Assassination in The Age of Anxiety: The Murder of Public Figures is Increasing
Kristian Alexander argues that political assassination, once primarily aimed at heads of state, has re-emerged globally and now targets a far wider range of public figures. Driven by polarization, weakened institutions, and online radicalization, attackers range from lone actors to organized criminals. The article calls for layered prevention, such as enhanced threat assessment, mental-health intervention, digital security, and community engagement, to safeguard political leaders, journalists, and activists in an increasingly volatile political climate.
In July 2022, former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was fatally shot while delivering a campaign speech in Nara, a shocking act in a country with some of the world’s lowest levels of gun violence. Just two years later, in May 2024, Colombian senator Miguel Uribe was gunned down in Bogotá, part of a disturbing pattern in a country where political figures are increasingly targeted by both insurgents and criminal groups. These killings are not isolated tragedies but symptoms of a wider global resurgence in political assassination.
According to the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT), the number of reported assassination attempts worldwide has risen by more than 30 percent over the past decade, targeting not just heads of state but also local officials, journalists, and activists. In an era marked by rising political polarization and eroding public trust, assassinations are no longer rare events. Once largely confined to the highest echelons of power, today’s attacks increasingly strike across a broader spectrum of public figures.
Historical Trends: The Rise, Fall, and Resurgence of Political Murder
Political assassinations emerged in waves during periods of political upheaval and ideological conflict. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 infamously triggered World War I, establishing a grim precedent for the destabilizing power of targeted political violence. The decades that followed saw further high-profile killings each situated within broader contexts and with different motivations behind them.
Leon Trotsky in 1940, Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, John F. Kennedy in 1963, and Benazir Bhutto in 2007 were all assassinated amid forces of decolonization, superpower rivalry, and regime fragility—acts driven by strategic calculation or ideological hostility, with state actors, insurgent groups, and lone individuals alike seeking to eliminate figures seen as existential threats or potent symbols of opposition.
Following the Cold War’s end, there was a temporary decline in political assassinations, coinciding with a wave of democratization and the strengthening of international norms. However, there has been a resurgence in these killings in the early part of the 21st century, an era marked by rising political polarization, weakened institutions, growing ideological extremism, and the erosion of traditional gatekeeping mechanisms such as mainstream media or political parties. Importantly, the profile of assassination targets has also expanded. Victims now include mid-level politicians, local government officials, journalists, activists, and even influencers with large public followings. This reflects the broader diffusion of political power in the digital age, where individuals outside the highest echelons of government can shape discourse and become targets as a result.
Two examples demonstrate this shifting landscape. The 2022 assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe shocked the people of Japan, who have some of the world’s lowest levels of gun violence. Abe was shot during a public campaign speech by Tetsuya Yamagami, who harboured deep resentment against the Unification Church, which he blamed for his family’s financial ruin, and targeted Abe due to his support for the group. The attack revealed how personal resentment can intersect with political symbolism, creating conditions for lethal violence.
In contrast, the 1986 assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme took place in a Cold War context and remained unsolved for over three decades, fuelling widespread speculation. Palme’s progressive foreign policy positions and criticism of apartheid and U.S. militarism made him a controversial figure at home and abroad. Although Swedish authorities ultimately named a likely suspect posthumously in 2020, the case’s long-standing ambiguity underscores how political murders can become entangled in conspiracy and mistrust. Together, these cases illustrate how political assassination is no longer strictly the realm of spies or rebel groups, but increasingly involves aggrieved individuals acting alone or on behalf of diffuse ideological causes.
Profiling the New Assassins: Why Political Assassinations Are Expanding and Who Commits Them
Historically reserved for heads of state or revolutionary leaders, assassins have widened the scope of their targets. Individuals outside the top echelons of government now shape discourse and policy, and often become lightning rods for public anger. The political landscape is increasingly polarized, and the discourse often defaults to the demonization of opponents. Institutional decay has eroded the legitimacy of democratic processes and made political violence appear justifiable to some actors. In highly fragmented societies with weak governance, assassinations become strategic tools, used to eliminate rivals, suppress dissent, or assert dominance, especially during electoral transitions or periods of protest. In places like Mexico and Colombia, for instance, local mayors and council members are frequently targeted by criminal cartels. These killings are often carried out by professional hitmen, known as sicarios, or gang members, who act on orders from organized crime bosses to silence reformers or maintain territorial control.
The motivations driving assassins range from ideological radicalization to personal grievance, psychological instability, or a craving for recognition. One recurring profile is that of the “lone wolf,” often socially isolated individuals who exhibit deep-seated frustrations, personal failures, or mental health challenges. These actors typically operate outside formal organizations but are heavily influenced by online radicalizing content, conspiratorial narratives, and social alienation. Jared Lee Loughner, who attempted to kill U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in 2011, was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and believed the government was manipulating language and currency. His case highlights how delusional beliefs can be projected onto public figures perceived as symbolic antagonists. Others, such as James Hodgkinson, who opened fire on Republican congressmen during a baseball practice in 2017, were ideologically motivated, expressing intense political dissatisfaction through targeted violence. In some cases, attackers seek revenge against perceived injustices, as was the case with Abe’s assassination. Assassins also include ideologically charged foreign nationals, such as Michael Sandford, a British citizen who attempted to disarm a police officer at a Donald Trump rally in 2016 with the intent of assassinating the then-candidate. In fragile or conflict-ridden states, assassins may be state-affiliated agents or operatives hired by political factions and organized crime syndicates.
Across these varied profiles, common psychological patterns emerge: a sense of personal insignificance, a desperate quest for meaning, and a perceived or real grievance, be it political, religious, or economic. For some, the act is a desperate attempt to gain attention, to prove themselves, and to achieve a sense of significance in a world that they perceive as having rejected them. These individuals may develop elaborate fantasies of their “heroic deed,” viewing the assassination not just as retribution, but as a redemptive act. The fusion of personal inadequacy, exposure to extremist narratives, and media amplification has lowered the threshold for political violence and widened the range of perpetrators and potential targets. In short, today’s political assassins are no longer solely agents of state power or insurgency. They may be lone actors, disgruntled citizens, or professional killers acting for hire, all responding to a volatile mix of grievance, ideology, and personal pathology.
The Security Riddle: How Do You Protect Anyone When Everyone is a Target?
Traditionally, protective security protocols were concentrated around heads of state, senior ministers, and royal families. However, the expanding range of potential targets now demands a broader mandate. In many democratic societies, especially during election cycles or heightened social unrest, state security agencies are increasingly required to protect governors, parliamentarians, municipal leaders, judges, and even politically active journalists and campaign staff.
Recent years have underscored this vulnerability: in Mexico, dozens of local mayors and council members have been assassinated by drug cartels seeking to maintain territorial control. In Slovakia, investigative journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée were murdered in 2018 after his reporting on political corruption; and in the United States, the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords during a constituent event revealed the exposure of legislators who operate without permanent security details. This widening of protective responsibilities strains already limited resources and raises logistical challenges, particularly in systems where thousands of public figures operate with minimal or no security.
Assassination threats also exert a profound psychological toll. Persistent fears of targeted violence create a chilling effect on political participation. Emerging leaders, especially women, minorities, and activists from marginalized communities, may be discouraged from entering public life, fearing that visibility comes with lethal consequences. Political campaigns and grassroots movements suffer when threats of political violence deter engagement. In societies where such attacks are met with inadequate responses, or where perpetrators are perceived to act with impunity, public confidence in the state’s ability to maintain law and order erodes. This further polarizes societies, especially when conspiracy theories or accusations of state complicity accompany these incidents.
Political assassinations can ignite cycles of retaliation and escalate into broader political violence, especially in more fragile societies. The killing of a local official or prominent activist can also serve as a flashpoint for unrest. Digital media has magnified these risks. The speed and reach of violent imagery and inflammatory commentary can rapidly turn a targeted attack into a national or global event, increasing tensions and potentially inciting copycat acts.
When violence becomes an accepted method to influence political outcomes, the principles of civil discourse and institutional legitimacy come under threat. Societies where assassinations go unpunished risk entering a dangerous cycle where power is determined not by ballots or debate, but by bullets.
Mitigation Strategies and Preparedness
In light of the evolving threat landscape posed by political assassinations, mitigation requires a proactive, layered strategy that blends intelligence, physical security, digital resilience, and community engagement. Most importantly, governments must improve their threat-assessment capabilities by investing in interagency coordination and real-time information sharing across law enforcement, security services, and public health sectors.
The inclusion of public health is critical because many would-be attackers exhibit underlying mental health struggles, social isolation, or behavioural disorders that intersect with political grievance. Early intervention, counselling, and community-based mental health programs can help defuse risks before they escalate into violence. A particular focus should be placed on detecting the behavioural warning signs exhibited by lone actors, who often operate outside formal networks yet leave digital footprints. Social media monitoring units, when used within strict legal and ethical bounds, can help flag individuals displaying threatening behaviour. However, clear boundaries and oversight mechanisms are essential. Without transparency and accountability, such tools risk being misused to target political opponents or ordinary citizens who merely express dissenting views, thereby eroding public trust and undermining democratic freedoms. To balance security with civil liberties, behavioural threat assessment teams (BTATs), which bring together psychologists, law enforcement, and counterterrorism experts, should be institutionalized within national security frameworks but subject to independent review to ensure proportionality and rights protection.
Personal security and situational awareness training must become standard for all public figures, not just presidents and cabinet officials, but also governors, legislators, journalists, campaign staff, and even prominent activists. Training should include threat recognition, evacuation protocols, event planning security, and digital hygiene, particularly for those who operate without protective details. Since many attacks occur in open, public venues, campaign events, town halls, or casual street interactions, soft targets must be hardened without undermining democratic accessibility. This includes visible and covert surveillance, controlled entry points, advanced site reconnaissance, and the presence of plainclothes security agents. For especially contentious events or figures who have received credible threats, coordination with local law enforcement and private security firms should be mandatory.
Third, community-based early intervention programs are essential in preventing attacks before they occur. These programs should combine grievance redress mechanisms, mental health support, deradicalization counselling, and conflict mediation. Individuals experiencing psychological distress or radicalization often exhibit escalating behaviours such as social withdrawal, issuing threats of violence, or developing an unhealthy fixation on a public figure, warning signs that can be recognized by family members, coworkers, or online communities. Governments must create safe, non-punitive pathways for reporting such concerns, thereby empowering communities to act as early warning systems. For example, in 2018, U.S. Secret Service threat-assessment teams intervened after a Maryland teenager posted detailed threats online against a member of Congress. Because his behaviour was flagged early, law enforcement, psychologists, and school officials were able to coordinate an intervention that prevented escalation, underscoring how structured, community-linked threat assessment can defuse potential violence before it materializes.
Digital resilience is also critical in an age where threats frequently escalate online. Public figures are regularly targeted through doxxing, harassment, and death threats on social media. As such, training in digital security, such as password protection, metadata scrubbing, private information shielding, and use of encrypted communication, should be integrated into official and campaign operations. Cybersecurity units should be tasked with monitoring online threats in real time, particularly during election cycles or periods of public unrest.
Finally, psychological preparedness and post-incident protocols are vital. Assassination attempts, even when unsuccessful, can have traumatic and long-lasting effects. Elected officials and high-profile figures should have access to resilience-building programs, trauma counselling, and structured debriefings. Public communication strategies must also be prepared in advance to help political institutions and the media respond responsibly, avoiding panic or the amplification of extremist messaging. Furthermore, institutional reviews and independent audits, similar to those following the 2024 attempted assassination of Donald Trump, should be mandated after any major security failure. These reviews are essential not only for accountability but also for adapting and improving future protective measures.
Dr. Kristian Alexander is a Senior Fellow and Lead Researcher at the Rabdan Institute for Security & Defence Research, Abu Dhabi, UAE. He is an adviser at Gulf States Analytics, a Washington-based geopolitical risk consultancy. He previously worked as a Senior Fellow at Trends Research & Advisory (Abu Dhabi) and before that as an Assistant Professor at the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Photo by Alex Andrews
