‘What makes the current period unique is the interaction between technology and politics,” John King, a technology strategist and former US government communications engineer, told TML
The deadly shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego has added another case to a widening American debate over political violence, hate crimes, and radicalization in a country already shaken by antisemitic attacks, threats against public officials, the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and repeated attempts to target President Donald Trump.
The San Diego attack, carried out on May 18, 2026, killed three people at the mosque, including security guard Amin Abdullah, who authorities and community members said helped prevent a larger massacre by confronting the attackers and triggering a lockdown that protected children inside the compound. The two attackers, identified in reporting as teenagers Cain Clark, 17, and Caleb Vazquez, 18, later died from apparent self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Investigators said they were examining the shooting as a hate crime and looking at evidence of online radicalization and white supremacist ideology.
The case came less than a year after a series of attacks that have sharpened concerns about whether political and ideological violence is becoming more frequent, more visible, or simply more difficult to contain in an era of fragmented media, online extremism, and declining trust in institutions.
In May 2025, two Israeli Embassy staff members, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, were shot dead outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC. In June 2025, a man attacked participants in a Boulder, Colorado, walk calling for the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza, injuring several people in what the FBI described as a targeted act of terrorism and possible hate crime.
Those attacks were followed in September 2025 by the killing of Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA and one of the most visible conservative activists in the United States. Kirk was shot dead while speaking at Utah Valley University, in what Utah Gov. Spencer Cox called a political assassination. Prosecutors later charged Tyler Robinson with aggravated murder and other offenses, saying sentencing could be enhanced because Kirk was allegedly targeted for his political expression.
The pressure on American institutions intensified again in April 2026, when Cole Tomas Allen was indicted on federal charges, including attempted assassination of President Trump after an armed incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington. The episode followed the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, when Trump was wounded, one rally attendee was killed, and others were injured.
The accumulation of these cases does not mean that all of them belong to one coordinated movement. The motives, ideological references, and operational patterns differ. Some incidents have targeted Jews or Israelis. Others have targeted Muslims. Others have involved politicians, public figures, or state institutions. But the recurrence of violence across ideological and communal lines has created a broader sense of national vulnerability.
John King, a technology strategist and former US government communications engineer who worked on mission-critical command-and-control communications systems supporting senior national leadership, said the current climate reflects several overlapping pressures, including declining institutional trust, fragmented media ecosystems, economic and cultural anxieties, and the speed at which digital platforms circulate information.
“What makes the current period unique is the interaction between technology and politics,” King said to The Media Line. “Artificial intelligence, deepfakes, automated influence campaigns, and algorithmically amplified misinformation can accelerate polarization by making it more difficult for citizens to distinguish fact from manipulation. While political disagreement has always been part of American democracy, the velocity and scale of modern information systems can intensify tensions and shorten the time available for reflection and verification,” he added.
The velocity and scale of modern information systems can intensify tensions and shorten the time available for reflection and verification
The latest cases also come amid high levels of reported hostility toward religious minorities. Jewish and Muslim communities have both reported rising fear, threats, and attacks since the war in Gaza began, while civil rights organizations have warned that hate crimes and bias incidents are increasingly tied to global conflicts, domestic political rhetoric, and online radicalization. These cases also have methodological limits: advocacy groups track reported incidents and complaints, while official hate-crime data depend on law-enforcement reporting, which remains incomplete and voluntary.
For Joe Young, director of the Patterson School of Diplomacy at the University of Kentucky, the recent violence is serious but should also be placed in a historical context.
These violent events are disturbing. And I think connected to larger polarization processes in the country.
“These violent events are disturbing,” Young said to The Media Line. “And I think connected to larger polarization processes in the country. With that said, the amount of violence we are witnessing is not as bad as the 1960s and 1860s. So not historically large numbers of events,” he added.
That historical qualification is important. The United States has gone through periods of far more sustained political violence, including the Civil War era, Reconstruction, the assassinations and racial violence of the 1960s, and earlier waves of extremist activity. But the current period is distinct in the way domestic anger is filtered through digital platforms, partisan identities, and global conflicts that are rapidly imported into American public life.
King said antisemitic attacks, anti-Muslim violence, and politically motivated violence often emerge from different ideologies and grievances, but can still operate within a shared environment of polarization, distrust, and radicalization. He pointed to social media platforms as a key part of that environment because they can expose individuals to grievance-driven content that reinforces existing beliefs and isolates them from competing perspectives.
“Whether the underlying ideology is political, religious, ethnic, or conspiratorial, the mechanisms of radicalization often follow similar patterns: the creation of in-group and out-group identities, the amplification of perceived threats, and the gradual dehumanization of others,” King said.
Young made a similar point in more direct terms, saying perpetrators of political violence often construct an enemy responsible for their grievances.
“Most perpetrators of political violence identify some other for why their current situation is bad,” Young said. “For some people in the US, it could be Jews. For some, Muslims. Or maybe even ICE or members of the current administration. Unfortunately, there are lots of people in the country that someone blames for the challenges we face,” he added.
Unfortunately, there are lots of people in the country that someone blames for the challenges we face
The war in Gaza has become one of the clearest examples of how international conflict can affect domestic tensions. The killing of the two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington and the Boulder attack against a group advocating for hostages showed how events in the Middle East can be translated into violence against civilians or community members in the United States who are not directly connected to the war. At the same time, the San Diego mosque attack emphasized that Muslims are also targets of radicalized violence, particularly from far-right or white supremacist networks.
“Events in the Middle East can also have a direct impact on domestic tensions within the United States,” King said. “Conflicts involving Israel, Gaza, Iran, or other regional actors frequently generate strong emotional reactions that can spill into local communities far removed from the conflict itself. Unfortunately, this can increase hostility toward Jewish, Muslim, Arab, or other communities who have no connection to acts of violence overseas,” he added.
King said the greater danger is that different forms of extremism can begin to reinforce one another, with each incident deepening fear and mistrust and creating a cycle in which one act of violence is used to justify another. For democratic societies, he said, the challenge is preserving the distinction between legitimate political or religious disagreement and intimidation or violence.
Young also linked the Gaza war to radicalization, while distinguishing between different ideological sources of violence.
“The war in Gaza has certainly radicalized some on the left,” Young said. “We have seen attacks in the US and abroad on civilians unconnected to the war. It’s not clear why this mosque in particular was targeted in San Diego. But it seems the teens were flirting with far-right/Nazi propaganda,” he added.
The San Diego case has drawn particular attention because of the alleged role of online spaces. According to reporting based on law enforcement accounts, the attackers met online, left writings expressing hatred toward several groups, and referenced white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideas. The case fits a broader pattern in which young attackers absorb ideological material, tactical inspiration, and performative models of violence from digital subcultures.
Young said the internet has made it easier for isolated individuals to find one another, but he cautioned against portraying online radicalization as an entirely new phenomenon.
“In the San Diego case, these teens met online and planned their violence online,” Young said. “With that said, we saw similar violent events in the US before these online spaces existed. I think what’s different is that it is easier to find like-minded individuals. But as I said, it still happened before these online spaces, the internet, and social media,” he added.
In the San Diego case, these teens met online and planned their violence online
King framed the same issue as a question of speed and scale, rather than direct causation. He said digital platforms accelerate the spread of emotionally charged content and can immerse users in simplified narratives of heroes, villains, victims, and enemies. Most people exposed to such material never become violent, he said, but vulnerable individuals may be repeatedly exposed to extreme messaging, conspiracy theories, dehumanizing language, or calls for retaliation.
“The danger is not that technology directly causes violence, but that it can accelerate radicalization, reinforce grievances, and lower the barriers between online hostility and real-world action,” King said.
The attacks on Trump and the killing of Kirk have added another layer to the debate because they directly target political leadership and political expression. For many Americans, Kirk’s assassination symbolized a breakdown in the boundary between political hostility and physical violence. But Young argued that assassination attempts against presidents and public figures, however alarming, are not without precedent in American history.
I don’t think these are particularly unique or different from the past
“I don’t think these are particularly unique or different from the past,” Young said. “These types of assassinations are horrible, but almost every modern us president has been a target, and some have been killed. Four US presidents have been killed in office, and Reagan, Trump, and Teddy Roosevelt were shot and injured but survived,” he added.
That view does not minimize the danger, but it complicates the narrative that the United States is entering an entirely unprecedented era. What appears different is not only the violence itself, but the surrounding ecosystem: the immediate circulation of images, conspiracies, and accusations; the use of attacks to mobilize supporters; and the speed with which one incident becomes absorbed into broader partisan narratives.
The institutional challenge is therefore twofold. Authorities must prevent attacks by lone actors or small cells that may radicalize quickly and leave few traditional warning signs. At the same time, political leaders, media platforms, schools, religious institutions, and civil society organizations must address the conditions that make violence appear legitimate to a small minority.
King said American institutions have become more aware of threats linked to political violence, hate crimes, and domestic extremism, and that attacks are sometimes disrupted before they occur. But he also warned that traditional security models were largely designed to identify organized groups and coordinated plots, while modern radicalization can develop quickly, often online, and involve individuals with little or no connection to formal extremist organizations.
“The challenge going forward is developing approaches that address not only physical security threats but also the social and technological conditions that can contribute to extremism,” King said. “The long-term objective is not merely to stop individual attacks, but to strengthen societal resilience before violence becomes an option for vulnerable individuals,” he added.
The question of political responsibility is more divisive. Both experts argued that rhetoric from leaders matters, though Young placed particular responsibility on the current president.
“Elites could certainly tone down the rhetoric,” Young said. “Political opponents aren’t enemies. We are all Americans. We all want what’s best for the country, but offer different ways to get there. Unfortunately, our current president is the one who could be the most effective at lowering the political temperature but has not shown a willingness or ability to do so,” he added.
King, without focusing on one political figure, said public language can either contain or intensify a volatile environment.
“Political restraint from public figures is also urgent,” King said. “Leaders cannot control every unstable individual, but they can either lower the temperature or inflame it. Language that dehumanizes opponents, religious communities, immigrants, or political adversaries creates a permissive environment for intimidation and violence. Responsible leadership requires making clear that disagreement is legitimate, but violence and collective blame are not,” he added.
The policy responses are difficult because they touch some of the most polarized areas of American life: guns, speech, policing, online surveillance, hate-crime enforcement, and civil liberties.
King argued that immediate security measures are necessary, but insufficient without longer-term social repair.
“Realistic solutions need to operate on several levels at the same time,” King said. “There is no single policy lever that will solve political violence, antisemitism, anti-Muslim hatred, or extremist radicalization,” he added.
In the near term, King said stronger security for vulnerable religious and community institutions is essential, including better threat reporting channels, closer coordination with law enforcement and practical security support for synagogues, mosques, schools and public venues. But he also emphasized that such measures must remain within constitutional limits and respect free speech and civil liberties.
He pointed to education and community engagement as longer-term tools to rebuild trust before the next crisis.
“Once violence happens, everyone becomes reactive,” King said. “The harder but more effective work is creating relationships in advance so that communities can respond together rather than retreat into fear and suspicion,” he added.
The harder but more effective work is creating relationships in advance so that communities can respond together
King also identified gun policy as one of the most politically difficult issues in any discussion of violence prevention, given the reality of widespread firearm access and deep constitutional, cultural, and partisan divisions in the United States. Measures such as stronger background checks, red-flag laws, and restrictions on access for individuals who present credible threats may be practical from a prevention standpoint, he said, but remain politically difficult.
The United States is not witnessing political violence on the scale of its most violent historical periods. But the current wave has exposed a dangerous convergence: heavily armed individuals, online radicalization, global conflicts imported into domestic identity politics, and public rhetoric that often treats opponents not as rivals but as existential threats.
The San Diego mosque shooting, the antisemitic attacks connected to the Israel-Gaza war, the assassination of Kirk, and the attempted attacks on Trump do not form one single story. They are different events with different victims, ideologies, and perpetrators. But together, they point to the same national vulnerability: a society struggling to maintain democratic disagreement without allowing grievance, identity, and political fear to become a pathway to violence.
