Why Marxist and pro-Palestine Cody Balmer burned down Jewish Governor Josh Shapiro's house

Cody Balmer , a 38-year-old Pennsylvania resident and self-described Marxist, is facing charges of arson, attempted murder, and terrorism after allegedly attacking the official residence of Governor Josh Shapiro on the evening of April 13, 2025. The incident, which unfolded during Passover, has sent shockwaves through political circles, raising questions about ideological radicalisation, anti-Semitism , and the increasingly volatile nature of political dissent in the United States.

According to police affidavits and Balmer’s own statements, the attack was politically and religiously motivated. Investigators say Balmer targeted Shapiro specifically because of his Jewish faith and vocal support for Israel—positions that have made the Democratic governor a lightning rod for criticism from segments of the pro-Palestinian left.

This weekend, our family witnessed the incredible bravery and excellence of our first responders.

The entire Shapiro family is eternally grateful for the @PAStatePolice troopers who safely evacuated our family from danger, the firefighters who quickly put out the fire at the…

— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) April 14, 2025

An attack fuelled by ideology
Balmer’s actions on the night of April 13 were bo
th premeditated and symbolic. He reportedly scaled a fence surrounding the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion, broke windows using a hammer, and threw multiple Molotov cocktails—improvised incendiary devices made from gasoline-filled Heineken bottles. The explosive devices caused minor fires, which were quickly extinguished. No injuries were reported, but the damage was significant enough to trigger federal terrorism charges.

A subsequent search of Balmer’s residence uncovered paraphernalia linking him to far-left revolutionary movements. Among the items found were posters of Che Guevara , a bust of Karl Marx, and literature advocating armed struggle against capitalist and “Zionist” institutions.

In interviews with law enforcement, Balmer reportedly described his actions as “an act of resistance” against “imperialist genocide” and condemned Shapiro for “legitimising apartheid policies” through his support of anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) laws in Pennsylvania.

Che Guevara, Marxism , and radical inspiration

Balmer’s admiration for Che Guevara is central to understanding his ideological framework. Guevara, the Argentine revolutionary who played a key role in Fidel Castro’s Cuban revolution, has long been a symbol of Marxist militancy and anti-imperialism. Guevara's writings advocated for the “creation of two, three, many Vietnams” as a strategy to weaken American global power—a vision that appears to have inspired Balmer’s interpretation of domestic resistance.

However, while Guevara operated within the framework of a Cold War-era guerrilla movement, Balmer’s actions appear more rooted in a modern American context shaped by online radicalisation, social media echo chambers, and escalating culture wars over Israel-Palestine.

Unlike Fidel Castro—who transitioned from revolutionary to head of state—Guevara remained a romantic figure of rebellion, often detached from the mundane realities of governance. Balmer’s attack suggests he aligns more with Guevara’s revolutionary purism than Castro’s political pragmatism.

Targeting Josh Shapiro

Governor Josh Shapiro, a rising star in Democratic politics and Pennsylvania’s first Jewish governor, has maintained a pro-Israel stance throughout his career. Under his leadership, the state has strengthened laws that penalise businesses engaging in BDS, a move applauded by pro-Israel advocates but heavily criticised by left-wing and pro-Palestinian groups who view such measures as violations of free speech.

Shapiro has also been outspoken in condemning antisemitism and has called for stronger US-Israel ties amid ongoing conflict in the Middle East. In recent months, these views have made him a target of increasingly hostile rhetoric in online spaces aligned with both the far-right and far-left.

In a statement following the attack, Shapiro said: “Hate, in any form, has no place in Pennsylvania. This was an attack not just on my family, but on our values as a state that welcomes people of all backgrounds.”

Domestic terrorism or lone-wolf extremism?
Authorities are treating the incident as a case of domestic terrorism, noting that Balmer’s ideological motivations and methods echo other politically charged attacks in recent years. However, it remains unclear whether he was acting alone or had ties to any organised group.

Balmer, who has no prior criminal record, had been active in local protest circles but was not known to law enforcement as a high-risk individual. His social media accounts, now deactivated, reportedly contained a mix of Marxist theory, pro-Palestinian activism, and increasingly militant rhetoric.

The case is drawing comparisons to other lone-wolf attacks rooted in ideological radicalisation—whether Islamist, white nationalist, or far-left revolutionary. The key distinction in Balmer’s case, investigators say, is that his motivations were an explicit mix of class struggle, anti-Zionism, and symbolic revolutionary violence.

The broader backdrop: Israel-Palestine tensions at home
The attack comes at a time when American campuses and statehouses are engulfed in renewed debate over Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank. Pro-Palestinian protests have surged in response to Israeli military operations, while Jewish institutions have reported a spike in antisemitic threats and attacks.

Balmer’s act appears to be a tragic flashpoint in this escalating discourse—where political disagreement is increasingly expressed through confrontation, vandalism, and in rare cases, violence.

Experts warn that while most activists operate within peaceful, democratic frameworks, isolated individuals who embrace extremism can act out violently if left unchecked.

As Balmer awaits trial, the case will likely become a lightning rod for both sides of the debate: a cautionary tale for law enforcement, a political flashpoint for free speech activists, and a grim reminder of how ideology can morph into violence when pushed to its extremes.