New Zealand political violence expert discusses the attempted assassination at the White House Correspondents' Dinner
University of Waikato Professor Alexander Gillespie joins the New Zealand Herald's The Front Page podcast to discuss the attempted assassination of President Trump and what New Zealand can learn from it.
Summary
University of Waikato International Law Professor Alexander Gillespie joins host Chelsea Daniels to discuss the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, in which a 31-year-old man was charged after approaching the event armed with a semi-automatic handgun, a pump-action shotgun, and three knives. The attacker had checked into the hotel days earlier, casing the location, and his manifesto — which Gillespie noted revealed both intent and significant incompetence — drew attention to perceived security failures. Gillespie places the attack within a long historical pattern of political violence against US presidents, noting that what distinguishes the current moment is the increasing frequency of attempts on Trump specifically, and a shift toward lone-wolf, left-wing perpetrators radicalized online rather than organized groups. He argues that New Zealand is not immune to these trends, pointing to the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks and the security concerns that surrounded Jacinda Ardern's final period in office as evidence that political violence is a domestic concern as well. He calls for New Zealand to introduce stronger legal protections for politicians specifically, and criticizes political leaders globally for not doing enough to condemn political violence regardless of their views on Trump. He also draws a parallel to roughly 150 years ago in America — when multiple heads of state were assassinated in quick succession — arguing the current risk level is almost identical to that era, amplified by technology that dramatically widens reach and accelerates notoriety.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Background to the attack
Chelsea Daniels: A man has been charged with attempting to assassinate US President Donald Trump after trying to storm the White House Correspondents' Dinner. The 31-year-old was carrying a semi-automatic handgun, a pump-action shotgun, and three knives as he charged past security. A White House security review has been launched to understand how this person managed to get so close to the president. So how should we understand this moment? Is it part of a long historical pattern or something completely new? And what are the chances of a copycat attack, political escalation, and how it's reported? Today on The Front Page, University of Waikato International Law Professor Alexander Gillespie is with us to unpack the history, the legal questions, and what it all means from here.
Assassinations, or at least attempted ones, aren't new in America. There's been a pretty long history of assassinations and attempted assassinations in the US. Four presidents have been killed, and mostly all of them have had attempts on their life. How unusual is this latest attempt on Donald Trump when you place it in the long history of attacks on presidents?
Alexander Gillespie: Your first point is correct. Assassination as a tool is used not just in American history, but everywhere. It's a global tradition, and it goes right back to antiquity. With the Americans, they have a strong history of assassination and attempts on their presidents — you can think of JFK or Abraham Lincoln. And even those who were not killed were often subject to attacks. This is a trend which exists on both the left and the right wing. The difference with Trump is that the frequency seems to be increasing, and the flavour of who's doing it is different to the past, because this seems to be left-wing attacks — people of left-wing politics — and they aren't often what we'd call lone wolves in the traditional sense. It's a different type of left-wing to what it was in the past. It's not groups; it's individuals who are armed with firearms.
The shift from organized left-wing groups to lone-wolf radicalization
Chelsea Daniels: In terms of left-wing movements, I'm thinking of the 1970s. How does now reflect on then?
Alexander Gillespie: There was a rise in left-wing terror groups in the 1960s and 1970s. You can think about groups like the Baader-Meinhof Gang. Some of the original Palestinian groups were quite left-wing, and some of the original Irish dissident groups were quite left-wing as well. But these trends were largely defeated by the security services over the course of the 1980s, and left-wing terrorism largely disappeared by the time we got to the 90s. That was replaced by a counter-surge of what became religious-based terrorism, identity-based terrorism, or right-wing terrorism.
What we're seeing now is that left-wing terrorism seems to be reappearing, and where it's different to the past is that it's not groups doing it, but individuals who have been radicalized online. It's following the pattern of lone-wolf terrorism that we previously associated with the right-wing, but it's now coming into the left-wing. The commonality is a single person who is well-armed, often licensed with their firearm, who decides to take matters into their own hands and seek notoriety.
Chelsea Daniels: We do hear about this lone-wolf concept, but are we just a hop, skip, and a jump away from seeing something more organized on that radical left wing?
Alexander Gillespie: There's always a risk that people start to identify with others in a group, develop complicity amongst themselves, cooperate, and carry out larger attacks. And once you get a larger attack, the impact will often be greater. You can think of something like the recent shooting at Bondi in Australia — you went from one person to two people with standard firearms who could cause a large amount of carnage. More people tend to multiply the scale of the event.
The attacker's manifesto and security failures
Chelsea Daniels: The other thing in the manifesto that I think is worth looking at, in terms of determining his motive — he had been staying at the hotel since Friday. He checked in, he said he had cased the place, and he wrote: "What the hell is the Secret Service doing?" And he wrote: "I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every ten feet, metal detectors out the wazoo. What I got is nothing." He wrote: "This level of incompetence is insane. Sir, you have already had two."
Alexander Gillespie: Well, he was pretty incompetent too, because he got caught, and he got caught pretty easily. So I'd say he was pretty incompetent as well.
Copycat risk and the role of media reporting
Chelsea Daniels: How real is the risk of a copycat attack?
Alexander Gillespie: The risk of a copycat is always quite high. The challenge is that people get inspired by these acts — not just domestically in the United States, but globally. People start to feel that if they can become famous, they will do the same thing, or if they can create fear and want that power, they will respond in the same way. There's always a period after an attack when you have to be exceptionally vigilant to make sure that others don't copy the same footprint.
Chelsea Daniels: That would be quite hard in today's environment, because all of us have seen the different vantage points and social media clips — people were filming on their phones, especially in this scenario. It would be quite hard to contain that notoriety.
Alexander Gillespie: With the reporting of it, you have to be exceptionally careful not to show the person in a way that makes them look powerful or gives them undue fame. This means you can't show the fear of the people being targeted, and you have to be very careful with the way the stories are conveyed. This is where Mr. Trump deserves commendation, because the fortitude he showed in not responding with fear is very good. Once terrorists or assassins make people cower, they've won half their battle. It's about not being afraid, going forward, and showing courage. Mr. Trump, to his credit, did that.
Chelsea Daniels: Have there been any instances in history where an attempt on a US president has resulted in a copycat attack because the media gave that person the notoriety they wanted?
Alexander Gillespie: Not so much with presidents, but certainly with some mass shootings — in schools in particular, you can see a trend where people learn from one and repeat it in another. That's not just in America but has also happened in Canada. Not so much with presidential assassinations. But the thing with presidents is that it's an omnipresent threat. It's always there, and the list of people who wish to cause them harm is long.
The increasing frequency of attacks on Trump
Chelsea Daniels: The frequency with which this is happening with Donald Trump — is that something new?
Alexander Gillespie: If you're looking for a period in history when more heads of state were being assassinated, it's at the turn of the 20th century, when there were over half a dozen, as well as a large number of anarchist bombings at the same time. We're seeing fewer successful assassinations now, but we appear to be seeing an upswing — and that's just what we know. There are often things going on in the background that aren't publicized.
Chelsea Daniels: What does that say about the resurgence in political violence?
Alexander Gillespie: Unfortunately, it shows a willingness among people of most political persuasions to entertain the idea that violence may be justified in their eyes. It's never justified. Political violence is never justified. But what you're seeing is that when people feel disenfranchised or increasingly angry, their willingness to use violence as a means of expression grows.
Social media reactions and the normalization of political violence
Chelsea Daniels: I think it's quite interesting to look at the social media fallout from what recently happened at the White House Correspondents' Dinner and people's reactions to it. No matter how you feel about Donald Trump as a person or a president, we have to agree that an attempted assassination on someone's life in a public way is not how we want society to work. But have you seen some of the reactions — people poking fun at it, comments saying they keep missing, laughing about it?
Alexander Gillespie: It's not good. It shows a general lack of civility in democracy when people are willing to make fun of it. I'm not saying people shouldn't have the ability to speak as they want, but more respect is often a good thing given the seriousness of the situation. What you're seeing is a trend where violence is used not just against political leaders but also against journalists. The willingness of people to use violence appears to be increasing in some circles. That's why we need to take not just the actual violence, but also the threat of violence, very seriously — especially in a democracy, because we need to have robust debate without threatening each other. This is a concern that exists not just in New Zealand but in other parts of the world as well.
Legal protections for political leaders — what New Zealand can learn
Chelsea Daniels: The would-be attacker has been charged with a specific offence for attempting to assassinate a president. How does that differ from standard criminal charges?
Alexander Gillespie: In New Zealand, if you threaten to kill someone, you can get up to seven years in jail for the sheer threat of the act. But there's no difference between threatening to kill a normal citizen and threatening someone in a democracy who holds a position of power or authority. I would argue that New Zealand needs stronger law whereby those people who are targeted — who are in Parliament — receive additional protection. All people should never be threatened, and that should have an additional penalty attached when the target is someone who represents us all. These people deserve the best protection we can give them. This is one of the few instances where the Americans are ahead of us and we can learn from them.
Chelsea Daniels: I suppose people would argue that a law change is a bit far, and that if an attempt were made on a politician, that would be a mitigating factor in sentencing. But is that enough?
Alexander Gillespie: To me, it's not. It's symbolically important that you should never threaten anyone with violence, full stop. But in particular, when you're threatening those who are trying to work in our democracy peacefully for the good of all of us, they should have additional protection. It's a very serious crime. What you've seen in recent years is that people feel emboldened and are happy to encourage or incite others to use violence, and we must stamp on that. Free speech, yes — but not to the point that you're actually encouraging violence against other people.
Chelsea Daniels: It is all well and good to say that New Zealand is far away from the US, that we have different gun laws and different laws in regards to violence, and that this is happening so far away. But if you look at the end of Ardern's premiership, there were pretty serious conversations about how security would be arranged around her if she were to continue on and campaign again, and how she would feel in public. These conversations really do happen here in regards to political violence.
Do you think that we're just too reactive when it comes to thinking about these kinds of law changes?
Alexander Gillespie: What the attack against the Muslim community at the mosques in Christchurch showed us in 2019 is that we are not immune to international trends. We have to learn from our friends and neighbours that if this is a threat in their country, we can take it as given that it could be a threat in our country too. There's often a naivety among Kiwis that because something happens overseas, it won't happen here. But we know post-Christchurch that's a mistake, and we need to be vigilant. That's why it's important for all members of all political parties — left-wing and right-wing — to condemn these attacks, because one day it will be on your opponent, and the next day it could be on you.
Chelsea Daniels: Are New Zealand politicians adequately protected, do you think?
Alexander Gillespie: I think the security is quite good, but it's something you need to always be vigilant about and make sure it's up to scratch.
Assassination attempts and political sympathy
Chelsea Daniels: Historically, do assassination attempts tend to boost public sympathy or support for political figures?
Alexander Gillespie: Yes, they do. Not just because they boost support and increase sympathy — they can also serve as a diversion from other political issues. Right now, I imagine one advantage for Mr. Trump is that he'll be happy not to be talking about the conflict in Iran for a few days.
Chelsea Daniels: Is that why people are suggesting online that it may have been staged?
Alexander Gillespie: I very much doubt it was staged, but that would be why people are spreading that rumor. Conspiracy theories are rich around every aspect of the president. What we should deal with is what actually exists, what has happened, and how we respond in terms of law and policy. In that regard, the Americans have very different firearms laws, and you aren't likely to see changes there. You may see some changes in security, but most of that will happen behind the scenes. The question is: what can we learn from it in our own country? And what I do is ask, if it happened in America, why could it not happen here? What do we need to change?
Chelsea Daniels: Conspiracy theories do follow these assassination attempts quite closely. I mean, we're still talking about the JFK assassination.
Alexander Gillespie: That's right. And Area 51 as well. Conspiracy theories are part of who we are, and you want people to have the freedom to explore these things, but you want as much transparency, law, and rationality as you can. And sometimes it's not about the conspiracy — it's just about having strong foundations to protect people in democracies, whatever political flavour they are.
Are political leaders doing enough to condemn violence?
Chelsea Daniels: You said it's vital that all politicians condemn political violence, whether here or overseas. Do you think leaders are doing enough at the moment?
Alexander Gillespie: No. I think there's a tendency — because Mr. Trump, if we're honest, is quite a polarizing figure, and many of us will sometimes disagree with him; he's not always right and he's not always wrong — but others have very strong views. Within a democracy in particular, we should not be advocating violence as the solution when we can change things through the ballot box. If people are concerned about what's going on domestically in a country, they should be engaged in politics as the solution, not trying to resolve it through violence, because violence never solves the problem. Often what you get is a reaction against the people who used it, which makes things worse than when they began.
Are we entering a more dangerous era for political leaders?
Chelsea Daniels: With the frequency of these attempts on Donald Trump's life and the proliferation of videos and commentary on social media and how far-reaching they are at this time in 2026 — are we entering a more dangerous era for political leaders globally?
Alexander Gillespie: In terms of the death rate of leaders, it was at its peak in the early 20th century — it goes up and then it goes down. What you're seeing now is a return to a pattern that reminds me of that period when there was a large number of killings of heads of state. The difference between now and then is that the technology is more capable and the proliferation of incitement is wider. You can get your message across and achieve notoriety much more quickly. Someone who is an assassin, a terrorist, or a mass shooter can almost livestream their event to maximize exposure. The technology is different, the reach is different, and the scale can be different. But for the leaders themselves, I think the risk is almost identical to what it was 150 years ago in America — and it's increasing in scale.
Chelsea Daniels: Because the fact of the matter is you can achieve notoriety not through the mainstream media anymore, but through anyone on the street. You can achieve notoriety by livestreaming an event with your phone as you carry out a terrible action.
Alexander Gillespie: That's right. And so what you're trying to achieve here is not just the protection of the person being targeted, but also trying to control the fame of the person who's trying to carry out the attack.
Chelsea Daniels: Thanks for joining us, Al.