A Friendly Federal Assassin, The Third Attempt on Trump’s Life and the Crisis of Political Violence in America
When a federal Cabinet member visits us at the Journal these days, he’s invariably accompanied by multiple security agents. It can seem excessive at times, but the shooting on Saturday evening at the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner underscores the necessity. The good news is that the security perimeter blocked the alleged attempted shooter, 31-year-old Cole Allen, from entering the Washington Hilton ballroom. Secret Service agents acted swiftly and captured the man without a casualty. A protective vest spared one agent from serious injury from a gunshot. President Trump was never in serious danger, having been whisked away in seconds. He was cool as usual under threat, and his instinct to carry on with the event was laudable even if it was impractical. His many detractors should grant that his comments late Saturday at a White House press briefing hit the right notes of gratitude and comity. The troubling news is that Mr. Allen was able to get as close as he did by getting a room at the Hilton. The New York Post reports that a manifesto he sent to family members shortly before the shooting mocked the lack of security inside the hotel. He said an Iranian agent could have done more serious harm, and that’s probably true if one or more had more firepower than a shotgun and handgun.
The Profile of a Political Assassin
The shooter’s alleged manifesto suggests his targets included many in the senior ranks of the Administration, including Mr. Trump. His motive clearly seems political, and he views himself as an agent of revenge for what he called the victims of government policies. He allegedly called himself a “Friendly Federal Assassin.”
This is not the profile of a deranged loner acting without reason. It is the profile of a man who has absorbed a political ideology that justifies violence. He believes that the government has victimised people, that those responsible must be punished, and that he is the instrument of that punishment. He is not insane in the legal sense; he is radicalised.
All of this fits the profile of young men who turn violent after absorbing the poison that too often passes for American political discourse these days. When the stakes are described in life-or-death terms, the mentally unstable convince themselves of their own righteous cause. Think of Luigi Mangione, who is celebrated on social media for shooting a health insurance CEO in the back on a Manhattan street. Mangione is seen by some as a hero, a fighter against a corrupt system. He is not; he is a murderer. But the fact that he is celebrated on social media tells us something about the state of American political culture.
Cole Allen is not the first. He will not be the last. The conditions that produce such individuals—polarisation, demonisation, dehumanisation—are intensifying, not abating.
The Third Attempt: A Pattern of Danger
This marks the third apparent assassination attempt against Mr. Trump. The first, at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024, left the president with a grazed ear. The second, in September 2024, ended with the gunman’s apprehension before any shots were fired at his golf club in Florida. The third, at the Correspondents’ Dinner, succeeded in firing shots, though not in hitting any target.
Trump has a point when he says he is targeted because he has been consequential. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Both were consequential presidents who attempted to change the status quo. The same could be said of Trump. He is attempting to change much of the Washington status quo—on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy, on the administrative state. His opponents see him not as a legitimate political leader but as an existential threat to the republic. That perception, amplified by apocalyptic rhetoric, leads some to conclude that violence is justified.
Trump is not blameless. His own often nasty rhetoric has contributed to the coarsening of political discourse. He has called his opponents “enemies of the people,” “vermin,” and “threats to democracy.” He has suggested that violence might be necessary to restore order. He has praised foreign leaders who use violence against their opponents. He is not a passive victim; he is a participant in the degradation of political discourse.
But the responsibility for political violence lies primarily with the perpetrator, not the provocateur. Cole Allen pulled the trigger. Cole Allen wrote the manifesto. Cole Allen is the one who must be held accountable. Trump’s rhetoric may have contributed to the atmosphere, but it did not force Allen to act.
The Security Failure: How Close Was Too Close?
The good news is that the security perimeter blocked Allen from entering the ballroom. The Secret Service acted swiftly and captured the man without a casualty. A protective vest spared one agent from serious injury from a gunshot.
But the troubling news is that Allen was able to get as close as he did by getting a room at the Hilton. He was inside the hotel. He was able to access the security checkpoint. He was able to fire a weapon. The only reason the president was not hit is that the agents reacted quickly and the shooter’s aim was poor. It was luck, not planning.
Allen’s manifesto mocked the lack of security inside the hotel. He said an Iranian agent could have done more serious harm, and that’s probably true if one or more had more firepower than a shotgun and handgun. This is a chilling thought. The security perimeter is designed to keep weapons out. But if an attacker is already inside, the perimeter is less effective. A determined attacker with a room in the hotel could smuggle in weapons over time, assemble them, and launch an attack from within.
The Secret Service will review its procedures. The Hilton will review its security. But no security is perfect. The only way to guarantee that a determined attacker cannot reach the president is to isolate the president from the public entirely—to make him a prisoner in the White House. That is not acceptable. The president must be visible, accessible, and engaged. The risk of assassination is the price of democracy.
The Political Response: A Commission on Political Violence?
Rep. Ro Khanna, the California Democrat with his own designs on the White House, called Sunday for a commission on political violence. But we don’t need a study group to tell Americans how to behave. We need our political and media classes to stop talking and writing in apocalyptic terms and restore reason to political debates.
A commission is a classic Washington response: create a task force, hold hearings, issue a report, make recommendations, and then do nothing. The problem is not a lack of information; the problem is a lack of will. Politicians know that apocalyptic rhetoric attracts attention, motivates donors, and mobilises voters. They are not going to stop because a commission tells them to.
What is needed is a cultural shift, not a bureaucratic one. Political leaders must model restraint. They must condemn violence unequivocally, regardless of which side commits it. They must refuse to demonise their opponents. They must engage in the difficult work of compromise and negotiation, even when it is unpopular. They must lower the temperature.
The media also has a role. The 24-hour news cycle rewards outrage. Social media algorithms amplify extremism. The business model of modern journalism is built on conflict. A news story about a bipartisan compromise does not get as many clicks as a story about a fiery accusation. The incentives are perverse.
We need to revive the traditional moral line that violence is unacceptable. This used to be a bipartisan consensus. Republicans condemned violence by anti-abortion extremists. Democrats condemned violence by anti-war radicals. That consensus has eroded. Now, violence is sometimes excused, rationalised, or even celebrated, depending on the perpetrator and the target.
The Mental Health Angle: Deranged or Radicalised?
The shooter is 31 years old. He is not a teenager. He is not a child. He is an adult who made a considered decision to attempt to assassinate the president of the United States. His manifesto is coherent, even if its premises are false. He knew what he was doing; he knew the risks; he did it anyway.
The mental health system cannot prevent every act of violence. No system can. But the system can identify individuals who pose a threat and intervene before they act. The problem is that the system is underfunded, understaffed, and overwhelmed. There are not enough psychiatrists, not enough hospital beds, not enough community support. A person who is in crisis may not receive help until it is too late.
In Allen’s case, there were warning signs. He had a history of erratic behaviour. He had expressed anger at the government. He had access to firearms. But none of these signs triggered an intervention. The system failed.
This is not an excuse for Allen’s actions. It is an explanation. And it is a call for reform. The US needs a better mental health system, not just for the sake of potential victims but for the sake of potential perpetrators. Many of those who commit mass violence are suffering from untreated mental illness. Treating them would save lives.
Conclusion: The Price of Democracy
The third attempt on Trump’s life is a reminder that democracy is dangerous. Leaders who are visible and accessible are vulnerable. The security perimeter cannot be perfect. The Secret Service cannot be everywhere. The risk of assassination is real.
But the response to the risk should not be to hide the president away. The response should be to reduce the conditions that produce assassins. That means lowering the political temperature, rejecting apocalyptic rhetoric, and restoring a bipartisan consensus against violence. It also means improving the mental health system and enforcing gun laws.
Trump survived. The Secret Service protected him. The shooter is in custody. But the next attempt may succeed. The next assassin may be better armed, better trained, or luckier. The only way to prevent that is to reduce the number of people who want to kill the president. That is a political, cultural, and social project, not just a security one.
We should all be relieved that Trump survived. But we should also be worried. The forces that drive political violence are not abating. They are intensifying. The third attempt will not be the last. We must act before the fourth.
Q&A: The Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump
Q1: What happened at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, and how close did the shooter get?
A1: A gunman, 31-year-old Cole Allen, attempted to shoot President Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Allen had obtained a room at the Washington Hilton and accessed the security checkpoint. The security perimeter blocked him from entering the ballroom, but he was able to fire a weapon. A Secret Service agent’s protective vest “spared one agent from serious injury.” Allen’s manifesto mocked the “lack of security inside the hotel” and claimed “an Iranian agent could have done more serious harm.” The article notes that the only reason Trump was not hit was that agents reacted quickly and the shooter’s aim was poor—”luck, not planning.”
Q2: What profile of a political assassin does the article describe, and how does Allen fit it?
A2: Allen’s manifesto suggests he viewed himself as an “agent of revenge for what he called the victims of government policies” and called himself a “Friendly Federal Assassin.” The article states that this fits the profile of “young men who turn violent after absorbing the poison that too often passes for American political discourse these days.” When political stakes are described in “life or death terms,” the mentally unstable “convince themselves of their own righteous cause.” The article draws a parallel to Luigi Mangione, who is “celebrated on social media for shooting a health insurance CEO in the back on a Manhattan street.” Allen is described as “radicalised” rather than legally insane—he “knew what he was doing; he knew the risks; he did it anyway.”
Q3: What does the article say about Trump’s own role in the degradation of political discourse?
A3: The article acknowledges that “Trump is not blameless. His own often nasty rhetoric has contributed to the coarsening of political discourse. He has called his opponents ‘enemies of the people,’ ‘vermin,’ and ‘threats to democracy.’ He has suggested that violence might be necessary to restore order.” However, the article argues that “the responsibility for political violence lies primarily with the perpetrator, not the provocateur.” Trump’s rhetoric “may have contributed to the atmosphere, but it did not force Allen to act.” The article also notes Trump’s point that he is targeted because he is “consequential”—like Lincoln and Kennedy, who were assassinated for “attempting to change the status quo.”
Q4: What solutions does the article propose to reduce political violence?
A4: The article rejects a “commission on political violence” (proposed by Rep. Ro Khanna) as a “classic Washington response… create a task force, hold hearings, issue a report, make recommendations, and then do nothing.” Instead, it calls for:
-
A cultural shift: Political leaders must “model restraint,” “condemn violence unequivocally,” “refuse to demonise their opponents,” and “lower the temperature.”
-
Media responsibility: “The 24-hour news cycle rewards outrage” and social media algorithms “amplify extremism.” The business model of modern journalism is “built on conflict.”
-
Reviving the traditional moral line that “violence is unacceptable” as a bipartisan consensus.
-
A better mental health system to identify individuals who pose a threat before they act (not an excuse for Allen, but “an explanation and a call for reform”).
Q5: What is the article’s conclusion about the third assassination attempt on Trump?
A5: The article concludes that democracy is dangerous—”leaders who are visible and accessible are vulnerable.” The response should not be to “hide the president away,” but to “reduce the conditions that produce assassins” by “lowering the political temperature, rejecting apocalyptic rhetoric, and restoring a bipartisan consensus against violence.” The article warns that “the forces that drive political violence are not abating. They are intensifying. The third attempt will not be the last.” The article states: “We should all be relieved that Trump survived. But we should also be worried.” The only way to prevent a future attempt is to “reduce the number of people who want to kill the president.” That is “a political, cultural, and social project, not just a security one.” Security perimeters and Secret Service agents are not enough. “We must act before the fourth.”
