In recent weeks, Joe Rogan has sparked renewed debate about the state of the United States, claiming on The Joe Rogan Experience that the nation is now at what he calls "step seven" on the road to civil war. For Rogan, the warning is not abstract: it is grounded in what he sees as a moral and cultural shift in the country. The tipping point, in his view, is the way ordinary Americans reacted to the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The public celebration of such an act, Rogan warns, signals a normalisation of political violence that was once unthinkable. The fact that this response comes from people who have previously claimed allegiance to democratic norms marks, in his estimation, a dangerous departure from reasoned civic life.
Glenn Beck has picked up on Rogan's concern and offered a framework for understanding how civil unrest might evolve into a broader conflict. He frames the risk as a series of nine steps, each representing a deeper erosion of civic trust, institutional authority, and social cohesion. According to Beck, the journey toward civil war begins subtly, with the gradual collapse of faith in governing institutions and the rise of polarisation so deep that political disagreement becomes a matter of existential identity. Over time, this polarisation hardens into rival identities, and the mediating institutions, the media, universities, religious communities, that once moderated conflict begin to fail, leaving ideological extremes unchecked. Social media accelerates the process, creating parallel realities in which competing groups no longer share a common understanding of truth.
As Beck describes it, the most dangerous stage comes when violence becomes normalised. This is the point where celebrating political violence is no longer shocking but almost expected. Rogan's reaction to Charlie Kirk's death, and the responses he observed on social media, epitomise this trend. Beck and Rogan both warn that the acceptance of violence, even rhetorically, signals that society is approaching a threshold where political disagreement can no longer be resolved through dialogue or democratic institutions. Step seven, the rise of militias and parallel forces, is where Beck believes America now stands, a stage at which the state's monopoly on force begins to fracture, and organised groups outside official channels begin to assert power.
The risks are real, and yet, they are not inevitable. Civil war, in the classical sense, requires far more than anger or ideology; it demands organisation, logistics, and a fracture of institutions to the point that the state cannot function. While Rogan and Beck highlight disturbing trends, growing polarisation, distrust of institutions, and an unsettling willingness to condone violence, it remains true that the United States' core institutions, from its military to its courts, have not yet split along partisan lines. Step nine, the so-called "point of no return," remains a hypothetical scenario rather than a present reality.
The importance of this conversation lies less in predicting inevitable doom and more in identifying the warning signs. When public trust in government erodes, when violence is normalised, and when civic institutions fail to mediate conflict, the path toward instability becomes clearer. By framing these steps, Beck and Rogan are essentially providing a map of societal risk. Recognizing these signals is a call to action: the public, the media, and political leaders must find ways to rebuild trust, restore civility, and create channels for dialogue that do not simply reinforce existing divisions.
At its heart, Rogan's warning is a reflection of a deeper anxiety about the state of democracy in an era of extreme polarisation. It is a plea for Americans to pay attention to the trajectory of their civic life before events spiral beyond control. Beck's framework reinforces the idea that civil conflict does not emerge spontaneously; it is the product of years of cultural, social, and political erosion. If the trends he and Rogan describe continue unchecked, the United States could indeed approach dangerous territory, but awareness, civic engagement, and institutional resilience remain tools to prevent that outcome.
Ultimately, the discussion raises a broader question: how do societies navigate the gap between ideological polarisation and the preservation of democracy? Rogan and Beck may alarm their audiences with vivid scenarios of civil war, but their larger point is a sober one: a failure to address societal fractures, coupled with the normalisation of violence and the erosion of public trust, threatens the very fabric of political life. Whether America will cross the threshold toward violent conflict or find ways to heal its divisions depends not on prophecy, but on the choices of citizens, leaders, and institutions today.