The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump in July 2024 sent shockwaves through the political system, but it also provided researchers with an extraordinary opportunity. Moments of political violence are rare in the United States, and when they occur, they raise urgent scientific questions about how people respond. Do such events intensify polarization, or do they generate solidarity? Do they encourage conspiracy thinking, or do they temper support for violence? Social scientists and psychologists have been working quickly to provide data-driven answers.
On July 13, 2024, during an outdoor campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, a 20-year-old gunman opened fire from a nearby rooftop with an AR-15–style rifle. Trump was struck in the ear, one spectator was killed, and others were seriously wounded before law enforcement killed the shooter. The shocking images of Trump with blood on his face, raising his fist in defiance, were immediately circulated worldwide. The event was widely described as the most serious attempt on a U.S. president or candidate since the shooting of Ronald Reagan in 1981.
Now, four new studies are offering early evidence about how Americans—and Trump himself—processed the event. From survey experiments measuring shifts in political attitudes, to computational analyses of rhetorical patterns, to studies on the interpersonal spread of misinformation and the dynamics of online engagement, researchers are beginning to chart how this event shaped public behavior, belief, and political expression in its immediate aftermath. Read on to see what science suggests about how this dramatic episode shaped political behavior, cognition, and communication.
1. After the assassination attempt, Republicans became less supportive of political violence
A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences offers evidence that the assassination attempt on Donald Trump did not lead to an escalation in support for political violence. In fact, among Republicans—including those who strongly identify with Trump’s movement—support for violent action against Democrats appeared to decrease. At the same time, Republicans reported feeling more positively about their own party, suggesting that the attack fostered a sense of unity rather than increased hostility toward political opponents.
To investigate this question, researchers took advantage of an ongoing national survey that was already collecting data when the shooting occurred. They analyzed responses from over 4,000 participants, comparing answers given before the event to those given in the days immediately after. Participants were asked about their attitudes toward both parties, their support for democratic norms, and their views on different scenarios involving political violence. By analyzing changes across time—and within individuals who completed the survey both before and after the event—the researchers were able to detect meaningful shifts in political attitudes.
The findings suggest that Republicans, and especially those who strongly identified with Trump, became less likely to endorse violent actions such as vandalism or assault as political tools. Their perceptions of their own party also grew more favorable. Democrats, on the other hand, showed no significant change in attitudes. While this drop in violent support among Republicans did not last long, the data contradicts predictions that the shooting would immediately spark retaliation or civil unrest. As lead author Sean Westwood noted, public support for political violence remains low overall, and even events as extreme as an attempted assassination may not push Americans closer to open conflict.
2. Trump’s metaphorical language shifted after the shooting—and echoed his 2016 rhetoric
Another study, presented at the 2025 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence, explored how Donald Trump’s language changed after the assassination attempt. By analyzing metaphors in his speeches, researchers found that Trump’s post-shooting rhetoric became more psychologically similar to his 2016 campaign, potentially reflecting a return to familiar mental frameworks as a way of coping with trauma.
Rather than relying on interviews or clinical assessments, the research team used a computational tool called MetaPro to analyze thousands of metaphors across Trump’s campaign speeches. These speeches were drawn from three key periods: his 2016 campaign, his 2024 campaign before the shooting, and his 2024 campaign after the shooting. Metaphors were treated as indicators of deeper thought processes, with the idea that people often rely on familiar figurative language to make sense of abstract concepts—especially during times of stress.
The researchers found that while Trump’s most frequently used metaphors remained relatively consistent, his post-shooting speeches became more similar to his 2016 style. Concepts related to cognition, perception, and internal states became more prominent, while metaphors about success and production took on new emotional undertones. For example, there was an uptick in metaphors connecting physical vulnerability to personal identity, such as references linking the body to objects or actions. These changes may suggest that the shooting prompted a shift in focus—from external achievements to internal resilience and control. While the study cannot make clinical claims, it offers a unique lens into how trauma may shape political communication and mental framing, especially among high-profile figures.
3. People were more likely to believe conspiracy theories about the shooting if they heard them from someone they knew
A separate study published in PNAS Nexus explored how conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination attempt spread and took hold. The researchers found that people who heard these theories from personal contacts—such as friends or family—were more likely to believe them than those who encountered the same claims through social media or news outlets. This finding challenges the common assumption that online platforms are the main drivers of conspiracy belief and suggests that interpersonal influence plays a more powerful role than previously thought.
To examine these dynamics, the researchers surveyed over 2,700 U.S. adults in the days following the shooting. Participants were asked whether they had heard two specific conspiracy theories—one alleging that Democrats orchestrated the attack, and another claiming the shooting was staged—and where they encountered them. The researchers also measured participants’ political views, approval of Trump, and general tendency toward conspiratorial thinking. Social media was the most common source of exposure, but it was hearing the theories from personal contacts that most strongly predicted belief.
Even after accounting for political affiliation and general conspiratorial attitudes, the channel of communication mattered. People were significantly more likely to believe a conspiracy theory if it was passed along by someone they knew personally. The study also found that belief in these theories followed partisan lines, with Trump supporters more likely to believe the theory blaming Democrats, and Democrats more open to the idea that the event was staged. These findings suggest that addressing misinformation may require more than just flagging content on platforms—it may also mean thinking more deeply about how beliefs spread within trusted social circles.
4. Solidarity, not hostility, drove engagement on social media after the Trump shooting
In a final study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers examined how social media users responded to the Trump shooting and a separate political crisis—President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election. The team found that in the wake of Trump’s shooting, Republican social media users were more likely to engage with posts expressing solidarity and support for their own group, rather than posts attacking the opposing party. This shift was temporary, but it suggests that positive group emotions can become powerful drivers of engagement when a political community is under threat.
The researchers analyzed over 62,000 Facebook posts made by politicians, partisan media outlets, and political commentators in July 2024. Using a combination of artificial intelligence and manual coding, they identified posts that conveyed either in-group solidarity or out-group hostility. Before the shooting, posts attacking the other side generated more engagement across the board. But immediately after the assassination attempt, the dynamic changed. For Republicans, posts expressing support for Trump and unity within the party became more viral than aggressive content. After Biden exited the race later that month, the same pattern played out in reverse—Democrats gravitated toward solidarity, while Republicans returned to hostility.
These findings suggest that in times of crisis, people may be more inclined to rally around their own group rather than lash out at others. However, the effect seems to be time-limited and tied to which political side feels under threat. When one party experiences a crisis, their supporters show a greater appetite for messages of unity, while the opposing side may feel emboldened to go on the attack. This dual pattern highlights the complex emotional responses that emerge in polarized environments—and how social media amplifies them.
