Decentralized violence and surveillance
Kleptocrats avoid calling police and military into the streets as a first response to political opposition, at least in the early stages of power consolidation. Rather, they intimate that "something needs to be done," and dehumanize their enemies to the point where individuals or organizations, acting seemingly on their own, take independent, often violent action.
Indeed, political violence is on the rise in America at levels unseen since the 1960s and 1970s. The president himself was the target of at least one assassination attempt. More often, though, Trump speaks in a way that encourages or excuses violence. (See lists and databases here, here, here, and here).
In 2025, however, both the president and close associates have ratcheted up both their rhetoric and tactics. Concerns include dehumanizing and exposing “opponents,” excusing violence, and use of private security.
ACTION 40 | Dehumanizing and exposing “opponents”
Dehumanizing and vilifying opponents is often a major precursor to violence. Rather than focusing on differences of fact, viewpoint, or opinion, dehumanization allows one to see those they disagree with as the problem, leading to the often “logical” conclusion that the people themselves need to be repressed. The tactic of dehumanization has become an increasing problem with this administration as it describes opposition not as a difference of opinion, but as a difference of human worth.
Early on in the term, affiliates of the administration began doxxing mostly black federal workers involved in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, or those who had been donors to Democratic causes in the past.
This expanded to publicly announcing the end of security details for numerous public servants who have been frequent targets of the right, including Anthony Fauci, John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo—all of whom served in the first Trump administration but who have since been labeled “enemies.” This sends a very public signal that these individuals no longer have the protection of the federal government to non-state actors. The list goes beyond “political enemies” to also include whistleblower protection lawyers such as Mark Zaid.
The President is not alone in his incitement to violence. Other prominent right-wing media personalities play a role. As an example, Elon Musk has personally attacked USAID as “a bunch of radical lunatics,” “a viper’s nest of radical left Marxists who hate America,’’ “evil,” and a ‘’criminal organization.’’ He concluded with, ‘’Time for it to die.’’
This has spread well beyond the federal workforce to include nonprofits and anti-corruption organizations. In fact, after testimony to the “DOGE Committee” in the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Musk harassed Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, who works at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group focused on reducing bureaucratic waste. He specifically taunted Hedtler-Gaudette, who is blind, and sparked a massive outpouring of attacks and threats from right wing trolls. As a person who claims to also have a disability, one might expect more compassion.
Such threats are not only affecting perceived political opponents. A Vanity Fair exposé cited a Republican operative on background: “They’re scared shitless about death threats and Gestapo-like stuff.” According to the source, “North Carolina senator Thom Tillis told people that the FBI warned him about ‘credible death threats’ when he was considering voting against Pete Hegseth’s nomination for defense secretary. Tillis ultimately provided the crucial 50th vote to confirm the former Fox & Friends host to lead the Pentagon.”
ACTION 41 | Pardoning political violence
Trump has pardoned January 6 rioters, many of whom were involved with violent attacks on law enforcement and all of whom tried to interfere with certification of the 2020 election. Trump's Republican Party base has followed his lead: in February 2025, the Conservative Political Action Conference celebrated one of the pardoned January 6 felons. Since pardoning the rioters, the administration has further broadened its efforts at clemency to cover accessory crimes. This sends a clear message that political violence will be tolerated if it is ideologically aligned with the president.
The specific concern around electoral violence may be amplified as well, given that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has cancelled federal support to states for the physical security of voting as part of cuts.
ACTION 42 | Blurring the line between private security and national security
The blurring of the line between private and public security in government functions raises any number of questions about who is protecting public assets. Most notably, DOGE reportedly employed private security forces in blocking Senate Democrats from entering the Department of Education. Most recently, the US Marshalls deputized Elon Musk’s private security detail, giving them some powers of law enforcement. These actions have the effect of blurring the line between state power and private power and raise questions of due process should there be conflict between these individuals and civilians.
ACTION 43 | Department of Justice singles out critics of DOGE
Attorney General Pam Bondi launched “Operation Whirlwind,” a probe targeting critics of DOGE and its affiliates. While the goal of preventing harassment of federal employees is laudable, applying such standards to only one department while ignoring or encouraging harassment in others smacks of unequal application of the law.