logo
[Alex Hinton] Trump's America Is a tinderbox

[Alex Hinton] Trump's America Is a tinderbox

Korea Herald14-07-2025
'Bomb threat! You need to exit — now,' a security officer shouted at me as I observed the Principles First conference, a gathering of moderate Republicans in Washington, on Feb. 22. Moments later, we learned that the threat had come from an untraceable email claiming that four pipe bombs had been planted 'to honor the J6 hostages recently released by Emperor Trump.'
Sadly, I wasn't surprised. Just days earlier, former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and other insurrectionists pardoned by President Donald Trump for crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol had been celebrated as heroes at the Conservative Political Action Conference, a major gathering of Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. As one of them boasted at the event, 'We're like gods.'
During the conference, Tarrio led a group back to the US Capitol, where they chanted, 'Whose house? Our house!' He was later arrested for assaulting a protester. After his release, Tarrio traveled to the Principles First venue, where he verbally harassed Michael Fanone, the former Washington police officer who was severely injured while defending the Capitol during the insurrection.
As an anthropologist who studies political violence, I see these events as a sign that the United States is in serious trouble. In my 2021 book "It Can Happen Here," I argued that bad actors are increasingly emboldened, heightening the risk of politically motivated violence. That threat became even more apparent on June 14, when Trump supporter Vance Boelter shot two Minnesota state Democrats and their spouses, killing State House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband. Authorities later discovered a hit list with the names of 45 Democratic officials in Boelter's car.
Four key factors are driving this surge in political violence. First, despite branding himself as a 'law and order' president, Trump has helped cultivate a culture of impunity. It's not just that he is a convicted felon whose three remaining criminal cases were dismissed or suspended after his re-election. Long before that, he famously proclaimed, 'I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters.'
On his first day back in office, Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of more than 1,500 January 6 insurrectionists, including Tarrio. He has continued issuing pardons to allies, with the Justice Department's pardon attorney, Ed Martin, posting on X, 'No MAGA Left Behind.' By politicizing the presidential pardon, Trump has sent the dangerous message that partisan violence is acceptable.
The second factor is past acts of political violence, which heighten the risk of future violence. As I explained in "It Can Happen Here," the US has a long history of political violence to draw on. But even recent events offer ample cause for alarm.
Trump bears much of the blame. Before the January 6 insurrection, he attacked election integrity and explicitly directed the Proud Boys — and, by extension, other far-right extremists — to 'stand by.' Like other scholars at the time, I warned that the risk of violence in the US was especially high. While dramatic, neither the October 7, 2020, arrest of militia members who plotted to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer nor the Jan. 6 Capitol attack came as a surprise.
As the 2024 election approached, the threat of violence once again escalated. Trump himself was nearly assassinated during a July 13 rally in Pennsylvania, threats against election workers surged, and many feared that a contested election would again lead to an insurrection — a concern that Trump's victory ultimately rendered moot.
Third, American society remains deeply divided. In my research on US political culture, I have seen this polarization firsthand, as people on both the left and the right often demonize the other side as authoritarian, framing politics in apocalyptic us-versus-them terms.
The data underscores just how toxic and entrenched US polarization has become. Nearly half of Americans view those on the opposite side of the political spectrum as 'downright evil,' while an even greater share of Democrats and Republicans describe each other as 'closed-minded, dishonest and immoral.'
While both parties have contributed to this division, Trump remains the polarizer-in-chief. He repeatedly stoked anger and resentment during his first term, and his 2024 campaign centered on promises of retribution and warnings about 'criminal' immigrants and 'woke' leftists — groups he continues to demonize.
Lastly, the risk of political violence tends to rise during tumultuous periods, especially when the legitimacy of elections is challenged or when democratic institutions are weakened. Both conditions were present in the lead-up to the 2021 insurrection, and they persist today.
Trump is now waging an aggressive campaign to consolidate executive power. Since returning to the White House, he has sought to undermine every check on presidential authority, including judicial independence, civil society, academic freedom, public-service neutrality, press freedom, and even basic civil liberties.
As a result, today's America is a tinderbox. When and where the next would-be assassin might strike is anyone's guess, but one thing is certain: the risk of political violence will spike ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and could reach crisis levels by the presidential election of 2028.
There's an easy way to mitigate this risk: Trump could choose to be a unifier rather than a divider. Polls show that most Americans want the political temperature brought down. Unfortunately, it is far more likely that Trump, who rose to power on a populist platform rooted in fear and grievance — much of it racially tinged — will continue to fan the flames of division, keeping the risk of political violence elevated.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senior Seoul official notes possibility of USFK role change due to 'various factors'
Senior Seoul official notes possibility of USFK role change due to 'various factors'

Korea Herald

timea day ago

  • Korea Herald

Senior Seoul official notes possibility of USFK role change due to 'various factors'

Senior Seoul official notes possibility of USFK role change due to 'various factors' WASHINGTON (Yonhap) -- A senior South Korean official made a rare mention Thursday of a possible change in the role of the US Forces Korea (USFK), amid speculation that US President Donald Trump's administration may seek to shift the focus of its mission to deterring China rather than countering North Korean threats. The official made the remarks in a meeting with South Korean correspondents in Washington as the Trump administration is seeking to "modernize" the South Korea-US alliance to make it "strategically sustainable" in the midst of an intensifying Sino-US rivalry. "I think there can be a change in the role and character of the USFK due to various factors," he said. The official pointed to the evolving international security environment, technological shifts and a "growing strategic role" of China, as he enumerated the factors that could drive a possible shift in the role of the 28,500-strong USFK. However, he cautioned against misconstruing his remarks, saying his talk of a possible change in the USFK role does not mean he concurs on the US view in support of the change. "Allies cannot see eye to eye perfectly with each other on everything," he said. As the Pentagon is working on crafting its National Defense Strategy to prioritize deterring China, speculation has persisted that the Trump administration might pursue greater "strategic flexibility" of the USFK to use it for a wider range of security operations beyond the Korean Peninsula. Opponents of a shift in the USFK role argue that it could lead to a weakening of efforts by Seoul and Washington to deter North Korea's advancing nuclear and missile threats, and that the potential use of the USFK for a mission against China would needlessly put Seoul in a geopolitically challenging position. US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby has advocated for a shift in the USFK mission, saying American troops in South Korea should not be "held hostage to dealing with the North Korean problem." The future direction of USFK operations is likely to be a key agenda item as South Korea and the US are expected to have earnest discussions on a shared understanding of where their longstanding alliance should be headed for. The official's remarks came after Foreign Minister Cho Hyun held his first talks with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio since the launch of President Lee Jae Myung's administration.

Top S. Korean, U.S. diplomats reiterate 'resolute' commitment to N.K. denuclearization
Top S. Korean, U.S. diplomats reiterate 'resolute' commitment to N.K. denuclearization

Korea Herald

timea day ago

  • Korea Herald

Top S. Korean, U.S. diplomats reiterate 'resolute' commitment to N.K. denuclearization

The top diplomats of South Korea and the United States reaffirmed the allies' "resolute" commitment to the "complete" denuclearization of North Korea and the "full" enforcement of sanctions against it during their talks in Washington on Thursday, a State Department spokesperson said. Foreign Minister Cho Hyun and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio held their first talks since the launch of the Lee Jae Myung administration last month, as Seoul and Washington face a series of cooperation issues, including preparations for a summit between Lee and US President Donald Trump. Their meeting came just a day after Trump announced a trade deal with Korea, saying that his summit with President Lee will take place at the White House in two weeks. "Secretary Rubio and Foreign Minister Cho also reaffirmed their resolute commitment to the complete denuclearization of the DPRK, the full implementation of international sanctions, and expressed serious concerns about North Korea's increasing military cooperation with Russia," Tammy Bruce, the spokesperson, said in a readout. DPRK is short for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The chief diplomats' show of unity against North Korean nuclear threats came days after Kim Yo-jong, the influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ruled out the possibility of talks on the North's denuclearization, while noting the personal relationship between Trump and Kim is "not bad." (Yonhap)

[Lee Byung-jong] Boss politics in Korea and US
[Lee Byung-jong] Boss politics in Korea and US

Korea Herald

timea day ago

  • Korea Herald

[Lee Byung-jong] Boss politics in Korea and US

Despite vastly different political histories, South Korea and the United States are beginning to resemble each other in one critical respect: the rise of boss politics. This style of personality-driven leadership, defined by charismatic control over political parties and unwavering loyalty from supporters, has become increasingly evident in both countries. It marks a shift from institutional politics to one dominated by individual influence — where dissent is punished and power is concentrated around a singular figure. Boss politics is hardly new to South Korea. Since democratization in the late 1980s, charismatic political leaders have held sway over their parties through tightly controlled political machines. The 'Three Kims' — former Presidents Kim Young-sam, Kim Dae-jung and former Prime Minister Kim Jong-pil — dominated the political landscape for decades. Their power was rooted in regional loyalties and an ability to distribute resources, positions and nominations. Political funding and National Assembly candidate selections were tools for consolidating authority, and loyalty was often valued over competence. Dissenters were purged, and sycophancy was rewarded. Though the era of the Three Kims formally ended in the early 2000s, their legacy lives on. Presidents from both conservative and progressive camps have continued the practice of consolidating power within their parties. Patronage networks remain strong, where personal connections and allegiance are often more critical than experience or ability. Former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was eventually impeached, was criticized for appointing close friends and former prosecutor colleagues to key posts, suggesting that meritocracy took a back seat to loyalty. President Lee Jae Myung, currently in office, presents a mixed picture. While his first cabinet includes respected professionals, it also features loyalists known for their unwavering support. His political rise — from a mayor of a small city to national prominence — was largely fueled by a fiercely devoted base comprising 30 to 40 percent of the electorate. This "concrete base" has not only protected Lee during legal and political challenges but has also aggressively targeted his critics, especially online. During the 2024 parliamentary elections, for instance, many of Lee's intraparty rivals lost their seats, while his allies cruised to victory thanks to mobilized grassroots support. A similar political dynamic exists across the Pacific. In the United States, President Donald Trump has established near-total control over the Republican Party through his Make America Great Again movement. Trump's influence is so powerful that few in the GOP dare to oppose him publicly. The fate of former Rep. Liz Cheney — a senior Republican and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney — illustrates the point. After denouncing Trump's false claims about the 2020 election, she was removed from her leadership role and lost her reelection bid. The message was clear: Loyalty to Trump trumps loyalty to the party or constitutional principles. Those who remain loyal to Trump are often rewarded. He has handpicked candidates for elections and installed allies in key government roles. Notable examples include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News contributor who wholeheartedly supported Trump's foreign policy. Federal Attorney General Pam Bondi is a former Florida attorney general who served on Trump's impeachment defense team. Critics argue that these appointments prioritized personal loyalty over qualifications or institutional knowledge. Trump's governance philosophy is grounded in the belief that elected officials should wield unquestioned authority over the government. He has long railed against the so-called 'Deep State,' a term he uses to describe career bureaucrats whom he views as obstructing his policy goals. Determined to avoid what he sees as sabotage, Trump is pursuing a sweeping overhaul of the civil service, including mass firings and agency shutdowns — all with the goal of ensuring full compliance from the bureaucracy. To a somewhat lesser extent, President Lee Jae Myung shares Trump's views on the power of elected officials over appointed ones. In a lecture to newly appointed government managers last month, Lee said, 'Bureaucrats should follow the will of elected power — namely, the president. That is the principle of democracy, because elected officials most directly represent the people's will.' Reflecting that philosophy, his administration is considering a major structural shift: moving the government's budgetary authority from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance to the presidential office or the prime minister's office, a change that would significantly increase executive control over national policy. Both Korea and the US operate under presidential systems, where a strong executive is a constitutional feature. Yet, equating presidential strength with unchallenged authority risks undermining the bureaucracy's role. Professional civil servants bring institutional memory, expertise and continuity, which are essential for effective governance — especially in complex, policy-heavy areas like health care, defense and climate change. Frequent leadership changes already lead to inconsistent policymaking. In South Korea, for example, nuclear energy policy has swung back and forth depending on which party is in power, creating confusion among stakeholders and inefficiencies in long-term planning. Similar instability can be seen in US foreign policy and environmental regulations, which have shifted dramatically between administrations. Charismatic political leaders with devoted followings may appear to be political titans. In the short term, their dominance over party structures and policymaking may seem unshakable. But effective governance is not about control — it's about collaboration. Presidents Trump and Lee both enjoy strong support from passionate political bases, enabling them to dominate their parties. However, long-term success in government depends less on fervent followers and more on capable, independent institutions. Boss politics might secure elections. But only bureaucratic integrity and institutional professionalism can secure lasting national progress.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store