Political violence in US mirrors 1960s turmoil, historian warns after Charlie Kirk shooting
Samuel Corum/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Political violence and extreme rhetoric in the United States today mirror the turbulent 1960s, but with key differences that make the current era particularly challenging, according to presidential historian Mark Updegrove.
“The 1960s were another time of great upheaval and discord and division,” Updegrove told ABC News on Thursday, one day after the fatal shooting of conservative youth leader Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. “In just five years, we saw the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, and in 1968 alone, the back-to-back assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.”
As FBI agents recovered what they believed to be the murder weapon—a high-powered bolt action rifle—from a wooded area near the shooting site and continued their manhunt for the suspect, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox labeled Kirk’s death a “political assassination.”
The assassination led Updegrove to highlight a distinction between today’s political violence and that of the 1960s: The role of social media in amplifying extreme views.
“Social media gives us an opportunity to purvey extreme views from one side or the other with absolute impunity,” Updegrove said. “For social media purveyors, that enragement means engagement. It’s good for their business.”
The historian emphasized that political violence has emerged from across the ideological spectrum.
“It’s happening from all sides, not just the left,” he said. “It’s extremism that we need to prevent in this country.”
Reflecting on former first lady Lady Bird Johnson’s words, Updegrove recalled her observation that “the clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.” However, he stressed that while Americans are entitled to different views, violence is never the solution in a democracy.
Kirk’s death could have lasting implications for conservative youth movements, according to Updegrove.
“He was a leader who had great charisma and great impact,” he said, noting Kirk’s significant influence in mobilizing young voters. “He may be martyred… there might be people who rise up and try to fill that gap.”
Drawing another parallel to the civil rights era, Updegrove pointed out how movements can struggle to maintain momentum after losing charismatic leaders.
“We saw with Dr. Martin Luther King [who] was assassinated in 1968, the civil rights movement never quite was able to sustain that continued forward movement because he was such an effective leader,” he said.
Looking into the future, Updegrove emphasized the importance of national unity.
“We are a less effective nation when we are divided,” he said, expressing hope for reconciliation rather than further conflict.
(WASHINGTON) — As President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington continued Wednesday, protesters booed Vice President JD Vance during a photo op with the guardsmen stationed in the city.
The protesters jeered Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller as they visited Union Station, blocks from the U.S. Capitol, to thank the troops at a Shake Shack where they bought lunch for the guard members.
“Well, a lot has changed in the past seven days,” Vance told the troops, referring to when the federal surge against D.C. crime began. “You guys are doing a hell of a job. I’m proud of you and we’re grateful,” he told the troops. So, we’ll say hello for a bit — just want to shake some hands and say hey to you guys.”
“Free D.C.,” the protesters shouted as the three officials arrived and then later inside the Shake Shack. The chants drowned out much of what Vance, Hegseth and Miller said as they tried to speak to reporters.
Vance and Miller dismissed the jeers, calling the protesters “crazy” and “communists.”
“They appear to hate the idea that Americans can enjoy their communities,” Vance said.
Vance was asked why troops were stationed at Union Station instead of parts of the city with higher crime rates. The vice president said the station was being overrun with homeless people and visitors didn’t feel safe.
“This should be a monument to American greatness,” he said.
Vance added that he believed that crime statistics do not report the full scope of crime on the streets of the nation’s capital.
At a back-to-school event Wednesday morning, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said the city doesn’t need federal agents to ensure safety in D.C.
“Crime has gone down in our city and it has gone down precipitously over the last two years because of a lot of hard work, changes to our public safety ecosystem, including changes to the law,” Bowser said. “And we know that those facts don’t comport to what some people are saying, but those are the facts.”
Bowser also said she doesn’t believe the National Guard should be used for “law enforcement.”
“They have to be used on mission specific items that benefit the nation,” she said of the guardsmen.
However, when asked about how her relationship with President Trump has changed since the start of the year, Bowser said her plan is to “represent the district.”
Flanked by Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith, Bowser repeatedly deferred to Smith when asked about the city’s crime data.
The MPD has been collaborative with the federal agencies and so far has developed a congenial relationship with its federal partners, according to Smith. Smith also acknowledged having federal agents spread throughout the city has been helpful to the city’s police force.
“Hearing from the officers on the street, some of them have found it to be very helpful, some people in the community have found it to be very helpful,” she said.
ABC News’ Arthur Jones II contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — a staunch deficit hawk has been critical of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and immigration bill — signaled Monday that he would back the bill when it comes to a vote.
On Saturday Johnson flipped his vote to support a motion to move the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to the Senate floor only after huddling with Republican leaders about further reductions to the federal debt.
CNN’s Jake Tapper prompted Johnson to say he was a yes vote on the bill, to which the senator corrected him, saying he was “a yes on the motion to proceed” and “hopefully” add a provision that would prevent new enrollees in Medicaid expansion states from receiving Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) if they are are not disabled and don’t have dependent children.
Johnson then pivoted to signal his support for the final bill, which will come to a floor vote when an ongoing vote-a-rama wraps up.
“This is about as good as we can get. I don’t like it. I would like to get a lot more. But at some point in time you have to recognize reality. And if we don’t pass this bill, we have a massive $4 trillion tax increase,” Johnson said.
The FMAP amendment, led by fellow conservative holdout Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, had not yet been considered Monday evening.
The Senate plowed ahead toward a final vote on the bill as Republicans rush to get it across the finish line by July 4, with lawmakers voting on amendments through the night into Tuesday morning.
The self-imposed deadline by Trump meant a rare weekend session for lawmakers, one filled with partisan drama and some GOP infighting.
On Monday morning, senators began the “vote-a-rama” — a series of votes on proposed amendments to the megabill.
There is no limit to the number of amendments lawmakers can seek. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the chamber’s top Democrat, promised his party would bring amendment after amendment during the marathon session. Democrats forced a reading of the 940-page bill over the weekend, which took nearly 16 hours. “Every senator will soon have an opportunity to reject this nonsense and vote for common-sense budgeting. Americans will be watching,” Schumer said on Monday as he slammed Trump’s bill as a break for billionaires that will hurt working-class families.
Democrats used the early hours of the vote-a-rama to force votes highlighting cuts the megabill makes to Medicaid, SNAP and rural hospitals and to hammer Republicans on the tax cuts they say the measure gives to the wealthiest Americans.
The Senate voted down, 47-53, an amendment led by Schumer that he said would have undone “the travesty that is at the core of the Republican bill.”
“Their bill the so-called big beautiful bill, which is really a big, ugly betrayal, cuts taxes for billionaires by taking away health care for millions of people. So what my amendment simply says, if people’s health care costs go up, the billionaire tax cuts vanish,” Schumer said.
Democratic Sen. Ed Markey’s effort to strip provisions that would negatively impact rural hospitals due to cuts to Medicaid also failed, but did receive the support of two Republicans: Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.
The two moderate Republicans, who both have a history of voting across party lines, have raised concerns about how cuts to Medicaid and SNAP would hit their constituents. In total, Murkowski supported five Democratic-led measures in the ongoing vote-a-rama and Collins supported four.
Collins proposed her own amendment that aimed to increase the amount of money in the rural hospital relief fund. It failed by a vote of 22-78, with Collins subsequently criticizing what she called the “hypocritical approach” of the Democrats that voted against it.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture committee, argued that the SNAP provisions in the bill creates “chaos for state budgets and hardship for families” and violate budget rules. Her motion related to SNAP was waived by Republicans.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune defended the bill as delivering Trump’s campaign promises to eliminate tax on tips and overtime pay while boosting spending for defense and border security.
“It’s been a long debate,” Thune said in his own floor remarks ahead of the votes on amendments. “I know people are weary. But at the end of the day, we want to get this done so that this country is safer and stronger and more prosperous, not only for today but for future generations of Americans.”
So far, Republicans have defeated all Democratic efforts to modify or reconsider the bill — but the session ran into Tuesday morning.
As he walked off the floor in the early hours of Tuesday, Thune was asked if he could pull the bill back or if he may be forced to hold a final passage vote on the bill, even if he knows it will fail.
“Those are options I don’t want to have to worry about,” Thune replied.
Senate Finance Committee chairman Mike Crapo, a Republican, argued against several of the Democratic amendments.
“The reality is, the reforms we are putting into place are to try to reign in control of wasteful and fraudulent and abusive spending that actually diverts resources away from the people who these programs really deserve to receive,” Crapo said of Schumer’s amendment on Medicaid.
The vote-a-rama is the last hurdle before a vote on final passage of the bill in the Senate.
There is little room for error in the Republican-controlled chamber. A procedural vote on Saturday night to open debate on the bill narrowly passed in a 51-49 vote after two Republican defections.
GOP Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted against advancing the bill. Tillis railed against the changes to Medicaid in the bill, saying it would hurt his constituents and would represent a betrayal of Trump’s promise not to touch the entitlement program upon which millions of people rely for health care coverage. Tillis’ opposition drew Trump’s ire, with the president threatening to support a primary challenger to the two-term senator. Tillis then suddenly announced he would not seek reelection, saying later he texted Trump on Saturday night suggesting he “probably needed to start looking for a replacement.”
“I respect President Trump. I support the majority of his agenda, but I don’t bow to anybody. When the people of North Carolina are at risk. And this bill puts them at risk,” Tillis said.
As of early Tuesday morning, the GOP leadership were still pushing for sufficient support.
One of the main targets was Murkowski, whose indecision came after reports that the Senate parliamentarian may have ruled some carve out provisions meant for her home state of Alaska’s Medicaid recipients out of order.
Also under pressure were Scott and Sen. Mike Lee, who were yet to receive a vote on their amendment that strips back additional funding for Medicaid. Collins had also not yet said which way she would vote.
Paul, meanwhile, offered an amendment that would significantly reduce the amount of money attributed to raise to the federal debt limit. The current bill raises the debt limit by $5 trillion dollars. Paul’s amendment would raise it by only $500 billion.
What’s next for OBBB in the House?
If the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” passes in the Senate, it will have to go back to the House for members to consider the changes made to the bill.
House Republican leaders say Wednesday is the earliest chance for a megabill vote.
“Members are advised that votes are now expected in the House as early as 9 a.m. Wednesday, July 2. Please stay tuned to future updates for additional information regarding this week’s schedule,” a notice from Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s office said.
Speaker Mike Johnson expressed optimism that the Senate’s version of the One Big Beautiful Bill will pass in the GOP-led House despite opposition from moderates and conservatives.
“We’re going to pass this bill one way or the other,” Johnson said leaving the Capitol Monday evening. “And I have prevailed upon my Senate colleagues to please, please, please, put it as close to the House product as possible. I have been very consistent from the very beginning.
Johnson did not rule out passing the Senate version as is and said, “there’s still a lot of amendments, and a lot of game to play.”
Asked if GOP House leaders would make changes to what the Senate sends over, Johnson said, “We’ll see what the final product is. I am very hopeful as always. We will get this job done. We’ll see what happens.”
The speaker did not respond to a question about passing the bill by the Fourth of July deadline.
Republican leaders have told members they will receive 48 hours notice before a vote is called and will have 72 hours to review the bill text.
The House passed the Trump megabill by just one vote back in May. The Senate version of the bill will face an uphill battle in the House, given the GOP’s razor-thin majority.
California moderate Republican Rep. David Valadao said he will vote no given the Medicaid changes in the Senate bill. Several conservatives, including Reps. Chip Roy of Texas, Josh Breechen of Oklahoma and Eric Burlison of Missouri have also expressed opposition to the Senate’s version of the bill.
Johnson and other Republican leaders worked through the weekend to lock down the votes even as several lawmakers have expressed opposition to the Senate’s version, which is still not finalized. Johnson can only afford to lose three defections if all members are voting and present.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Trump was working “hand in hand” with Johnson and Thune, and that the two leaders had met with him at the White House earlier Monday.
“Republicans need to stay tough and unified during the home stretch, and we are counting on them to get the job done,” Leavitt said during the White House briefing.
But sources familiar with the matter told ABC News Thune and Johnson have not met with President Trump at the White House, and as of now the two leaders have no current plans to meet with the president on Monday as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” progresses in the Senate.
A spokesman for Thune said he is preoccupied as the Senate moves through amendments to the megabill.
“Teams are obviously in close contact/coordination, as always, but we’re continuing to move through vote-a-rama in the Senate as we work to move this bill one step closer to the president’s desk,” the spokesman said in a post on X.
Speaker Johnson is in Washington working through House members’ concerns as the Senate works through the bill, including several provisions that could spell problems later in the week if the bill is sent back to the House.
ABC News’ John Parkinson contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said he will be meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, Aug. 15 in Alaska.
“The highly anticipated meeting between myself, as President of the United States of America, and President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, will take place next Friday, August 15, 2025, in the Great State of Alaska. Further details to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” he posted on his social media platform.
Earlier, he had hinted at the timing and location, saying, “I think you’ll be very happy.”
“We are going to have a meeting with Russia. We’ll start off with Russia and we’ll announce a location. I think the location will be a very popular one for a lot of reasons. But we’ll be announcing that a little bit later. I just don’t want to do it now because of the importance of what we just did,” Trump said as he hosted the leaders Armenia and Azerbaijan at the White House for a peace summit.
Asked if this is Russia’s last chance to achieve piece, Trump responded, “I don’t like using the term ‘last chance.”
“I think my gut instinct really tells me that we have a shot at it. You’ll find that out later on, maybe even today, but we have a shot at it,” he said.
Friday marked the deadline Trump set for Putin to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine or face “secondary sanctions” against countries that buy oil from Russia.
But uncertainty remains as to whether the U.S. will hit Moscow with new economic penalties as focus turns to the one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin. Trump did not comment on the deadline as he took questions from reporters at the White House.
Trump on Thursday was asked directly if his Aug. 8 deadline for Putin to make peace or face consequences still applied.
“It’s gonna be up to him,” the president responded. “We’re going to see what he has to say. It’s gonna be up to him. Very disappointed.”
The White House was pushing for a trilateral summit between Trump, Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, though Trump said Putin meeting with Zelenskyy wasn’t a condition for he and Putin to meet.
Still, Trump said on Friday the Ukrainian president will get “everything he needs.”
“The European leaders want to see peace. President Putin, I believe, wants to see peace. And Zelenskyy wants to see peace,” Trump said.
The president was asked if Zelenskyy will have to give up territory in any deal to end the war, which began when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.
“We’re looking at that but we’re actually looking to get some back and some swapping. It’s complicated. It’s actually nothing easy, it’s very complicated. But we’re going to get some back, and we’re going to get some switched. There will be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both,” Trump responded.
Zelenskyy said in a statement Saturday, “We are ready, together with President Trump, together with all our partners, to work for a real and, most importantly, lasting peace — a peace that will not collapse because of Moscow’s wishes.”
“The Ukrainian people deserve peace,” Zelenskyy continued. “But all partners must understand what a worthy peace is. This war must be ended, and Russia must end it.”
U.S. Vice President JD Vance on Saturday met with Ukrainian and European officials in the United Kingdom.
In a Saturday evening address, Zelenskyy described the meeting as “constructive” and reiterated his faith in the U.S. and Trump’s ability to end the war.
“The President of the United States has the leverage and the determination,” Zelenskyy said. “Ukraine has supported all of President Trump’s proposals, starting back in February. A ceasefire – all formats have been supported.”
Trump, who once said he could end the Russia-Ukraine war within his first 24 hours in office and touted his personal relationship with Putin, has expressed increasing frustration with the Russian leader.
In mid-July, Trump said he was giving Putin a 50-day ultimatum to stop the fighting. He then moved up the timeline to 10 days, citing his disappointment with Putin.
“I want to be generous, but we just don’t see any progress being made,” Trump said at the time. “I’m not so interested in talking anymore. He talks, we have such nice conversations, such respectful and nice conversations, and then people die the following night in a — with a missile going into a town and hitting.”
Tensions between the U.S. and Russia escalated last week when Trump announced he was moving nuclear submarines in response to what he called “highly provocative statements” from the deputy chair of Russia’s security council, Dmitry Medvedev.
Medvedev, also the former president of Russia, had sounded off on Trump’s ceasefire deadline, writing on social media that “each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war.”
While Trump said the nuclear submarines would be moved in response, he and the White House would not specify what capabilities the submarines have or other questions surrounding the announcement.
Earlier this week, Trump indirectly upped the pressure on Russia by doubling his tariff rate against India over India’s imports of Russian oil.
