Key takeaways

• Most domestic terrorist attacks in the U.S. come from right-wing extremists.
• Right-wing extremist attacks cause about 75 to 80 percent of domestic terrorism deaths.
• Political violence has risen recently and now targets election workers and public figures.
• Definitions of political violence differ, making accurate counting hard.
• Reliable data show left-wing violence is far smaller than right-wing violence.

After the September 2025 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, President Trump and his adviser claimed that radical left groups cause more violence. They said these groups should be jailed and labeled a terror movement. However, studies and government data tell a different story. In fact, most domestic terror incidents come from right-wing extremists.

Why Definitions Matter for Political Violence

Political violence covers many acts aimed at influencing politics through fear or harm. Yet agencies define it differently. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security focus on real or credible threats of violence meant to sway policy or frighten civilians. They call this domestic violent extremism. Meanwhile, academic groups may only count attacks that fit strict criteria, such as intentional violence with a political motive.

Because of these varied definitions, one event might appear as “terrorism” in a federal report but not in an academic database. In turn, that means our view of political violence can change depending on the source. Therefore, experts call for unified definitions to measure trends accurately.

Recent Rise in Political Violence

Despite its low share of total crime, political violence has grown lately. During the 2024 election cycle, nearly half of all states saw threats against election workers. People faced online death threats, doxing, and intimidation. Moreover, high-profile killings have shocked many Americans. After Charlie Kirk’s death, Tyler Robinson faces charges for planning the attack online and in writing. Earlier in 2025, a suspect killed Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband at their home.

Such events show a troubling pattern: some individuals now see violence as a normal political tool. This trend threatens democracy by scaring voters, shutting down discussion, and provoking hate.

Understanding Political Violence Data

To analyze political violence, researchers combine academic studies, federal reports, and monitoring groups. They count incidents, track fatalities, and judge motives. Yet the lack of a single dataset means experts must compare multiple sources. Despite this challenge, key patterns keep appearing.

First, political violence makes up a tiny fraction of total violent crime. Second, it has a large impact because it often hits symbolic targets, such as government buildings or public figures. Third, media coverage can make rare acts seem more common than they are.

Who Drives Most Political Violence?

Even with data gaps, the evidence is clear. Right-wing extremist violence has caused most deaths from domestic terrorism since 2001. Government and independent reports estimate that right-wing attacks account for about 75 to 80 percent of these fatalities. In contrast, left-wing extremist incidents make up roughly 10 to 15 percent of cases and under 5 percent of deaths.

Therefore, the claim that the radical left causes more violence does not match the data. Instead, right-wing extremists pose the larger threat in terms of deadly outcomes.

Cases of Right-Wing Political Violence

Several attacks highlight the deadly nature of right-wing extremism. For example:

• In 2015, Dylann Roof killed nine Black worshippers at a church in Charleston.
• In 2018, a gunman attacked the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing eleven people.
• In 2019, an anti-immigrant shooter killed 23 people at an El Paso Walmart.
• In 1995, the Oklahoma City bombing left 168 dead in the worst domestic terror attack ever.

These incidents show how right-wing motives often fuel mass casualties. They targeted racial, religious, and immigrant communities, seeking to spread fear and hate.

Left-Wing Violence in Context

Left-wing extremist acts tend to focus on property damage rather than mass killings. In the 1990s and 2000s, groups like the Animal Liberation Front set fires to fur farms and research labs. The Earth Liberation Front also used arson to protest environmental harm. While these campaigns caused millions in damage, they rarely hurt people.

In 2016, clashes erupted during May Day protests in Seattle. Some anarchist groups fought police, leading to injuries on both sides. That same year, a sniper killed five Dallas police officers. Yet this single event stands apart from broader left-wing movements.

Overall, left-wing incidents represent a small share of total political violence. They also cause far fewer fatalities than right-wing attacks.

Why Clear Data Matters

We need accurate numbers to make smart policy. Vague rhetoric can blur who poses the real threat. For instance, labeling an event “terrorism” instead of a “hate crime” can change which agency investigates it and how many resources it receives.

Moreover, the U.S. cannot formally list domestic groups as terrorist organizations. That is because the Constitution protects free speech and assembly. So the government uses criminal laws like RICO, weapons charges, or hate crime statutes to prosecute violent acts.

Without clear data and definitions, we risk overreacting to fringe threats or underestimating serious dangers. Therefore, experts urge lawmakers to standardize how we count and report political violence.

What This Means for Policy

First, leaders must rely on facts, not fear. Policymakers should target the true sources of violence. Second, we need better data sharing across agencies. Unified definitions would help spot trends and allocate resources fairly. Third, communities should watch for warning signs. Online threats often precede real attacks.

Finally, citizens must stay informed and demand evidence-based action. By focusing on the real pattern—that most deadly political violence comes from the right—we can protect democracy and public safety.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does political violence get more attention than ordinary crime?

Political violence often hits symbolic targets like government buildings or public figures. It also stirs strong emotions and media coverage. This attention can make political violence seem more common than it truly is.

How do experts count political violence incidents?

They use a mix of academic databases, federal reports, and monitoring groups. Each source has its own rules for what counts as violence. By comparing these sources, researchers spot consistent patterns.

Can the government label domestic groups as terrorists?

No, the Constitution protects free speech and political action. Instead, authorities rely on criminal laws like conspiracy, hate crime, or weapons violations to prosecute violent acts.

What steps can reduce political violence?

Standardizing definitions and data collection helps agencies share information. Training law enforcement to spot online threats early can prevent attacks. Also, public education on tolerance and dialogue can reduce extremist views.