Americans say politically motivated violence is increasing, and they see many reasons why – Pew Research Center

Analysis of Perceived Political Violence in the U.S. and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goal 16

A recent study indicates a widespread perception among the U.S. population that politically motivated violence is increasing. This trend poses a significant challenge to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16), which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The findings highlight deep societal divisions that undermine the principles of peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Key Findings on Perceptions of Political Violence

Widespread Concern Over Increasing Violence

The data reveals a national consensus on the rise of politically motivated violence, a direct threat to SDG Target 16.1, which calls for a significant reduction in all forms of violence.

• 85% of U.S. adults believe that politically motivated violence is increasing.
• This view is held consistently across the political spectrum, with 86% of Republicans and Republican-leaners and 85% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners in agreement.
• Only 3% of respondents perceive a decrease in such violence.

Partisan Divides on the Sources of Extremism

While there is agreement on the rise of violence, sharp partisan disagreements exist regarding the primary sources of extremism. This polarization undermines the social cohesion necessary for building the strong and inclusive institutions envisioned in SDG 16.6 and 16.7.

1. Overall View: Just over half of Americans view left-wing extremism (53%) and right-wing extremism (52%) as major problems for the country.
2. Republican Perspective: 77% of Republicans identify left-wing extremism as a major problem, while only 27% say the same about right-wing extremism.
3. Democratic Perspective: Conversely, 76% of Democrats view right-wing extremism as a major problem, compared to 32% who identify left-wing extremism as such.
4. Non-aligned Extremism: Extremism from individuals without clear political views is considered a major problem by 49% of Republicans and 47% of Democrats.

Identified Drivers of Political Violence and Their Relation to SDG 16

Respondents identified several key reasons for the increase in politically motivated violence. These factors directly impede progress toward a peaceful and just society as outlined in SDG 16.

Primary Causal Factors

• Partisan Rhetoric: The most common explanations cited were the rhetoric and behavior of opposing political groups. 28% of Democrats mentioned President Trump, Republicans, or the MAGA movement, while 16% of Republicans cited Democrats or liberals. This antagonistic rhetoric erodes trust and hinders the development of inclusive institutions (SDG 16.6).
• Political Polarization: 11% of respondents identified stark partisan divides as a primary cause. This deep division is a barrier to the responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making called for in SDG Target 16.7.
• Unwillingness to Engage: 10% of Americans believe a lack of understanding and unwillingness to engage with those holding different views contributes to violence. This failure in civil discourse is antithetical to the goal of fostering peaceful societies.
• Normalization of Violence: 9% of respondents stated that a general acceptance or normalization of violence is a contributing factor, directly challenging the core objective of SDG 16.1 to reduce violence.
• Media Influence: Social media (6%) and traditional media (6%) were also cited as reasons for political violence. The media environment’s role in disseminating information is critical to SDG Target 16.10 (ensure public access to information), and its perceived contribution to violence highlights a significant challenge.

Methodology

The analysis is based on a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

• Sample Size: 3,445 U.S. adults.
• Survey Period: September 22-28, 2025.
• Panel: Participants are members of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), recruited via national, random sampling of residential addresses.
• Administration: Interviews were conducted online or by telephone.
• Weighting: The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population based on gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, and other demographic factors.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article directly addresses the core themes of SDG 16, which aims to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development.” The central topic is the rise of “politically motivated violence” and “violent extremism” in the United States. The survey data showing that 85% of Americans believe such violence is increasing highlights a significant challenge to peace and security within the nation. Furthermore, the discussion on “partisan polarization,” the perception of political opponents as “the ‘enemy’,” and the “unwillingness to engage with/understand those with different views” points to a breakdown in the fabric of an inclusive society, which is a key objective of this goal.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere

• This target is directly relevant as the article’s primary focus is on “politically motivated violence.” The text explicitly mentions violent acts, such as the “murder of conservative political commentator and activist Charlie Kirk” and “recent attacks on both Republican and Democratic elected officials.” The survey’s finding that an overwhelming majority of Americans perceive an increase in this type of violence underscores the urgency of addressing this target.

Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels

• The article’s detailed analysis of partisan division connects directly to this target. The concept of inclusive and participatory decision-making is undermined when large segments of the population view each other with extreme prejudice. The article notes that “partisans see bigger problems on the other side,” with 77% of Republicans viewing left-wing extremism as a major problem and 76% of Democrats viewing right-wing extremism as a major problem. This deep division, described as “partisan polarization” and an “unwillingness to engage,” hinders the collaborative and representative processes necessary for strong, functional institutions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Implied Indicators for Target 16.1

• Perception of violence: The article provides a direct metric for public perception of safety and violence. The finding that “85% say politically motivated violence is increasing” serves as a powerful indicator of the public’s sense of security and the prevalence of violence in the political sphere. A decrease in this percentage over time would indicate progress.
• Prevalence of extremism as a problem: The survey measures the percentage of the population that views extremism as a problem. The data points that “53% of Americans see left-wing” and “52% see right-wing” extremism as major problems can be used as indicators. Progress would be marked by a reduction in these figures, suggesting a decrease in the societal conditions that foster violence.

Implied Indicators for Target 16.7

• Perception of partisan polarization: The article identifies “partisan polarization” as a key reason for violence, with 11% of respondents citing it. This percentage can serve as an indicator of the perceived inclusivity of the political system. A respondent is quoted saying, “we don’t see each other as people but as the ‘enemy,’” which directly reflects a lack of inclusivity.
• Willingness to engage with different views: The survey identifies “unwillingness to engage with/understand those with different views” as a reason for violence, cited by 10% of the population. This metric can be used to track the level of dialogue and inclusivity in society. A decrease in this percentage would suggest an improvement in participatory attitudes.
• Partisan blame for violence: The data showing that 28% of Democrats blame the rhetoric of Republicans and 16% of Republicans blame the rhetoric of Democrats for violence is an indicator of deep institutional distrust and a lack of a shared sense of national community, which is essential for inclusive decision-making.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: pewresearch.org