There was a time when schoolyard bullying centered on the classic juvenile dramas: someone’s looks, a shared crush, or petty social slights. While no form of harassment should ever be tolerated — especially among impressionable young people — those conflicts were usually confined to the world of childhood. Today? Recent reports show us how middle school students are now getting beaten up in the locker room for having their own political opinions.

The incident reportedly began with a TikTok video. The victim, a 13-year-old eighth grader, has a boyfriend who posted a lighthearted clip joking that becoming an ICE agent would be his “Plan B” in life. It didn’t take long for two girls who had seen the video to target her. They cornered the victim in the locker room at Lucille Umbarger Middle School in Burlington, Washington, demanding to know if she supported ICE — like her boyfriend — or the Trump administration. When she replied that it was none of their business, they responded with a violent assault, captured on video by another student.

According to The Post Millennial, “The video had reportedly been widely circulated throughout the school by students and staff, and it wasn’t until five days later that the principal contacted the girl’s mother.” Allegedly, school administrators told the victim’s mother that they’re working on a plan for the victim to attend school safely, and that the two attackers have been suspended.

Police are now involved. The Burlington Chief of Police confirmed an “active case” and that investigators are working through the details. Due to the ongoing investigation and the involvement of minors, however, he noted that only limited information could be released at this time.

The assault has sparked intense public reaction, with many condemning the violence while debating its roots. Brandi Kruse of the unDivided podcast called it “the result of adults ... the result of rhetoric from so-called leaders.” She argued that this kind of brutality doesn’t emerge out of nowhere. Rather, adults are actively “instilling” fear in young minds, framing political disagreements as existential battles that justify hostility, slander, or outright violence. “I’m not saying kids don’t fight,” Kruse emphasized, “but this was a brutal beating over the perceived political views of a 13-year-old girl.”

The main takeaway is simple enough. What we’re witnessing is a troubling rise in narrow-minded hostility — not just in heated debates, but in senseless acts of violence. From the cold-blooded assassination of Charlie Kirk on a college campus to the heartless beating of a young girl in her school locker room, the pattern is clear: politics driven purely by raw emotion and darkened thinking is increasingly becoming the norm — and one with extreme consequences. Yet, while one might expect adults to continue lashing out in predictable ways, what are we to say about the children? Is this an isolated tragedy, or a sign of a broader, more dangerous trend emerging among the young?

Dr. David Closson, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Biblical Worldview, urged careful investigation before drawing firm conclusions from any single event. Yet, if this assault was indeed politically motivated, he described it to The Washington Stand as “a troubling downstream effect of our increasingly hostile political culture.”

“Children do not invent ideological hostility in a vacuum,” Closson explained. “They absorb it. They mirror what they see modeled by adults, media, influencers, and cultural institutions. When political opponents are routinely described as existential threats, bigots, fascists, or enemies of ‘democracy,’ it lowers the moral barrier to mistreatment. That does not excuse the behavior of these students, but it helps explain how such behavior becomes conceivable.”

Closson turned to biblical principles for guidance in such moments, beginning with the call to guide children wisely. He referenced Proverbs 22:6 — “Train up a child in the way he should go” — and Ephesians 6:4, which urges fathers to bring children up “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” Scripture assumes children are deeply impressionable and morally formable, he noted.

But beyond guidance, Closson stressed protection. “Jesus speaks in sobering terms about harming or leading children into sin,” he said, pointing to Matthew 18:6, where Christ warns that causing a little one to stumble is a grave offense worthy of severe punishment. “That passage underscores how seriously God takes the moral and physical protection of children.” And Scripture repeatedly calls for defending the vulnerable, as in Psalm 82:3: “Give justice to the weak and the fatherless.” Children rank among society’s most vulnerable, Closson stressed, and “a culture that politicizes them or weaponizes them against one another is failing in its stewardship.”

As Closson observed, “Young people today are immersed in political content through social media at earlier ages than any previous generation. They are not just observing politics. They are participating in it digitally, often without the maturity to process it well. When outrage is rewarded online, it conditions behavior offline” — such as beating up a peer over a disagreement.

At this point, it would seem that the path forward lies in reclaiming civility, protecting the young, and teaching them that differences need not lead to destruction. And with that, Closson offered hope, stating that “escalation is not inevitable.” Families, churches, and schools could come together to “counteract this trajectory by modeling principled disagreement, emphasizing human dignity, and teaching that political opponents are not enemies to be destroyed but neighbors to be persuaded.”