardized testing in core subjects while giving limited attention to how institutions work, how laws are made, and how citizens can influence them.
• Local media has withered as newspapers close and newsrooms shrink, leaving communities with fewer trusted, on-the-ground sources that can explain government decisions or correct false rumors.
• Online echo chambers reward outrage, allowing users to self-select into communities that confirm their views and attack dissent, making rumors more persuasive than careful reporting.

Without these civic skills, frustrations have fewer constructive outlets. Some citizens come to believe that peaceful channels—petitions, voting, town halls, lawsuits—are either rigged or too slow to matter. In that vacuum, arguments that present violence as a logical response to corruption find a more receptive audience.

Civic education as a tool to counter political extremism

In response to these pressures, a growing number of educators, nonprofits, and policymakers are pushing to revitalize civic education as a practical antidote to democratic backsliding. Their goal is not to revive rote flag-waving or memorize dates, but to provide citizens with real-world skills for navigating conflict, evaluating information, and engaging institutions effectively.

Across the country, school districts and community groups are experimenting with hands-on approaches: mock city council meetings, youth advisory boards, simulations of legislative negotiations, and fact-checking labs that show how to track the origins of viral claims. Participants learn how to file public-records requests, attend hearings, build coalitions, and use lawful protest and advocacy to influence decisions.

By opening “black boxes” of government and media, these initiatives seek to demystify how power actually operates. When people understand how budgets are set, how judges are selected, or how election audits work, it becomes harder to sustain conspiratorial narratives that everything is controlled by a hidden cabal. That knowledge alone does not eliminate anger or injustice, but it expands the menu of peaceful strategies people see as realistic.

The stakes are considerable: when roughly one in three Americans tells pollsters that violence against government might be justified, teaching the nuts and bolts of democracy becomes more than a classroom exercise. It becomes an early warning system and a tool for redirecting anger into participation rather than destruction.

Policy reforms, law enforcement, and community dialogue: reducing the appeal of political violence

Officials at every level of government are under mounting pressure to respond to rising threats against public employees, election workers, and ordinary citizens. Statements condemning violence are increasingly accompanied by specific proposals designed to reduce both the opportunity and the perceived legitimacy of violent action.

Policy experts highlight several avenues for reform:

• Strengthened election safeguards to protect workers, volunteers, and voters from intimidation, including secure facilities, clear protocols for handling threats, and tougher penalties for harassment.
• Improved oversight of extremist activity within law enforcement and military ranks, aimed at preventing those with violent intentions from exploiting official positions.
• Modernized domestic terrorism and hate crime frameworks that address online radicalization, coordinated harassment campaigns, and cross-state extremism without criminalizing lawful dissent.
• Formal protections for public officials such as judges, school board members, and health officers who increasingly face doxxing, stalking, and threats tied to controversial decisions.

At the same time, civil liberties advocates caution that overly aggressive crackdowns can reinforce extremist narratives of persecution and government abuse. To avoid this, they argue that any new tools must be paired with strong accountability and transparency mechanisms—such as independent oversight boards, public reporting on enforcement actions, and regular reviews of whether interventions are actually reducing violence.

• Policy priorities: safeguard elections, curb extremist organizing, protect targeted officials.
• Law enforcement shifts: emphasize prevention, threat assessment, and de-escalation rather than purely reactive, militarized responses.
• Community dialogue: invest in cross-partisan forums, mediation programs, and trusted intermediaries who can help defuse local tensions before they erupt.

Building community infrastructure to prevent escalation

Beyond formal law and policy, cities and towns are experimenting with “soft” infrastructure meant to keep political disagreements from tipping into intimidation or violence. The goal is to create spaces where grievances can be expressed, challenged, and addressed without resorting to threats.

Faith communities, libraries, universities, and neighborhood associations are hosting structured dialogues that bring together people from different ideological backgrounds. Skilled facilitators help participants practice listening, clarify misconceptions, and identify shared concerns, such as public safety, local schools, or economic opportunity. Some initiatives include trainings on how disinformation spreads, how to report credible threats, and where to find reliable sources on controversial topics.

These programs tend to be most effective when they include not only those who trust government, but also those who are skeptical or alienated. When residents can question officials directly—asking, for example, how election machines are tested or what rules govern police use of force—it can chip away at the assumption that the system is impenetrable and rigged.

Practitioners who study conflict resolution stress that no set of laws can succeed on its own if communities remain deeply isolated from one another. Durable reductions in support for political violence require sustained, face-to-face contact across ideological lines, practical tools for addressing grievances, and a shared understanding of the boundaries between protest and coercion.

The way forward for a democracy under strain

The fact that a substantial portion of Americans now sees violence against government as potentially acceptable marks a serious warning sign for the health of U.S. democracy. That view is rooted in a combination of factors: hardening partisan identities, pandemic-era mistrust, long-standing economic and racial divides, and a sharp decline in confidence in key institutions.

Whether these attitudes become a stable feature of political life—or recede as a temporary symptom of crisis—will depend on choices made in the coming years. Elected leaders can either inflame grievances or work to cool them through careful rhetoric and inclusive policymaking. Institutions can either close ranks defensively or open themselves to scrutiny and reform. Citizens can either retreat into suspicion and online echo chambers or reengage in the difficult work of local organizing, civic education, and cross-partisan collaboration.

The emerging research and policy proposals point to a common conclusion: restoring trust will require simultaneous efforts on several fronts—more responsive governance, stronger protections for democratic processes, renewed investment in civic skills, and robust community dialogue. If those efforts falter, the normalization of political violence could become one of the most enduring and dangerous legacies of this era of polarization.