From protest to violence: how political grievance is fuelling attacks on public figures

Global / United Kingdom

New data warns that political grievance is increasingly spilling into real-world violence, with the UK among the worst-affected countries.

MORE than a third of threats against public officials, executives and other high-profile figures last month were politically motivated, according to a new global security assessment – a sign that ideological grievance is increasingly being translated into intimidation and, in some cases, violence.

Sibylline’s latest Executive Protection Special Report tracked 338 credible incidents across 73 countries in January.

Nearly four in five cases involved real-world violence or the threat of it, including shootings, kidnappings, home invasions and mob assaults.

The data reflects a pattern already visible in recent high-profile attacks. In 2024, UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson was shot outside a Manhattan hotel in what police described as a targeted attack – underscoring how corporate leadership roles can become focal points for political and economic grievance.

They are not the only targets.

A YouGov poll taken after the fatal shooting of political activist Charlie Kirk on a university campus in September found that 20% of 18- to 29-year-olds believe political violence is sometimes justified.

In the UK, meanwhile, security providers report a sustained rise in requests for personal protection over the past 12 months.

In January, political drivers accounted for 33.7% of incidents, ahead of financial motives and personal disputes, affecting elected officials, business leaders, influencers and other visible figures.

The United States recorded the highest concentration of incidents, followed by Brazil, France, India and the United Kingdom – placing the UK among the countries most frequently appearing in the data.

The concentration of incidents in established democracies challenges assumptions that such risks are confined to fragile states, particularly in highly polarised environments.

But the most striking shift is not simply who is being targeted. It is where.

More than 40% of attacks affecting private-sector figures took place at private residences, traditionally considered lower risk. In more than a quarter of cases, family members or bystanders were drawn in.

For security planners, the move from political rally to front door marks a significant escalation.

The prominence of political drivers reflects an evolution in tactics as much as ideology, says Tom Carter, Principal Protective Intelligence Analyst at Sibylline.

“Grievances are repeatable,” he says. “Where disruptive or coercive tactics appear to achieve tangible outcomes, that becomes part of the playbook.”

He adds that the barriers to intimidation have fallen.

“There’s a digital environment now where tacit support for threats is far more visible,” he says. “People are more willing to pay the price if they believe their actions serve a moral or political cause.”

Groups that once operated separately are increasingly joining forces around common targets. Affiliate organisations and commercial partners are also being drawn into disputes, widening the circle of exposure.

Chris Watts, chief executive of security consultancy UCP Global, says demand for protective services in the UK has risen sharply over the past year, with much of that tied to the rise in antisemitism.

“We’ve seen a 23% increase over the last 12 months,” he says.

“A significant proportion has been linked to antisemitism – particularly among Jewish public figures and athletes under direct threat.”

Clients increasingly assume online abuse can migrate into physical risk, he notes.

Allianz and Aviva have reportedly ended insurance coverage for Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems following months of protest and direct action. Activists described the move as a victory.

Security specialists warn that when disruptive tactics appear to work, they risk becoming templates for others.

Carter says highly contested policy areas can act as accelerants in already polarised societies.

“Where actors perceive institutions or practices as illegitimate, grievance can shift beyond conventional protest into more confrontational forms,” he says.

Dr Elizabeth Pearson, Associate Professor in the Department of Law and Criminology at Royal Holloway, University of London, argues that the US figures sit within a wider debate about democratic strain.

“The top of the report suggests the Americas are leading the data here, and this is primarily a response to ICE in the USA,” she says. “That is arguably a citizen response to practices perceived as undemocratic.”

India and Brazil – both electoral democracies experiencing acute political polarisation – also feature prominently in the figures.

Within the executive-specific breakdown, financial motives remain significant.

Of 59 incidents affecting private-sector figures in January, targets ranged from multinational chief executives to locally prominent business owners. Visibility, not position, now determines who is at risk.

While the report does not forecast a wave of assassinations, it highlights what Carter describes as a “normalisation of threat at scale” – an environment in which protection is increasingly treated as a standing requirement rather than a precaution against rare shocks.

Carter cautions that not all politically motivated incidents stem from organised activism.

“Some of the targeting of politicians is lone-actor anger,” he says. “Other elements reflect organised campaigns and personal grievances.”

The overwhelming majority of political engagement remains peaceful.

Yet the figures suggest a meaningful minority of actors are prepared to escalate beyond protest and lobbying – particularly where disruptive tactics appear to yield results.

And the real risk is imitation.

“Where disruption is seen to work, others take note,” he says.

“That’s when it stops being an outlier and starts becoming a pattern.”

Stay head of emerging risks. Get notified whenever Sibylline releases a new report