Can Trump survive a fourth political assassination attempt?
Reflecting on the assassination attempts against US President Trump, commentator Deng Yuwen argues that institutions once seen as sources of public confidence have weakened, while repeated gunfire in symbolic spaces of power shows external hatred increasingly penetrating the system’s boundaries. This is especially dangerous when the US president becomes a highly symbolic figure embodying political conflict.
The shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on 25 April has once again shaken American politics. Judging from the letter the gunman wrote to his family before the attack, his intention was clearly directed at US President Donald Trump and senior officials in his administration. Trump appears to have been his primary target.
There is a Chinese saying: “Things should not happen more than three times.” It means that when the same ominous event keeps recurring, danger has accumulated to a serious level. Around Trump, there have now been three political assassination attempts. The first was the 2024 shooting at his campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a bullet struck his ear. The second came in September 2024 at Trump’s own golf course in Florida, where a would-be assassin was discovered in advance. The latest is the third: a gunman opened fire near the Washington Hilton, where the White House Correspondents’ Dinner was being held. A Secret Service agent was shot, and Trump, his wife, Vice-President JD Vance, and several senior officials were quickly evacuated.
Whether there will be a fourth political assassination attempt against Trump, and whether he can again escape it, no one knows. But given the current political climate in the US, not even God can guarantee that another attempt will not occur.
They see elections as rigged, courts as politicised, the media as the enemy, and government as a conspiracy machine.
US institutions weakening
The real question is why Trump has become the most concentrated target of political violence in modern America. Strictly speaking, he is not the world leader who has survived the largest number of public assassination attempts. Queen Victoria of Britain survived eight public attempts on her life during her reign.
But in the history of American presidents, Trump may already be among the leaders who have faced the most public assassination attempts. More importantly, his uniqueness lies not in the total number but in the density. In modern America, for a president or presidential candidate to become the target of public political violence several times in such a short period is extraordinary.
The first reason is institutional. Political hostility in the US no longer remains confined to language, elections and lawsuits. In the past, partisan conflict could be fierce, but it was still largely absorbed by institutions. Elections, congressional battles, court rulings and media attacks all served as outlets for conflict.
Now, a considerable number of people no longer believe these outlets work. They see elections as rigged, courts as politicised, the media as the enemy, and government as a conspiracy machine. In this psychological environment, political opponents are no longer merely opponents; they can be imagined as enemies who must be removed. Political violence has moved from the margins of society into the arena of power.
American politics has not collapsed. The White House, Congress, the courts, the media and the broader institutional system are still functioning. But gunfire has repeatedly entered symbolic spaces of American power: a presidential campaign rally, a president’s private golf course, and now the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
These are not ordinary public places. They represent elections, authority and the media order. When violence enters such spaces, it shows that hatred outside the system is penetrating the boundaries of the system itself.
Guns give him the capacity to act, the internet gives him an imagined stage, and polarisation gives him moral justification.
Merging of guns, social media and polarisation
Some may blame this on the proliferation of guns. That is certainly a direct condition, but not the root cause. America’s gun problem has existed for a long time. Why, then, does the risk of political assassination appear higher now? Because guns have merged with identity politics, social media, conspiracy theories and extreme individualism.
A lonely individual, immersed for years in hostile narratives online, may come to interpret personal frustration as a political mission. Guns give him the capacity to act, the internet gives him an imagined stage, and polarisation gives him moral justification.
Trump himself is also part of the reason. This is not to justify violence, but to analyse how political risk is formed. Trump is not an ordinary politician. His political appeal is built on conflict. He presents himself as a fighter besieged by the establishment, the liberal media, the judicial system and the “deep state”.
This narrative strongly mobilises his supporters, but it also turns Trump into a highly symbolic target. His followers see him as a saviour; extremists among his enemies may see him as the source of disaster. Once a political figure becomes such a symbol, the hatred directed at him is no longer ordinary dislike.
Trump’s language further magnifies this risk. He personalises political conflict, moralises institutional disputes and turns opponents into enemies. This political language helped him win elections, but it has also made American politics resemble a permanently mobilised civil war.
For most people, this is emotional venting. For a tiny number of extremists, it may become a signal for action. Politicians may not directly encourage violence, but when public language remains in a state of war for years, violence can more easily justify itself.
For extremists, the previous failure may not be a warning but a challenge: someone has already tried; why can’t I succeed?
Encouraging copycats
Even more dangerous is the copycat effect. After the first assassination attempt, the image of Trump raising his fist in Butler became a political myth. It strengthened his tough-guy image and gave his supporters a powerful emotional memory. But that image can also stimulate potential attackers.
For extremists, the previous failure may not be a warning but a challenge: someone has already tried; why can’t I succeed? Once political violence is visualised, mythologised and repeatedly circulated, it can attract imitators.
The war with Iran is also deepening America’s political divisions. War can create short-term unity, but if it drags on, lacks clear objectives, and imposes rising costs, it can also tear that unity apart. Trump’s war against Iran has already divided even parts of his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) base. Some support his hard line; others oppose further American entanglement in the Middle East. Against this backdrop, violence against Trump may consolidate his base in the short term, but it is unlikely to broaden his support. More likely, it will become another sign of escalating political hostility.
... another political assassination attempt against Trump cannot be ruled out. This is not sensationalism; it is a judgment about America’s current political reality.
If there is a fourth political assassination attempt, can Trump survive it? The answer is impossible to predict. After three close calls, the Secret Service and local law enforcement will inevitably raise security levels. Trump’s public appearances will become more restricted, venues will be reviewed more strictly, spontaneous contact will be reduced, and perimeter screening will become more detailed. These measures will lower the probability that another attempt succeeds.
But lowering probability does not eliminate risk. Security can stop many people, but it cannot erase hatred. In a society like the US, public political activity cannot be completely cancelled, and a president cannot live forever in an underground bunker. As long as Trump still campaigns for allies, delivers speeches, attends ceremonies and faces the media, the risk can only be managed. It cannot be reduced to zero.
Therefore, another political assassination attempt against Trump cannot be ruled out. This is not sensationalism; it is a judgment about America’s current political reality. If a country allows political conflict to slide towards moral purge, public language to harden into friend-enemy division, and guns and conspiracy theories to shape individual action, the next attempt is not merely theoretical.
Political violence becoming the norm
The deeper danger is not only whether Trump will be attacked again. It is that American democracy is becoming accustomed to treating political violence as background noise. Today it is Trump; tomorrow it could be another president, senator, judge, journalist or governor. Democracy requires competition, but also the acceptance of defeat; it requires conflict, but also a minimum consensus that one’s opponent’s life must not be threatened. Once that consensus breaks down, American politics will live under the shadow of gunfire.
Given the capabilities of the presidential security system, Trump still has a considerable chance of being protected if danger comes again. But the real question for American society is this: why does the president of a democracy need to “survive” assassination attempts again and again? If American politics cannot answer that question, whether a fourth attempt occurs is only a matter of time and chance. The deeper crisis has already arrived.
![Hokkien roots, Brunei soil: My father’s journey across borders and spiritual planes [Eye on Fujian series]](https://cassette.sphdigital.com.sg/image/thinkchina/71f359b221f9d122e33e939974a2a8159629f5990340bdf70135adfea2d6a086)
