Mission-Oriented Violence and Extremism
Live with certainty in an uncertain world. Sign up for the FREE LiveReady bi-monthly newsletter and get the insights and tools to be a protector.
At 3:35 AM on June 14, 2025, Brooklyn Park police officers arrived at Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman’s home to find what looked like a police SUV in her driveway, emergency lights still flashing. A man in tactical gear emerged from the house. The officers had seconds to process what they were seeing before he opened fire.
Earlier that night, the same man—dressed as a police officer, wearing a realistic silicone mask—had knocked on Senator John Hoffman’s door five miles away. When the Hoffmans opened their door to someone they believed was law enforcement, he shot them both multiple times. By sunrise, Representative Hortman and her husband would be dead, the Hoffmans would be fighting for their lives in surgery, and a hit list containing seventy names would reveal the true scope of what many have called a “politically motivated assassination.”
On Sunday, June 22, an armed gunman entered a church in Wayne, Michigan, in broad daylight, intent on mass violence. In this case, the attack was mostly over before it began—thwarted by armed security who responded within seconds. Five seconds, to be precise. That’s the window we’re working with now.
Much like the murder of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson last December (and the recent shootings of firefighters in Idaho), these were not random acts of violence. They were methodically planned and executed acts of mission-oriented violence. And they represent a fundamental shift in how we need to think about personal security in America.
The Five-Second Reality
As a security professional providing close protection for high profile executives, celebrities and dignitaries over nearly three decades, I’ve dealt with mission-oriented violence first hand. Many of the clients I’ve protected, and trained to protect themselves, were in fact being actively targeted. I have also learned that the vast majority of attacks on public figures historically are over in five seconds. That’s five seconds from the moment the attacker makes their intention known to end of violence. At first, this can seem like a terrifying thought. After all, if the Bad Guy gets to choose the time, place, and weapons, how can anyone succeed in defense with only five seconds to respond—especially when we lose at least one of those seconds just in reaction time?
It only seems hopeless though, if we are looking at it from the wrong perspective. You see, the stopwatch isn’t racing against the good guys. It’s racing against the Bad Guys. Attackers have a small window of opportunity to exploit. If they don’t succeed in those initial five seconds, the chances of success drop precipitously, and they fail in their mission. The shooter who entered a church in Michigan with an AR-style assault rifle on Sunday learned this the hard way. So did the Minnesota attacker when police arrived earlier than expected. So did the would-be assassin in Butler, PA targeting then Presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Having only five seconds to respond might sound like a disadvantage, but in truth, this reality changes everything about how we approach personal security. The short story is that if you take responsibility for your own safety, five seconds is all you need. But you have to take responsibility first.
Most people don’t think this would ever happen to them. They’re not celebrities, politicians, or high-profile CEOs, but just about anyone can find themselves in the crosshairs, simply because mission-oriented violence is often less about the notability of the target and more about the motivations of the attacker.
Anyone who employs or manages people may at some point have to face the “when you fired me, you destroyed my life” dynamic. According to current statistics, 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men will experience some version of “if I can’t have you, no one can” stalking over their lifetime. Both workplace violence and murders that result from stalking are not “crimes of passion.” I would further include in this category all active shooters and terrorists, from which any of us can find ourselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Mission-oriented violence, by definition, focuses on a specific target, for specific reasons, under specific circumstances—in direct contrast to predatory violence, which is more opportunistic in nature. The first step in understanding how to manage this category of violence is to set aside the veils of denial that lead to “it’ll never happen to me” thinking. The second is understanding the psychological factors that are simultaneously the root cause and the key to defeating it.
The Political Engine of Extremism
At the root of most mission-oriented violence is some form of extremism. And extremism of every form is on display, and dramatically on the rise.
Organized extremism is primarily a political engine. Whether wrapped in religious rhetoric or secular ideology, its purpose remains constant—to exert power through fear, to radicalize moderates, and to provide a methodology for radicalized or marginalized individuals to organize around a cause. The organized extremism we’re witnessing today isn’t new, but its mainstream acceptance is.
The evolution of organized extremism reads like a playbook of political manipulation. In the early twentieth century, fascist movements in Italy and Germany demonstrated how extreme nationalism could be weaponized to justify violence and seize control. The 1979 Iranian Revolution showed how religious extremism could topple governments and inspire movements worldwide. The Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s created a generation of battle-hardened extremists who would later form al-Qaeda. September 11th brought that extremism to American soil with devastating effect.
But here’s what’s different now: the normalization of extremist violence isn’t happening in shadowy corners of the internet or remote training camps. It’s happening in broad daylight, on mainstream social media platforms, in the comments sections of major news outlets.
From Fringe to Mainstream: The Radicalization Pipeline
Extremism operates on a dual track, and both lanes are heading toward the same cliff.
First, it provides a methodology for radicalized or marginalized individuals—think anarchists, antifa, supremacists of any stripe—to organize around a cause. It gives them a framework for action, a target for their rage, and most importantly, a community that validates their worldview. It’s something akin to deciding to invest in a franchise operation, except this operation traffics in violence: “You upset about the way things are? You ready to do something about it? Great. Here’s your ideology. Here’s your enemy list. Here’s your justification.”
Second, and more insidiously, extremism works to radicalize moderates. Not overnight, but through a gradual process of normalization. It starts with “understanding their frustration.” Then it’s “well, I don’t condone violence, but...” Before long, you have otherwise normal, decent people accepting violence, or turning a blind eye, as long as it affects those they see as adversaries.
We saw this pattern after Brian Thompson’s murder. A socialist clothing company created a “CEOs Most Wanted” card game. Social media erupted with celebration. Six of the top ten most engaged posts about the killing either explicitly or implicitly supported it. A post asking, “Are we starting now then?” garnered 1.8 million impressions, and the justification “he had it coming” became widely accepted.
We see it routinely with social media tropes like 8647 – thinly veiled normalization of the idea of assassinating President Trump.
This isn’t just internet noise. It’s the sound of boundaries breaking down.
From Politics to Class Warfare
The current threat landscape represents a dangerous evolution. We’re witnessing the expansion from traditional political extremism into full-scale class warfare—and the conditions for this transformation couldn’t be more perfect.
Threats against political figures in the US have dramatically increased, with an 83% increase in threats against members of Congress and their families in 2024 alone, according to the Capitol Police. But the targeting has expanded far beyond politicians.
The dramatic rise in threats against CEOs, along with high-profile killings and attempted assassinations, represents a dangerous evolution in extremist tactics. Where once extremist violence was largely confined to explicitly political figures or symbolic targets, we’re now seeing an expansion of the “legitimate target” list to include business leaders, healthcare executives, anyone deemed complicit in what are ever more broadly defined as “systemic” problems—including just those perceived as “’haves” by the “have-nots.”
This shift serves organized extremist goals perfectly. It broadens the pool of potential targets, making more people feel vulnerable. It forces companies to divert resources to security. Most importantly, it pushes the message that violence is an acceptable tool for addressing grievances—any grievances.
Here’s why class warfare makes society rife for extremism: It’s not just politics or religion driving this anymore. It’s the socioeconomic conditions. When you have massive wealth disparities, stagnant wages and inflation, and a generation that feels economically hopeless, extremists don’t need to work hard to find recruits. The grievances are already there. The targets are already identified. The justification writes itself.
The Minnesota shooter’s hit list included not just politicians but abortion providers and advocates. The lines between political, ideological, and personal targets are being deliberately blurred. Everyone viewed as an adversary becomes fair game in this twisted worldview.
As an extreme example of how this type of violence can spiral if left unchecked, look at Mexico. From June 5, 2023 to June 2024, Mexico saw sixty-three political figures assassinated. Obviously, there are significant differences between Mexico and the US. I use the comparison not as a parallel, but rather as a caution—to showcase what a “worst case” looks like when we’re already seeing early warning indicators of a similar pathway here in our own country.
The Middle East as Catalyst for Strategic Radicalization
Current conflicts in the Middle East aren’t just foreign policy issues—they’re deliberate engines of domestic radicalization. And we’re watching the playbook unfold in real time.
The October 7th attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas in 2023 represented far more than a terrorist atrocity. It was a masterclass in strategic destabilization that would make CIA operatives proud. Here’s how it worked, step by step:
The Attack: Hamas executes a clearly mission-oriented attack so depraved and heinous—rape, murder, torture, and kidnapping of innocent civilians—that it immediately forces Israel into a military response. This isn’t “resistance.” This is calculated provocation.
The Response Trap: Israel, having no choice but to defend itself, launches military operations in Gaza. Hamas knew this would happen. They counted on it. The images of urban warfare become instant propaganda.
Western Radicalization: Even in the early days of the war in Gaza, tens of thousands of people in the US either directly or indirectly supported Hamas by claiming Israel was, in fact, to blame for October 7th. Even elected officials and celebrities in the US promoted this false narrative, with numerous academics ridiculously suggesting that October 7th was the result of a spontaneous uprising against Israeli oppression.
To be absolutely clear here: The rape, murder, torture and kidnapping of innocent civilians is not “resistance,” just as the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets isn’t justifiable any more than an active shooter targeting a school. I am not here to parse a right side or wrong side of any portion of this complex conflict. I use the details of this war, how it started, and why it was started to make an important, often overlooked point: The end-goal of terrorist atrocities is not victory over an adversary; it is to fuel the fire of extremism.
The Recruitment Phase: While some want to peacefully march for a Palestinian state, it is important to note that extremists often exploit protests in an effort to further their ideologies. Though most protestors see chants like, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” alongside calls to “globalize the intifada” as part of a movement to end the war and support a Palestinian state, there is an important subtext here that most aren’t seeing. Calls for measures like these are either knowingly or unknowingly contributing to the trap of extremist radicalization. Put another way, some people become willing to take these calls past the realm of protest and into the exact level extremist violence these slogans have historically called for.
The Multiplier Effect: The call toward violence of this magnitude isn’t staying overseas any longer; it’s echoing in American streets, on college campuses, in online forums. Each escalation abroad provides fresh material for organized extremists to recruit at home.
Consider the targeted murders of two Israeli embassy staff members, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, outside the Capital Jewish Museum in May 2025. This is just one of the higher-profile incidents of antisemitic violence amid an alarmingly sharp rise. The Anti-Defamation League recorded 9,354 antisemitic incidents in 2024, the highest number in 46 years of tracking. Over the past five and ten years, there have been increases of 344% and 893% respectively.
This isn’t speculation. Foreign conflicts have always served as radicalizing events. Today’s technology just speeds up the process. A bombing in Gaza becomes a rallying cry in Detroit within hours. A military strike against Iranian nuclear sites is seen as justification for assassination and terror on American streets.
The real goal is singular: the ever-increasing further radicalization of moderates, forcing ever more people to “choose a side.” Extremism thrives on polarization. It needs a world divided into us vs. them. The more successful extremists are at eliminating the middle ground, the easier it becomes to justify violence against the “other.” And the current state of our society—politically, socially, and economically—offers fertile ground to sow further divisiveness and extremism.
The Notoriety-Polarization Cycle
Here’s the machine that drives it all: Terrorists use atrocity to gain notoriety. With that notoriety, they polarize people further. In that polarization, you gain more followers and in so doing, access to more people with extremist views prone to executing violence.
It’s a self-reinforcing cycle that social media has turbocharged. Every attack gets global attention within minutes. Every response gets dissected and weaponized. Every casualty becomes a recruiting poster for someone’s cause.
The Brian Thompson assassination perfectly illustrates this cycle. The initial shock gave way to celebration on social media. The celebration normalized the idea that some people “deserve” to die. That normalization made the next attack more likely and more acceptable to more people.
We’re not just dealing with isolated extremists anymore. We’re dealing with a systematic process designed to create more extremists, faster than ever before.
NEXT WEEK: We’ll shift from the threat to the response, with practical solutions for what you can actually do to prepare, protect yourself, and take ownership of your personal security in a world that’s rapidly changing.