Support for political violence drops across the board, though MAGA supporters remain the most likely to justify it

A recent nationally representative survey suggests that American public support for political violence decreased heading into the 2026 midterm elections, contrary to popular fears. The findings indicate that while partisan tensions remain high, an overwhelming majority of adults in the United States unconditionally reject the idea of using physical force to achieve political goals. The research was published as a preprint on SocArXiv, meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed.

Political violence involves the use of physical force to advance a political agenda. This can range from damaging property to threatening, injuring, or killing individuals for ideological reasons. Aside from the immediate physical harm, political violence has long-term effects on public mental health and social stability. As the 2026 midterm elections approached, many political observers and citizens alike expressed concern that a highly polarized environment might lead to a spike in violent behavior.

These fears are sometimes amplified by public opinion polls, but survey design can play a large role in how these attitudes are measured. A 2022 study suggested that poorly designed polling questions often inflate apparent support for partisan violence, pointing out that Americans’ actual willingness to commit physical harm is much narrower than some surveys imply.

To accurately track these attitudes over time, a research team led by Garen J. Wintemute, a distinguished professor of emergency medicine, the Baker-Teret Chair in Violence Prevention, and director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at the University of California, Davis, launched an annual, nationally representative survey project in 2022.

“Political violence poses a serious threat to the United States,” Wintemute told PsyPost. “We are seeking to understand factors associated with justification for and willingness to commit political violence.”

As part of this ongoing monitoring effort, a study covered by PsyPost in 2025 found that individuals who identify as “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Republicans were more likely to view political violence as justified compared to other Americans, though they were not necessarily more willing to personally carry out such acts. With the 2026 midterms looming and several recent high-profile incidents of government-initiated violence in the news, the researchers anticipated that public appetite for political violence might increase. They conducted the mid-2026 wave of their survey to test whether this expectation matched reality.

The researchers analyzed data from the fifth wave of their annual survey, which was administered online between May 15 and June 15, 2026. The sample included 7,752 adult participants drawn from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel designed to reflect the demographic makeup of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population.

The survey measured three main concepts: respondents’ beliefs about the potential for future civil war, their justification for using political violence, and their personal willingness to engage in it. For these questions, the survey explicitly defined violence as physical force strong enough that it could cause pain or injury to a person.

Respondents first indicated whether they felt violence was ever justified in general or to achieve any of 21 specific political goals. These goals included preserving a certain American way of life, stopping police violence, preventing voter fraud, or stopping illegal immigration. A new question in the 2026 survey asked those who said violence was “never justified” to clarify their stance, checking to see if their rejection of violence was unconditional.

Those who said violence could be justified were then asked how willing they would be to personally damage property, threaten people, injure someone, or kill someone to advance a political objective. They were also asked about their willingness to target specific populations, such as elected officials, police officers, election workers, or members of an opposing political party. Finally, all participants were asked how likely they were to use a firearm in a situation where they felt political violence was justified.

The results point to a broad rejection of political violence across the ideological spectrum. Out of 53 survey items measuring anticipation of, justification for, and willingness to commit political violence, 51 showed small average decreases between mid-2025 and mid-2026.

“The general perception is that political violence is common and increasing,” Wintemute noted. “Neither of those things is true. And in our survey respondents, support for political violence fell from 2025 to 2026, across the political spectrum.”

Overall, high levels of support for violence were quite rare. In 2026, the belief that violence was “usually or always” justified to advance any specific political objective never exceeded 13 percent of the sample. Additionally, among the nearly one-quarter of respondents who said violence was never justified for any of the listed objectives, over 91 percent clarified that their rejection was absolute and unconditional.

When it came to personal willingness to carry out violence, the numbers were even lower. Among the subset of respondents who felt political violence was at least sometimes justified, only about 2 percent said they were “very or completely willing” to damage property, threaten, injure, or kill another person. Willingness to act in a group or as a lone actor also declined from the previous year. Similarly, fewer than 4 percent of all respondents expected that they would shoot or threaten someone with a firearm to advance a political goal.

The only measure that increased from 2025 to 2026 was the public’s expectation of a civil war. In 2025, 7.1 percent of respondents strongly agreed that a civil war would happen in the next few years; in 2026, that figure rose to 8.0 percent. However, the belief that a civil war was actually needed to “set things right” remained mostly flat at less than 4 percent.

The researchers also examined differences among political groups. MAGA Republicans and MAGA supporters who do not identify as Republicans tended to report higher levels of justification for political violence compared to Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans. For instance, roughly half of MAGA-affiliated respondents considered violence justified to advance at least one political objective. Among the small group of respondents who were willing to engage in violence, non-Republican MAGA supporters expressed the highest willingness to target specific populations. Despite these differences, the general trend of declining support for violence was observed among nearly all political groups.

“We found, as others have, that support for political violence is generally stronger on the political right than on the political left,” Wintemute explained. “Willingness to commit political violence is another matter; it is rare across the board. The vast majority of respondents in our surveys reject political violence altogether, and most of those who consider it acceptable are not willing to become involved in it themselves.”

These findings are in line with research covered by PsyPost in 2024, which found a similar nationwide decrease in support for political violence and belief in an imminent civil war between 2022 and 2023. Together, the data suggest a resilient public aversion to political violence, even during periods of intense political stress.

In a statement accompanying the research, the study authors emphasized the power of public norms. “These findings are clear,” they wrote. “Entrapment in a spiral of escalating political violence is not inevitable in the United States. Those who promote political violence should recognize that they do not have the public’s support and that promoting violence may exact a political cost.”

“We who reject political violence must make our rejection known to our families, friends, and larger social networks,” the researchers added. “A public climate of non-acceptance for violence can help reduce the likelihood of it occurring.”

There are a few things to keep in mind when interpreting these findings. First, survey responses about hypothetical willingness to commit violence do not perfectly predict how people will behave in real life. Some respondents might overstate their willingness to fight for a cause, while others might underreport their aggressive intentions because they know violence is socially unacceptable.

Also, the survey only asked about willingness to commit violence to the subset of people who first agreed that violence could be justified. Because different political groups passed this initial filter at different rates, the follow-up comparisons about personal willingness are based on varied sample proportions. For example, fewer Democrats than Republicans met the initial criteria, meaning the follow-up percentages for Democrats represent a smaller, more specific subset of that group. Finally, the survey was fielded over a single month in mid-2026, and rapidly unfolding political events or news stories could quickly shift public sentiment in unpredictable ways.

Moving forward, the research team hopes to translate these findings into proactive solutions. “Next year we hope to launch a randomized trial of an intervention to prevent political violence,” Wintemute said.

The study, “Decreased Support for Political Violence in the United States in Mid-2026: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Sonia L. Robinson, Daniel J. Tancredi, Krista Neumann, Shaina Sta. Cruz, Aaron B. Shev, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Bradley Velasquez, Mona A. Wright, and Veronica A. Pear.