A former White House and Pentagon official is calling for the convening of what he terms a "Presidents' Club" to address what he describes as an escalating threat of political violence in the United States. The proposal comes amid heightened concern following multiple high-profile incidents, including targeted killings of prominent figures and an attempted assassination at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner.
Douglas MacKinnon, who served under Republican administrations, argues that the most exclusive group in American politics—the living former presidents and vice presidents—should convene at the White House to issue a unified call against political violence. The proposed gathering would include former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, along with former Vice Presidents Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Mike Pence, and Kamala Harris, hosted by President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative commentators and Republican officials have largely welcomed the focus on political violence targeting conservative figures. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the issue following the WHCA incident, stating that "hateful and constant violent rhetoric directed at President Trump day after day for 11 years has helped to legitimize this violence."
Former Congressman Trey Gowdy argued in a Fox News commentary that media coverage contributes to normalization of violence against conservatives. "When you spend years comparing your political opponent to Hitler and calling them existential threats, some followers will conclude that any response is justified," Gowdy wrote.
The Heritage Foundation's senior fellow for constitutional studies called for law enforcement coordination and noted that federal resources exist to address domestic threats. "We have the tools," said the official. "What we need is consistent application regardless of the political target."
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive voices have raised questions about framing that focuses narrowly on partisan violence while overlooking systemic concerns. Some Democrats note that political violence in America has historical roots across the ideological spectrum and argue that addressing it requires examining root causes beyond rhetorical criticism of political opponents.
Representative Jasmine Jackson of Pennsylvania wrote in a social media post that "any honest conversation about political violence must include examination of rhetoric from all sides, including inflammatory language about immigrants, LGBTQ Americans, and reproductive rights." The Congressional Progressive Caucus has called for bipartisan hearings on the issue but emphasized that solutions must address "the full spectrum of extremist threats."
Civil liberties advocates have also cautioned against conflating speech with violence. Organizations including the ACLU argue that while political rhetoric may be heated, constitutional protections require distinguishing between words and actions. "The antidote to bad speech is more speech," said a spokesperson for the organization in a statement.
What the Numbers Show
A study released in April 2025 by the Network Contagion Research Institute, conducted with Rutgers University researchers, found that 55 percent of self-identified left-of-center respondents indicated it was at least somewhat justified to harm former President Donald Trump. The finding drew significant attention when referenced following the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
A YouGov poll conducted around the same period provided more granular data on partisan attitudes toward political violence. Among those surveyed, 14 percent of Democrats, 13 percent of independents, and 6 percent of Republicans expressed views that political violence could be justified in certain circumstances. The same survey found majorities across all groups stating political violence is "never justified"—72 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of Independents, and 81 percent of Republicans.
FBI data on domestic terrorism incidents shows an increase in politically motivated violence attempts over the past three years, with investigations spanning multiple ideological categories. The Bureau has classified threats against elected officials at all levels as a priority concern for federal prosecutors.
The Bottom Line
The proposal to convene former national leaders around the issue of political unity faces practical and political hurdles. Coordination among principals with significant policy disagreements—including differing views on election integrity, executive power, and foreign policy—presents logistical challenges despite shared opposition to violence.
Congressional observers note that previous bipartisan statements against political violence have had limited measurable effect on partisan polarization. What remains unclear is whether a more formal convening of former leaders could succeed where earlier messaging fell short.
The White House has not announced plans for such a meeting as of press time. Administration officials have indicated that security preparations for any gathering involving multiple former principals would require significant advance coordination with the Secret Service and National Security Council staff.
What happens next will likely depend on whether congressional leadership from both parties chooses to formally request such an initiative and what specific outcomes organizers hope to achieve beyond a public statement.