The assassination of Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and close ally of US President Donald Trump, has shocked the United States to its core. For days, every major US media outlet has been consumed by the assassination — and by the same three words: division, polarization, violence.

However, Kirk's assassination is not an isolated tragedy. It is the latest addition to a grim pattern. Trump himself has survived two assassination attempts in the past year. In April, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's residence was set ablaze. In June, two Minnesota legislators were attacked at their home on the very same day, leaving former Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House Melissa Hortman and her husband dead.

The numbers tell a chilling story. Reuters identified last year at least 300 cases of political violence across the US between the Jan 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and the 2024 presidential election, marking the most significant and sustained surge in such violence since the 1970s. In the first half of 2025 alone, roughly 150 such incidents took place — double the number from the same period a year earlier. Violence is becoming routine, shaking public confidence in democracy itself. Members of Congress are canceling events, scaling back public appearances, with some even considering leaving politics altogether.

Kirk's killing seems emblematic of a new political age of terror, in which disagreements calcify into hatred. After the killing of Kirk, Utah Governor Spencer Cox warned that, "When someone takes the life of a person because of their ideas or their ideals, then that very constitutional foundation is threatened."

Political scientist Yascha Mounk uses the term "assassin's veto" to describe violence that silences debate by raising the cost of participation. Not surprisingly, the discussions and debates in the US have shifted from policies to identities, from disagreements over taxes or healthcare to existential battles in which opponents are no longer fellow citizens but enemies.

It is tempting to compare the recent developments to the turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s, but there are crucial differences between the two periods. Back then, in the US South where racism was entrenched, mainstream leaders largely avoided violent rhetoric. Today, notes historian Kevin Boyle, "that's no longer the case". Violence has entered the mainstream. A University of Chicago survey found that 20 percent of US adults openly condone political violence, while 60 percent say it is justified if the other side strikes first.

Perhaps most alarming is the profile of perpetrators. The perpetrators of violence are getting younger. The suspected assassin of Kirk, Tyler Robinson, is just 22. A Georgia polling station gunman was 23. Increasingly, Gen Z is at the center of political bloodshed. According to the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, 34 percent of 68,510 US college students at 257 universities nationwide now support using violence to block certain campus speeches.

The internet is the accelerant. Investigators note Robinson's immersion in extremist online spaces, where political propaganda merged with gaming culture. After Kirk's death, digital platforms instantly became battlefields of hate, revenge and mobilization. Social media's immediacy transforms local violence into a national crisis, and enables extremist networks to coordinate across borders.

The images of Kirk's killing only compounds the danger. Broadcast with cinematic brutality, the assassination scene carried the spectacle of a Hollywood horror film. Its shock value may be unmatched since the assassination of former US president John F. Kennedy. Psychologists warn of the "contagion effect" — one act inspiring imitators, avengers and opportunists. Many fear that more blood will flow given today's political atmosphere when polarization is deep, distrust in institutions high, and violence viral.

The erosion of trust may be the most corrosive outcome of Kirk's killing. Violence thrives when faith in institutions collapses. For years, both the left and the right have undermined confidence in elections, courts, law enforcement and the media. When people view politics as illegitimate and opponents as existential threats, violence will be rationalized.

"We can't solve our problems if we can't talk to each other," warns Jonathan Reiner, a physician to many members of Congress. His question is simple but profound: In today's US, can people still talk without shouting — or shooting?

The author is an associate researcher at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.