Paul Pelosi attack highlights soaring threats of political violence

The assault on Paul Pelosi, husband of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, late last week in the couple’s San Francisco home can be seen as an extension of the Jan. 6, 2021, siege of the U.S. Capitol. 

Just as Jan. 6 rioters shouted for “Nancy” – with apparent intent to harm or kill the speaker – so too did David DePape, her husband’s alleged attacker, ask for “Nancy” after breaking into the Pelosi home early Friday, according to the federal affidavit accompanying criminal charges filed Monday. The affidavit also said the attacker carried zip ties, tape, and rope, another Jan. 6 echo. 

Social media accounts bearing Mr. DePape’s name espoused views similar to those of people who stormed the Capitol, according to news reports – casting doubt on the 2020 election results, repeating QAnon conspiracy theories, and spreading racist and antisemitic rhetoric. 

Mr. DePape is charged with attempting to kidnap a federal official (Speaker Pelosi) and assaulting an immediate family member of a federal official. But much remains to be learned about the incident, including Mr. DePape’s mental state. Over the weekend, far-right figures circulated a sensational story from a website known for publishing misinformation, with Twitter owner Elon Musk at one point tweeting out and then deleting the link. On Sunday, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins told reporters she wanted to “clear up distortions” on social media, confirming that the incident had been a “forced entry.” 

Based on what is known, the attack – just days before the Nov. 8 midterm elections – fits into a larger pattern of rising threats, dehumanization, and physical violence against political figures, experts on extremism say.  

“The bottom line is, in our research, hate crimes have been going up every year, threats against members of Congress and other elected officials are going up, and the invective online goes up,” says Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. 

Professor Levin adds that there’s a “seasonality to these plots, threats, and attacks,” often taking place around major political events.

In the current cycle, there’s a knock-on effect: The nation is facing a shortage of election workers, as many have quit amid threats and harassment, ignited by false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. 

For members of Congress and other prominent federal and state officials, serving in public office increasingly entails concerns over security. Just last week, three men were found guilty of conspiracy in a 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Prosecutors said the men had objected to COVID-19 restrictions she had imposed. 

As of July, members of the House could be reimbursed up to $10,000 to enhance security in their homes. But more is needed, lawmakers say. Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said that having security details present at top congressional leaders’ houses should be “strongly considered.” Others have proposed lowering the threshold for assigning a temporary security detail to a member under threat. 

In Congress, the trend is clear: In the five years following Donald Trump’s election as president, threats against members of Congress increased more than tenfold to 9,625 last year, according to the Capitol Police. A New York Times review of threats that led to indictments found that more than a third were made by Republicans or pro-Trump people, and about a quarter were by Democrats. 

Speaker Pelosi, the most powerful woman in the country and second in the line of succession to the presidency, has faced especially vicious verbal attacks, and at times is featured in Republican political ads as an almost demonic figure. She has a Capitol Police security detail, as do other members of the congressional leadership, but was in Washington at the time of the attack in San Francisco.

Her husband, a wealthy businessman in his early 80s, was home alone in the wee hours of last Friday when an intruder broke into the house and found him in a bedroom. Mr. Pelosi was able to call 911, and as police arrived, Mr. DePape allegedly attacked him with a hammer before being subdued by police. Mr. Pelosi was hospitalized with a fractured skull and other injuries but is expected to make a full recovery, according to the speaker’s office.

The federal affidavit contained detail that helped explain Mr. DePape’s goal in going after Ms. Pelosi. In an interview with police, he said he wanted to hold her hostage and “talk to her.” If she “lied,” he said, he was going to break “her kneecaps,” showing “other members of Congress there were consequences to actions.”

Republican leaders have denounced the assault on Mr. Pelosi but also asserted that both sides are to blame for overheated political rhetoric. 

“We all need to recognize violence is up across the board,” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said Sunday on Fox News. 

The RNC chair noted two high-profile incidents affecting Republicans this year, one an attempted knife attack in July on New York Rep. Lee Zeldin, who is running for governor. The other took place in June, before the Supreme Court’s anticipated ruling on abortion, when an armed man was arrested near conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home, saying he wanted to kill him. 

High-profile shootings have also touched both parties in recent years. In 2017, GOP Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana was gravely wounded and three others were shot at a congressional baseball practice by a supporter of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. And in 2011, then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat from Arizona, was shot in the head and six others killed by a lone gunman at an outdoor event for constituents in Tucson. 

Still, some experts on extremism warn against engaging in “both-sides-ism” when discussing overheated political rhetoric. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer drew criticism from Republicans when he stood outside the Supreme Court in 2020 with abortion-rights activists and warned the two Trump-appointed justices: “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.” 

Carolyn Gallaher, a professor at American University and expert on right-wing paramilitaries, says that was “obviously not a good thing to say,” but believes Senator Schumer’s words can’t be equated with inflammatory right-wing rhetoric.

“All politicians have to be careful about the language they use, but Chuck Schumer doesn’t have paramilitary forces on the ground supporting him,” Professor Gallaher says, referring to groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.

Regarding Speaker Pelosi, Ms. Gallaher points to increasingly personalized rhetoric that permeates the right-wing ecosystem and can trigger action: “She’s not just our opponent; she’s a quote-unquote enemy of the people, a danger to the body politic.”

Despite the seemingly bleak picture, however, both Mr. Levin and Ms. Gallaher see avenues for hope – by going local.

“A lot can be done, including exercises in bipartisanship,” says Mr. Levin. “The more that people work together toward a common goal, the more likely their prejudices will be challenged.”