Members of the Secret Service quickly surrounded Trump, who fiercely pumped his fist towards the crowd. It was during this moment an instantly iconic photo was taken as Trump stood, fist raised, in front of the US flag – blood running from his ear to his cheek.
Almost immediately, conspiracy theorists from all parts of the political spectrum began to speculate over the attempted assassination.
I’m a researcher who studies how conspiracy theories are formed online, with a particular focus on those that impact democratic proceedings. Following this incident, my investigation across several platforms reveals how various conspiracy theories have rapidly emerged – and what they might mean for democratic proceedings in the future.
Just hours after the incident, the FBI released the shooter’s identity: 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. Crooks fired multiple shots from a nearby rooftop outside the rally venue, killing one attendee and critically injuring two others. He himself was also killed at the event. A motive has not yet been determined.
Despite the shooter’s identity being released, one major conspiracy adopted by both the political left and right is that the assassination attempt was staged and/or planned. But who is supposed to have staged it? This is up for debate depending on which online circles you frequent.
Left-wing conspiracy theories seem to point the finger at the Republican party. Their supposed “evidence” is that there was no blood on Trump’s face until he raised his hand to his cheek (although this is difficult to confirm based on videos posted online). Nonetheless, they claim Trump used a squib to release fake blood.
Other “evidence” is that the Secret Service allowed Trump to stand and pose as he was escorted offstage. According to these theories, if there was an active shooter Trump would have been taken away with much more urgency.
Right-leaning supporters of the “staged” theory point to either President Joe Biden, the US Department of Justice, or other powerful actors as being either explicitly or implicitly responsible.
Their “evidence” also involves the Secret Service. Many have said the shooter should have been clearly visible and interrupted by the Secret Service before the attack. Some conspiracy theorists go as far as to say the shooter knew which roof he could conduct the shooting from without being interrupted.
They either point to the Secret Service as being remiss in the security planning of the rally, or actively complicit in the shooting.
In 2022, a study based in the United States found belief in conspiracy theories can be strongly associated with certain psychological traits and non-political worldviews.
Specifically, the researchers found conspiratorial thinking isn’t consistently associated with a particular political party, but with how extreme a person’s beliefs are. This is seen both for extreme-left and particularly for extreme right-wing political beliefs.
It’s also reflected in what is emerging online following the Trump assassination attempt, wherein social media users of various political leanings are helping spread the conspiracy that the incident was staged.
The reasons for conspiratorial beliefs can be psychological, social or political. They may range from seeking a sense of identity and community, to distrust in the government and other institutions.
For political figures and other influential actors, conspiracy theories are weaponised for personal gain.
With Senator J.D. Vance having been chosen as Trump’s running mate, we can expect to see more fuel added to the flames. Vance is one of the most prominent politicians claiming the Biden administration is responsible (whether directly or indirectly) for the assassination attempt.
This sentiment has been echoed by several others, including Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and Congressman Mike Collins.
Meanwhile, X (formerly Twitter) chief Elon Musk has reposted multiple messages from an alt-right political activist asking how the shooter was able to crawl onto the closest roof to a presidential nominee, suggesting the Secret Service was intentionally remiss. One of these posts has garnered some 91 million views so far.
While X has served as a hotbed for conspiracy theories following the event, the comment sections of other platforms and news articles have also become places of debate. Anywhere users can deliberate and share their views, conspiratorial thinking can propagate.
The politicians amplifying the conspiracy theories are contributing to increased tension in the lead-up to a highly contentious election. This includes Vance, who may well end up in the US presidential line of succession if Trump wins the election in November.
Beyond highlighting the deeply partisan nature of US politics, what might these conspiracy theories mean in the long run?
Previous findings indicate presenting explicit conspiracy theories to people results in lowered trust in elections. As voters from both sides of the political spectrum are exposed to conspiratorial thinking (and increasingly adversarial discussions) around the assassination attempt, it may become difficult for people to trust the democratic proceedings accompanying the 2024 election.
A poll conducted earlier this year found 25% of Americans believe it was possible the January 6 Capitol attack was organised by the FBI. This is despite an extensive investigation by the US Congress and hundreds of legal cases involving participants in the riot.
Research also suggests distrust in the government and institutions can lead to people changing the way they interact with the political system. Some may be pushed to vote for governmental change or independent candidates in a bipartisan system, while others may withdraw from engaging with democracy altogether.
One might hope the recent escalation in political violence will lead to a more tempered approach to politics in the upcoming months. But if the current state of things is any guide, the outlook for democracy is concerning.
Katherine M. FitzGerald, PhD Candidate, Queensland University of Technology
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
