SCOTT DETROW, HOST:
One year ago, as he campaigned in Butler, Pennsylvania, a bullet grazed President Trump's ear.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: As you already know, the assassin's bullet came within a quarter of an inch of taking my life.
DETROW: A year later, the exact motives of the shooter remain murky. But that near assassination was a defining moment in a race that Trump ultimately won. And it's also part of a broader ongoing story, a story about an increase in violence in American politics, including a second assassination attempt against Trump later that summer, an arson attack against Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and his family earlier this year. And within the past few weeks...
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
TIM WALZ: We're here today because an unspeakable tragedy has unfolded in Minnesota. My good friend and colleague, Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were shot and killed early this morning in what appears to be a politically motivated assassination.
DETROW: ...Minnesota Governor Tim Walz promising accountability for the deaths of a former Minnesota House speaker and her husband, who were shot and killed by a gunman who also shot another Democratic lawmaker and his wife. Threat assessment cases compiled by the U.S. Capitol Police have risen for the second year in a row, with the total number more than doubling since 2017. A just-released Senate report outlines the Secret Service's failures in the run-up to that assassination attempt on President Trump last summer. And at times, political violence is starting to feel as pervasive as school shootings. But what do we know about what is driving this anger? Joining us to talk about it is Katherine Keneally, the director of Threat Analysis and Prevention at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
KATHERINE KENEALLY: Thanks for having me.
DETROW: You know, as I said, and as I think we all feel and see, violence against politicians is becoming more commonplace. But what do we know about whether politicians are being targeted for what they specifically have done and stood for and are trying to pass legislatively?
KENEALLY: It's become pretty murky in that we don't always know exactly what they were being targeted for. I think in many of these incidents, especially when you see a public official being targeted, it's - the immediate reaction is to think that it was a politically motivated attack, and often it is. But when you look into the individual and their motivations, what we're often seeing is that the reason for targeting that specific individual is unclear.
DETROW: Right. I mean, Thomas Crooks, for example, who's the person who tried to shoot and kill Trump in Butler, it just seems incredibly unclear, based on the traces we see, of any political motivation there was.
KENEALLY: Absolutely. I mean, to this day, we still don't really know what the motivation, if really any political motivation, was behind the attack.
DETROW: How does your group identify and catalog violent actions with assumed political motivations?
KENEALLY: We look to better understand how the online environment is influencing offline violence. And so after an attack, what we will do is conduct an analysis looking at social media, open source, court records to make an assessment as to whether an attack was politically or ideologically motivated. And so what we've done is we've acquired a fairly large dataset over the last year, looking at better understanding what has been behind attacks that appear ideologically motivated or are tied to some sort of online radicalization to better understand what the threat landscape is today.
DETROW: Are there any trends of what people are doing and saying and searching for online and political violence that you've seen in these cases you've studied?
KENEALLY: In many of these cases we've studied, we are seeing a trend in that, often, the attackers aren't fitting into any traditional extremist box or ideology. When we had the horrific attacks in Buffalo, New York, or in New Zealand many years ago, those were very clear attacks that were motivated by white supremacy. They fit into these very clear, traditional extremism lenses. What we're often seeing now is that it has become much more hybridized, that the individuals who are conducting attacks or plotting to conduct attacks are not fitting into any traditional extremist bucket. They might be engaging with a variety of extremist ideologies online or are motivated by various conspiracy theories more broadly.
DETROW: Have you seen any changes in any tightening of the relationship between what happens online and then what happens in real life when people try to carry out these attacks over the past decade? I'm just thinking about how much social media has changed in recent years.
KENEALLY: When we are looking for a motivation after an attack, social media is the first place that not just researchers but often law enforcement will go to to better understand the motivations behind it because what we're seeing is that the contents that people are engaging with is often representative of their motivation for committing violence in the first place.
DETROW: Is there anything that you're seeing, observing that you think some sort of broad steps could be taken to try to mitigate this, whether it's the initial online behavior, whether it's the radicalization, whether it's the point where people try to carry these attacks out? Like, what are you thinking about this?
KENEALLY: We are adjusting and tailoring our prevention and response models to this threat around the threat that exists today because unfortunately the existing definitions that we use to counter this threat aren't applying. We're seeing attacks where the motivation is unclear and people aren't fitting into these traditional ideological categories. We can't be reliant upon our existing systems that are based on that to do anything about it.
DETROW: Right.
KENEALLY: Often what people are asking, like, what can people do right now? I think one, we need to determine as a society what we're willing to deal with when it comes to social media. Again and again, we're seeing that it is influencing acts of violence, and we need to make a decision about whether we're OK with that. And the second is this highlights the importance of bystander reporting because often what we see with these particular incidents are there have been leakages - be it online or they're speaking to a family or friends - and that information isn't always being reported to law enforcement. It seems a little bit silly, but, you know, the see something, say something model is also important to addressing this threat.
DETROW: That was Katherine Keneally with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, joining us from Montana. Thanks so much for talking.
KENEALLY: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF PAUL EPWORTH SONG, "VOYAGER 2") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
