This Isn’t Normal: The Minnesota Shootings and a Nation on the Edge
As political violence escalates, the response continues to be inconsistent.
In the quiet hours of June 14, 2025, democracy was hunted in its sleep.
Vance Boelter, a 57-year-old Minnesota man with a long-standing record of right-wing extremism, put on a police uniform, grabbed a gun, and began a political assassination spree targeting Democratic officials. It started in the early morning darkness in Champlin, Minnesota, where he rang the doorbell of State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. Claiming to be an officer executing a warrant, he entered their home and opened fire. The couple miraculously survived—Yvette shot eight times, John nine—but they were left clinging to life.
We just hit 15,000 subscribers—thank you!
Get exclusive access for just $1/week or $52 a year.
Get exclusive analysis and fearless reporting you won’t find in corporate media.
A Coordinated, Multi-Stop Killing Spree
After fleeing the Hoffman home, Boelter didn’t stop. He went to a second legislator’s house in Maple Grove, where surveillance video later revealed him in full police disguise knocking at the door. No one answered. The lawmaker was out of town, unknowingly escaping a near-certain ambush.
Still undeterred, Boelter moved on to a third home in New Hope. This time, his luck nearly ran out. A police officer, responding to the developing situation from Champlin, spotted what appeared to be another officer parked suspiciously outside the house. The encounter was brief, even cordial, as two uniforms acknowledged each other in the quiet darkness, but the deception held. The officer, unaware he was speaking to a disguised assassin, let Boelter drive away.
Saved by Seconds: The Lives That Nearly Weren’t
What happened next was a tragedy of timing.
At approximately 3:35 a.m., Brooklyn Park police, acting on instinct from the Champlin attack, performed a welfare check at the home of former House Speaker Melissa Hortman. They spotted Boelter’s vehicle, which was falsely marked to resemble a law enforcement SUV, and approached. Before they could intervene, Boelter opened fire and killed both Melissa and her husband, Mark. Then he disappeared into the night, launching a 40-hour manhunt that would grip the state and stun the nation.
“This wasn’t a protest gone wrong. This was premeditated murder.”
— Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison
When law enforcement finally apprehended him, Boelter was hiding under a tarp in a rural field. He was armed, masked, and carrying a manifesto along with a hit list naming dozens of Democratic leaders, including U.S. Senators and high-profile abortion rights advocates. He had intended, investigators believe, to keep going.
It was not random. It was not impulsive. It was planned.
“They’re not just targeting people—they’re targeting democracy.” — Rep. Ilhan Omar
And we came horrifyingly close to losing far more lives than we did.
See our initial coverage here:
The Pattern Is Clear. The Response Is Not.
Boelter’s attack joins a grim and growing list of political violence in America. The attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020, the bludgeoning of Paul Pelosi in 2022, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, and threats against judges, clinic workers, election officials, and lawmakers now flood law enforcement inboxes daily. Swatting has become so common that security personnel track it as a predictive signal.
These aren’t unrelated acts. They’re data points on a trajectory, and the trend is unmistakable.
Facts, Not Partisanship: The Majority of Violence Comes From the Right
According to the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and the Anti-Defamation League, the overwhelming majority of political violence over the past decade has come from the far right— white supremacist groups, militia factions, and lone-wolf actors radicalized by conspiracy theories. The ideology may vary slightly, but the pattern is clear. And yet, the official response under the Trump administration has moved in the opposite direction.
Trump 2.0: Dismantling the Defenses
In Trump’s second term, federal resources devoted to domestic terrorism prevention have been quietly dismantled. The FBI stopped labeling many ideologically driven cases as domestic terrorism, erasing the connective tissue investigators rely on to track patterns across states and agencies. DHS defunded its Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, the only federal body dedicated to community-based violence prevention. Enforcement of the FACE Act, designed to protect abortion providers from threats and attacks, has all but disappeared. Trump himself has even pardoned some of the very individuals convicted of clinic-based violence.
See our coverage here of the changes to FBI priorities and the pardoning of abortion clinic attackers here:
Note: This article is more than 45 days old and now lives in our archive. Become a paid subscriber for all 650+ articles and exclusive access.
Some Murders Get Mocked
What makes this even more galling is the way political leaders and right-wing media figures respond to these events, or rather, how they don’t.
When Trump was grazed by a bullet in Butler, the reaction was swift, loud, and appropriately horrified. But when Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered in their home, the response from the same voices was muted. Some outright mocked it. Trump refused to call Minnesota’s governor, instead calling him “a whack job.” Senator Mike Lee, a sitting U.S. lawmaker, made jokes and insinuated the shooter was a Marxist before later walking back his comments.
“Imagine if a Democratic leader laughed off the assassination of a Republican Senator. The outcry would be deafening.” — State Rep. Athena Hollins
This is not normal. The silence isn’t just callous; it’s dangerous. It sends a signal. That some lives matter more than others, that political violence is only worth condemning if it affects the right people, that murder can be a punchline if it’s your opponents who are bleeding.
A Tale of Two Reactions
To fully grasp the imbalance in how violence is processed in modern America, consider the case of Luigi Mangione, who was arrested earlier this year for the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. While Mangione’s actions were not overtly linked to a political ideology, they were immediately framed as an act of terrorism. Law enforcement and political leaders mobilized quickly, corporations raised alarms, and national news coverage surged. The NYPD issued security alerts to healthcare executives nationwide. Social media ignited with both condemnation and celebration from anti-corporate corners. Within days, Mangione was charged under terrorism statutes, and the attack was widely discussed as a national security issue.
Compare that to what followed the assassination of Speaker Melissa Hortman and the shooting of Senator John Hoffman and his wife.
There was no terrorism designation. No national manhunt bulletin. No sweeping security alerts to public officials. Instead, the tragedy was politicized, softened, or in some quarters, mocked. Some right-wing figures even speculated the shooter might be a leftist agitator, despite his long-documented far-right leanings. Others barely acknowledged the crime at all.
This contrast is more than a media cycle quirk; it’s a reflection of what this country chooses to treat as urgent and dangerous. A CEO's murder, though devastating, was instantly recognized as an institutional threat. But the targeted killing of sitting lawmakers in their homes? That was somehow up for debate.
This disparity speaks volumes. And the silence around it is deafening.
See some of our reporting here:
Note: This article is more than 45 days old and now lives in the archive. Become a paid subscriber for the full 650+ article archive plus exclusive access.
The Legal System Isn’t Built to Handle This
Worse still, the law reflects this imbalance. Despite the political nature of the attacks, Boelter is not currently charged with domestic terrorism. Nor is he being prosecuted under hate crime statutes. That’s because, under current law, political affiliation is not a protected class. You can be stalked, harassed, or even killed for your ideology, and it will not trigger the same legal protections that exist for race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
That needs to change.
We Condemn All Political Violence Without Exception
We are not calling for censorship. We are not calling for authoritarianism. We are calling for protection—for accountability—for a legal system that sees political violence for what it is: an assault not just on individuals, but on the democratic system itself.
We are also calling for consistency. Because until there is full and unequivocal condemnation of all political violence, until lawmakers stop making excuses, spinning conspiracies, or retreating into silence, we will remain trapped in a cycle of escalation.
The Real Risk: One Act, Endless Backlash
And that escalation, many fear, may not be symmetrical.
Organizers of the recent No Kings protest openly expressed their concerns: that any act of violence by a left-wing individual, or anyone loosely associated with their movement, could be seized upon by the administration as a pretext to impose martial law, criminalize dissent, or further restrict civil liberties.
They are not being paranoid. They are being historically aware.
“We’re terrified that one person doing the wrong thing could justify a crackdown on all of us.” — No Kings organizer, name withheld for safety.
From COINTELPRO to the post-9/11 surveillance state, this country has a track record of using isolated incidents to justify sweeping crackdowns, usually against the very people least responsible for systemic violence. And in the current political climate, with domestic terrorism deprioritized and violent rhetoric tolerated from the top down, it’s easy to imagine how quickly a single act of left-wing violence could be spun into a national emergency, justifying authoritarian measures with broad public support.
The irony, of course, is that those working hardest to prevent political violence—many on the left—may be the ones punished most harshly if it happens.
This Is the Line. We Must Not Let It Blur.
We’ve seen this story before. In history books. In fractured countries. In authoritarian collapses. Political violence is a toxin, and once normalized, it does not go away. It multiplies. The further we walk this road, the harder it becomes to turn back.
There is still time. But not much.
Now is the moment to name this crisis, respond to it with the gravity it deserves, and draw a red line, clearly, forcefully, without exception.
If we fail to do that, then we’re not just witnessing the unraveling of safety; we’re watching the unraveling of the republic.
What You Can Do
This isn’t just a tragedy; it’s a call to action. If you believe in protecting our democracy from political violence, here are three ways to act:
Call the Congressional Switchboard:
Demand the addition of political ideology as a protected category under federal hate crime statutes and the full restoration of domestic terrorism monitoring.
“Hi, my name is [Name], and I’m a constituent. I’m calling to ask [Senator/Representative] to support legislation that includes political affiliation in hate crime protections and fully restore federal domestic terrorism prevention efforts. We need real accountability and real safeguards before more lives are lost.”
Support Grassroots and Watchdog Groups:
Organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Reproaction are doing the work to track, expose, and prevent ideologically driven violence. Consider donating or volunteering.
Stay Informed and Keep Speaking Out:
Share this story. Write to your local paper. Attend local council meetings. The silence that surrounds these tragedies is part of what lets them grow.
We just hit 15,000 subscribers—thank you!
Get exclusive access for just $1/week or $52 a year.
Get exclusive analysis and fearless reporting you won’t find in corporate media.
Bibliography:
“Reaction to deadly shooting of Minnesota lawmaker.” Reuters, June 14, 2025.
NPR. “Suspect in Minnesota Shootings Faces Federal and State Murder Charges.” June 17, 2025.
The Guardian. “‘Our beloved Melissa’: grief over Minnesota killings – and relief at suspect’s capture.” The Guardian, June 17, 2025.
Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. “Press Release: Statement on Murder of Speaker Hortman and Shooting of Senator Hoffman.” June 14, 2025.
Democracy Now! “We Are in the Midst of the Creation of a Police State: Rep. Ilhan Omar on Authoritarianism.” June 13, 2025.
Time. “Trump Allies Falsely Link Democrats to Minnesota Suspect—Despite His Pro‑Trump Views.” June 16, 2025.
AP News. “Under Patel, FBI heightens focus on violent crime, illegal immigration. Other threats abound, too.” May 2025.
ProPublica. “Trump Cuts Signal End to Federal Work on Terrorism Prevention.” March 2025.
Reuters. “U.S. Senate Democrat Questions FBI on Domestic Terrorism Staff Reassignments.” April 8, 2025.
Washington Post. “Clemency for Oath Keepers, Proud Boys Fuels Extremism Threat …” January 21, 2025.
Wikipedia. “List of People Granted Executive Clemency in the Second Presidency of Donald Trump.” Accessed June 2025.
Wikipedia. “Pardon of January 6 United States Capitol Attack Defendants.”
Politico. “Trump Defends His Pardons for Jan. 6 Attack on Capitol.” January 21, 2025.
The double standards are really frightening. And also that empathy is overlaid by political calculation. It‘s disgusting.