Fact check: How does right-wing extremism compare to left-wing extremism in terms of violent incidents in the US?

1. Why past deaths overwhelmingly point to the far right — and what those numbers mean

Longitudinal datasets compiled by journalists and researchers consistently show that right-wing extremists account for the majority of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001, often cited in the 75–80% range. This pattern arises from several high-fatality attacks linked to white supremacist, anti-government, or single-issue far-right actors that have produced outsized death tolls relative to incident counts ^[1]. Such cumulative fatality statistics are useful for understanding long-term lethality, but they can mask short-term fluctuations in incident frequency. Analysts caution that deaths and incidents measure different phenomena: an organization or individual can produce few but deadly attacks, shifting fatality shares, whereas frequency measures count every plot or attack regardless of casualty totals ^{[1] [3]}. The long-term fatality dominance of the far right is robust across multiple datasets.

2. Why 2025 raised alarms about left-wing incidents — and why context matters

A 2025 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that left-wing incidents rose significantly and, in that year, outnumbered far-right incidents for the first time in decades; however, the same study emphasized that far-right attacks remained more lethal ^[2]. Critics and subsequent reviewers highlighted methodological caveats: coding of motives, small sample sizes, and subjective classification can change headline conclusions, especially when total incident counts are low and a few events sway year-to-year trends ^[4]. Observers note that a spike in left-wing activity can signal shifting political dynamics or concentrated protest-related violence rather than a sustained, large-scale terrorist campaign comparable in lethality to long-standing far-right threats ^{[2] [4]}. Short-term rises require careful interpretation before rewriting the longer historical picture.

3. How definitions and classification drive different headlines

Comparisons hinge on definitions: what counts as “terrorism,” how analysts assign ideological motivation, and whether anti-government actions are coded as partisan left or right vary across datasets. Some researchers focus on attacks against government targets inspired by partisan beliefs, noting a sharp overall increase since 2016; others emphasize hate-driven attacks or organized extremist groups ^{[3] [5]}. This variation in coding explains why different studies produce contrasting headlines: one report may highlight rising left-wing incidents while another emphasizes the persistent lethality of right-wing actors. Transparency about methodology, incident selection, and motive attribution is essential; where coding is opaque, results can be weaponized by advocates to support political arguments ^{[4] [5]}. Analysts urge the use of multiple datasets and clear criteria to avoid misleading comparisons.

4. What experts agree on — risk, lethality, and the need for nuanced policy

Despite disagreements about year-to-year incident counts, experts broadly agree that domestic political violence is rising and diversified: anti-government sentiment, white supremacy, and other ideologies all contribute to the landscape, and the risk comes from both organized groups and lone actors ^{[3] [5]}. Policymakers must balance immediate operational responses against longer-term prevention — focusing on lethality drivers like access to weapons and extremist radicalization pathways while also tracking shifting incident patterns across the ideological spectrum ^{[1] [5]}. Several analysts stress that focusing solely on one ideological side misses interconnected drivers such as online ecosystems and social grievance mobilization that feed multiple kinds of violent actors ^{[6] [3]}. A comprehensive approach targets both fatality reduction and incident prevention across ideologies.

5. Where the data leaves open questions and what to watch next

Key uncertainties remain: whether 2025’s uptick in left-wing incidents signals a durable trend, whether far-right lethality will reassert dominance, and how reporting and classification changes will affect future tallies ^{[2] [4]}. Observers should watch multi-year fatality and incident trajectories, transparency in coding practices, and follow-up critiques of influential reports; these will reveal whether one-year spikes reflect real shifts or statistical noise. Stakeholders with agendas on either side may amplify selective findings to argue for particular policy responses, so cross-checking multiple sources and methodological notes is essential ^{[4] [1]}. Continued public reporting and standardized definitions will be the most reliable path to clarify how right- and left-wing extremism compare over time ^[1].