Will Past US Election Turbulence Strike Again in 2024?

The 2020 presidential election occurred amid nationwide demonstrations and culminated with the 6 January assault on Capitol Hill. In the following years, a climate of increasing polarization has stoked threats against several communities and prompted the mobilization of militias and militant social movements. Against this backdrop, national news sources and observers warn about the possible threat of political violence in this electoral season.¹ Namely, they point to threats against election officials and judges — such as those received by justices on the Colorado Supreme Court after their ruling that former President Donald Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot for the Colorado Republican primary — as a reason to be concerned.²

But what does political violence in the United States look like, and how is ACLED preparing to monitor trends during the 2024 election cycle?

Few can forget the most recent acts of violence carried out to achieve political goals in the US, especially the attack on the US Capitol. Thousands attended the demonstration on 6 January that ultimately turned deadly, as official reports have now tied several deaths to the event.³ The pictures of the crudely constructed gallows erected by the crowd and chants of “hang Mike Pence,”⁴ or the recordings promising to kill Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,⁵ are now stark reminders of just how close the event was to even more extreme acts of violence. 

History illustrates some extreme examples of political violence in the US — including the politically motivated assassination of Abraham Lincoln to sway the outcome of the Civil War — however, one does not have to look back over 150 years. For more recent examples, consider the political upheaval during the 1960s and 1970s and the actions of groups like the Weather Underground, who were responsible for many bombings — including at the US Capitol, the Pentagon, and the State Department.⁶ During this time, violence and extremism were primarily rooted in left-wing ideology.⁷ 

The trajectory of political violence underwent a notable transformation during the 1980s and 1990s, as the predominant actors shifted from left-wing perpetrators characteristic of the 1960s and 1970s to a surge in incidents perpetrated by right-wing groups. This transition also brought about a drastic change in the type and focus of the violence. Violence committed by the groups in the 1960s and 1970s was primarily against property and done to bring attention to social, environmental, or animal rights causes, whereas groups in the 1980s increasingly targeted people and symbols associated with the government. The rise in white supremacist groups, militia groups, and anti-abortion violence throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s — including the deadly bombing in 1995 that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more — was in some ways a reaction to the more liberal movements initiated in the previous decades. 

Today, far-right groups continue to account for a disproportionate share of political violence and militant mobilization across the US. As illustrated by previous ACLED research on the 2020 presidential elections and 2022 midterm elections, the activity of militia groups in the run-up to the 2020 elections constituted a prelude to the assault on Capitol Hill. While arrests have decapitated the leadership of some of the most active militia groups, such as the Proud Boys, local branches of these movements continue to operate across the US. A recent estimate suggests that 3% of the US population support the use of violence as a means to advance political goals.⁸ Further evidence suggests that those with extreme political or ideological perspectives are more likely to support or engage in political violence when compared to those with more politically moderate views.⁹ 

In addition to these findings, recent survey results show that Christian Evangelical Republicans are overrepresented among those who support political violence, a testament to the ideologies behind such support. Many have pointed to the rise in Christian nationalism, a form of “political theology that fuses American identity with an ultra-conservative strain of Christianity.”¹⁰ While Christian nationalism is not new, the resurgence of the movement, in combination with its mainstream popularity, helps to differentiate modern political violence from what has been found in the past. On the left, by contrast, the activity of protest movements in US cities has waned under Joe Biden’s presidency, although a surge in right-wing activity may prompt a resurgence in the proportions seen during 2020. 

ACLED’s coverage of the US provided critical insights into the turbulent run-up to, and aftermath of, the 2020 vote. The initial pilot project, launched in mid-2019, became a permanent commitment as political unrest rose fast in 2020, fuelled by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, record-high levels of mass shootings,¹¹ increasing hate crimes,¹² and police killings disproportionately targeting Black men.¹³ Between 2020 and 2023, ACLED records nearly 60,000 demonstration events in more than 4,500 distinct locations across the US, including over 22,000 events in 2020 alone. ACLED data helped shed light on the nature and dynamics of protest and violence in the US, informing policymakers, civil society, and the media.

Tracking Violence and Protest with the US Crisis Monitor

Ahead of the 5 November 2024 elections, ACLED is relaunching the US Crisis Monitor to produce monthly in-depth reporting on key election-related themes and explain how they may impact trends of violence in the US. A data dashboard allows users to visualize demonstration trends and militia activity, singling out key states, themes, and groups. ACLED’s monthly Regional Overviews will likewise continue to provide an up-to-date outline of the most significant demonstration and militia activity.

There are several elements that could increase the risk of political unrest leading up to the 2024 election. For example, the Supreme Court is set to hear a number of cases that could have drastic impacts on political activity in the US. One such case could impact access to the abortion medication mifepristone. The Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by a lower court in Texas, and it is expected that the court will have a decision by summer.¹⁴ Similar to the increase in abortion-related protests after the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the court’s decision regarding the availability of mifepristone could potentially lead to an increase in protest activity. Indeed, in recent years, ACLED has shown how abortion has been a powerful driver of mobilization on both the left and the right.

Beyond the court’s decision to hear an abortion-related case, a recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court allows Alabama couples to sue for wrongful death after an accident that destroyed frozen embryos at a storage facility.¹⁵ In light of the court ruling, clinics across Alabama paused in vitro fertilization procedures.¹⁶ Abortion rights advocates have said that they hope that this ruling helps galvanize support for protecting access to abortion and reproductive rights.¹⁷ That said, dramatic increases in reproductive rights protests have not materialized thus far, raising questions about how the potential for massive protests related to these and other issues compares to recent years. 

The coming months could also drive an increase in protest activity among supporters of LGBTQ+ rights. The recent death of Nex Benedict, a nonbinary student in Oklahoma, combined with continued concern over legislative threats to LGBTQ+ people, could lead to an increase in protest activity.¹⁸ For example, students from Owasso school, where Benedict was a student, recently walked out in protest over what they claim is little accountability for bullying within the school. Previously, ACLED has reported on the increase in anti-LGBTQ+ mobilization, including violence against the LGBTQ+ community. The increase reported by ACLED was, at the time, the largest increase in anti-LGBTQ+ mobilization since the start of data collection. Further, the report shows that the type of mobilization is more violent than in previous years. This increase in anti-LGTBQ+ sentiment is likely to continue throughout the 2024 election cycle as politicians, such as Trump, continue to use anti-LGBTQ+ language to rally conservative Christian supporters.¹⁹ 

Unfounded claims of widespread election fraud, voiced most notably by former President Trump, have also raised concerns over the safety of poll workers and election officials. Reuters has reported threats to many US local administrators since 2021, with law enforcement often proving unable to ensure their security.²⁰ A September 2021 investigation found that over a hundred threats were made to election workers, and only a handful resulted in arrest.²¹ Judges involved in Trump cases are similarly facing a wave of threats.²² While federal and local authorities have provided increased protection against foreign interference and domestic threats,²³ inflammatory rhetoric from candidates may heighten the risks of intimidation and targeted violence against election workers and judicial officials.

Lastly, the continued Israel-Gaza conflict has spurred protests across the US, with many calling for a ceasefire.²⁴ At a recent protest in Washington, DC, attendees held up signs and urged Biden to end his support for Israel. In addition to the rise in protests, the FBI has warned that there has been an increase in antisemitism and religion-based hate crimes. FBI Director Christopher Wray has suggested that the increase in these crimes can be linked to anger over the ongoing conflict in Gaza.²⁵ 

These examples of ongoing political uncertainty and unrest may point to a political climate that is poised for additional tensions during the 2024 election cycle. In 2020, societal upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement contributed to exacerbated political polarization. However, the impact of 6 January, the ‘Stop the Steal’ protests, and increased threats to election poll workers have many Americans bracing for a potentially tumultuous election cycle. Despite the concerns for violence, it is unclear whether and how these tensions will play out in actual political violence across the US. However, ACLED is well-positioned to bring critical insights to the upcoming election year and all the uncertainties to come.