Political violence has gripped the U.S. this year. Experts say it’s not as simple as left and right. – CBS News

Report on Political Violence and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Threat to Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

Since the beginning of 2025, the United States has experienced a significant increase in political violence, a trend that directly undermines progress toward several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). This bipartisan issue, characterized by attacks and threats against political figures across the ideological spectrum, poses a direct challenge to the establishment of peaceful, just, and inclusive societies.

Analysis of Incidents and Detriment to SDG 16

Erosion of Peace and Security (SDG Target 16.1)

A series of violent acts has directly contravened the objective of SDG Target 16.1, which aims to significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. These incidents create an environment of fear and instability, harming community well-being and national cohesion.

1. Fatal Attacks: Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot on a college campus. In a separate incident, Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed at their home, with state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife also being shot on the same night. Two staff members of the Israeli Embassy were also fatally shot.
2. Assassination Attempts and Threats: President Trump survived two attempts on his life. A pardoned individual was arrested for threatening to “eliminate” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and a bounty was offered for Attorney General Pam Bondi.
3. Property Damage and Arson: The home of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was set on fire. A Republican Party office in New Mexico was targeted in an arson attack, and a fertility clinic in California was bombed.
4. Attacks on Federal Facilities: Two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities were targeted by gunfire.

Undermining Strong and Inclusive Institutions (SDG Targets 16.6 & 16.7)

The rise in threats against public officials weakens the effectiveness and inclusivity of institutions, a core component of SDG 16. When public servants operate under threat, the capacity for responsive, inclusive, and representative decision-making is severely compromised. This trend also presents a barrier to women’s full participation in political life, impacting SDG 5 (Gender Equality).

• Threats Against Lawmakers: The U.S. Capitol Police is projected to investigate over 14,000 potential threats against members of Congress and their offices in the current year, a substantial increase from 9,474 in the previous year.
• Threats Against Judiciary: The U.S. Marshals Service investigated 562 threats against federal judges in the 2025 fiscal year.
• Threats Against Local Officials: Princeton University’s Bridging Divides Initiative documented nearly 300 instances of threats and harassment against local officials in the first half of 2025, an increase of 9% year-over-year.

The Complex Nature of Perpetrators and Ideologies

The Challenge of “Salad Bar Extremism”

Research indicates that the perpetrators of this violence are predominantly lone actors, not members of organized groups. This complicates efforts to build peaceful societies, as their motives are often highly personalized and do not align with coherent political ideologies. Experts describe this phenomenon as “salad bar extremism,” where individuals hold a mixture of contradictory beliefs. This is further compounded by what the FBI terms “nihilistic violent extremism,” where acts are motivated by a general hatred of society rather than a specific political cause, making preventative measures more challenging.

Data on Political Violence

While data from the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggests a historical prevalence of right-wing terrorism over the last decade, 2025 is on track to see left-wing incidents take the lead for the first time in over 30 years. However, experts caution against drawing simple partisan conclusions. The dominant trend is not organized group action but rather consistent violence by lone actors with personalized motives, often developed in niche online subcultures. This pattern underscores the difficulty in addressing the root causes of violence and achieving the peaceful society envisioned in SDG 16.

Conclusion: A Call for De-escalation to Uphold Sustainable Development Goals

The escalating trend of political violence and threats in the United States represents a severe impediment to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It directly attacks the foundations of SDG 16 by eroding peace, undermining justice, and weakening the institutions necessary for a functioning democracy. To reverse this trend and recommit to global development goals, it is imperative that leaders across the political spectrum work to de-escalate hostilities, refrain from inflammatory rhetoric, and refuse calls for retribution. Fostering a political climate that rejects violence is a prerequisite for building the peaceful, just, and strong institutions that form the bedrock of sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

   The primary Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) addressed in the article is:

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. This goal aims to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” The article’s central theme is the rise of political violence, including killings, threats, and terrorism, which directly undermines peace and security. It also discusses the role of institutions like the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the FBI in investigating these crimes and protecting officials, connecting directly to the goal of building effective institutions.

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

   Based on the article’s discussion of violence, crime, and institutional response, the following specific targets under SDG 16 are relevant:

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article is filled with examples that run counter to this target. It details numerous violent acts, such as the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the killing of Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, the fatal shooting of two Israeli Embassy staff members, and assassination attempts on President Trump. The entire narrative focuses on an increase in political violence, making the reduction of such violence a central, relevant target.
   • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, in particular in developing countries, to build capacity at all levels, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime. The article implicitly highlights the need to strengthen national institutions by detailing the immense pressure they are under. It mentions the FBI’s focus on “nihilistic violent extremism,” the U.S. Capitol Police investigating a rising number of threats against lawmakers, and the U.S. Marshals Service investigating threats against federal judges. The increasing workload and the prevalence of these crimes underscore the relevance of strengthening these institutions to effectively prevent violence and combat domestic terrorism.

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

   Yes, the article provides several quantitative and qualitative data points that can serve as indicators to measure the state of political violence and the workload of justice institutions.

   • For Target 16.1 (Reduce violence and death rates):
     • Number of violent incidents and deaths: The article lists specific acts of violence that serve as direct indicators, including killings (Charlie Kirk, Rep. Hortman, embassy staff), injuries (fertility clinic bombing), and property destruction (arson attacks). The report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which quantifies right-wing and left-wing terrorist attacks and plots per year, is a direct measure of this type of violence.
     • Number of threats against public officials: This is a key indicator of the climate of violence. The article provides specific figures: “The U.S. Capitol Police is on track to investigate over 14,000 possible threats against lawmakers and their offices this year,” up from 9,474 the previous year. It also notes “562 threats against federal judges” and “almost 300 instances of threats and harassment against… local officials in the first half of 2025, up 9% year-over-year.” A reduction in these numbers would indicate progress.
   • For Target 16.a (Strengthen national institutions):
     • Number of investigations into threats and domestic terror: The statistics provided on the caseloads of the U.S. Capitol Police (over 14,000 threat investigations) and the U.S. Marshals Service (562 threats investigated) serve as indicators of the operational capacity and burden on these institutions. The FBI Director’s testimony about focusing on “nihilistic violent extremism” also points to the evolving nature of threats that institutions must adapt to.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.	Number of politically motivated killings, injuries, and violent acts (e.g., shootings of Charlie Kirk and Rep. Hortman, bombing of fertility clinic). Number of terrorist attacks and plots, categorized by ideology (e.g., data from the Center for Strategic and International Studies). Number of threats against federal lawmakers (over 14,000 cases for U.S. Capitol Police). Number of threats against federal judges (562 cases for U.S. Marshals Service). Number of threats and harassment incidents against local officials (almost 300 instances, up 9% year-over-year).
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime.	Volume of threat assessment cases handled by national institutions like the U.S. Capitol Police and U.S. Marshals Service. Number of domestic terror probes focused on specific categories like “nihilistic violent extremism” by the FBI.

Source: cbsnews.com