31 Aug 2026 When Did Murder Become an Acceptable Political Statement?

America has always been a nation of passionate political disagreement. We argue about taxes, health care, elections, immigration, education and the proper role of government. We protest. We campaign. We vote. We criticize those with whom we disagree.

But there is supposed to be one line we do not cross: We do not kill people because we disagree with them.

Adrian Norman

In a commentary published at The Wall Street Journal, Project 21 Ambassador Adrian Norman highlights a troubling new poll that suggests that line is becoming less clear for a significant number of Americans.

According to a recent Emerson College poll, 16.7% of voters said the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was either “completely acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.” Thompson was shot and killed in Manhattan in December 2024 while walking to a company investors’ meeting. Luigi Mangione was subsequently arrested and charged in connection with the killing and has since pleaded guilty to federal stalking charges.

Nearly one in six voters saying an assassination is acceptable should shock the conscience of a nation founded on the rule of law.

Even more troubling, this does not appear to be a momentary reaction.

The same Emerson finding was reported in December 2024. After months of national attention, a highly publicized prosecution and extensive public debate, the percentage of Americans willing to describe the killing as acceptable has remained remarkably consistent.

That should concern Americans regardless of their political affiliation.

Our constitutional system is built on the idea that Americans resolve disputes through institutions—not through violence. We elect representatives. We petition our government. We take our grievances to court. We organize, protest and persuade.

If we abandon that principle, there is no logical stopping point.

What happens when one political faction decides that an opposing politician is sufficiently evil to deserve death? What happens when activists conclude that a business leader, journalist, professor, religious leader or political opponent is responsible for society’s problems and therefore has forfeited his or her right to live?

The answer cannot be that murder is acceptable when we sympathize with the murderer’s cause.

That is not justice. It is vigilantism.

Read Adrian’s entire commentary at The Wall Street Journal.