The hype across media about the prospect of another U.S. civil war needs a response. As a researcher on terrorism and mass shootings, I take note of things like a major Hollywood movie on the subject. But when even the staid magazine Foreign Policy felt compelled to run a series of articles addressing the possibility, things have gotten bad. One of those articles even noted that civil war would be bad for the economy. Indeed, it would.
Given the narratives, it's no surprise that, in a recent poll, a quarter of Americans expressed at least some worries that a new civil war will start after the presidential election. However, what does the evidence show? I believe that if the United States were on the brink of civil war, it's safe to assume that the level of political violence in the country would be far higher than it is.
Mass attacks on the U.S. public are rare, given the size of the country. The FBI documented 50 active shooting incidents in 2023, and few appear to have been motivated by partisan divisions.
RAND studies looking at over 600 plots for mass attacks found that, historically, close to two-thirds were personally motivated, driven by factors like local grievance, desire for infamy, delusion, and so forth. Of the remainder, around one-fifth were al Qaeda– or ISIS-motivated. Less than one-fifth were attributable to domestic political agendas.
Even the would-be assassin who shot former President Trump in July appears to have been in search of a celebrity target, rather than a political one. The shooter looked at opportunities to attack in general and chose the Butler, Pennsylvania rally out of convenience.
If the U.S. were on the brink of civil war, it's safe to assume that the level of political violence in the country would be far higher than it is.
Outside of mass attempts to kill, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data organization notes that incidents of political violence carried out by domestic extremists are down by more than 80 percent since 2020. There were fewer than 10 across the United States during the first eight months of 2024.
Reports of Americans' support of political violence in general appear to be inflated. The think tank Populace conducted a survey that gave Americans privacy so they would be comfortable revealing what they really thought about sensitive issues; it then compared those answers with what they were willing to tell interviewers directly. Some 20 percent told interviewers that it may be necessary to resort to political violence, but, when given privacy, only four percent reported really feeling that way. It is a sad situation that today's U.S. political and information environment apparently is driving Americans to lie about supporting political violence, even when they don't.
According to other recent survey data, Americans on both sides of the political spectrum said they are not interested in subverting democracy. Further, the primary motivation for the fraction who do support anti-democratic measures is to retaliate against political opponents who they believe—you guessed it—are working to undermine American democracy.
So, what can be done?
First, understand that Americans, regardless of party, want nothing to do with this civil war stuff, or shredding democracy. And most believe that a civil war is highly unlikely.
Second, recognize what is out of control in America today: hoax threats of violence. Congress alone has had to deal with close to 10,000 threats of violence a year recently, and local election officials have had a one in six chance of receiving a violent threat. A campaign against hoax threats is needed, like those on the importance of not making bomb threats in airports after 9/11.
Third, mitigate the risks of those rare, violent attacks that do happen. Know the main warning signs of a potential mass attack plot, such as when someone demonstrates intent to attack or takes concrete actions toward attacking, and where to report them. Learn what to do in the event of an active shooter or other mass attack, commonly known as “Run, Hide, Fight,” or “Avoid, Deny, Defend.”
Taking steps to prevent and prepare for violence always makes sense, but it should not be viewed as a suggestion that the U.S. is on the brink of civil war.
From a policy perspective, improving how we deter and dissuade people from carrying out acts of violence could help. This could include developing indicators and training to better detect those attempting to acquire guns to carry out acts of violence. More training and support is also needed for school authorities, law enforcement, mental health providers, social service workers, and others whose jobs include assessing those who may be considering violence.
Other initiatives could include training for security personnel and the public on how to prevent and protect against mass attacks, wider adoption of layered models of security to make it less likely that attacks succeed, and funding for buildings to implement security basics such as improved door locks, window protections, and on-site medical resources.
Taking steps to prevent and prepare for violence always makes sense, but it should not be viewed as a suggestion that the United States is on the brink of civil war. Don't believe—or spread—these false narratives.
