What is the definition of right-wing extremism in the context of US mass shootings?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Right-wing extremism in the context of U.S. mass shootings refers to ideologies and networks on the radical right—most prominently white supremacists, anti-government extremists, anti-abortion militants and related accelerationist currents—that motivate or inspire attacks designed to inflict mass casualties, often targeting racial, religious, or other minority groups [1] [2] [3]. Researchers and NGOs link a recent rise in extremist-related mass killings primarily to these right-wing currents and note that shootings account for the bulk of resulting deaths [2] [4].
1. What authoritative sources mean by “right-wing extremism” in this context
Major researchers and civil-society monitors define right-wing extremism operationally by ideology and intent: actors who promote race-based hierarchies, violent anti-government beliefs, or rigid social orders and who either plan, plot, or carry out violence to achieve those ends—definitions reflected in ADL reporting and academic reviews of right-wing terrorism in the United States [1] [5]. Those definitions emphasize motivation (racial, anti-government, anti-choice, misogynist) and violent intent rather than simple partisan disagreement, which separates extremist actors from mainstream political actors [1] [5].
2. Typical ideological drivers and examples tied to mass shootings
White supremacist beliefs, including accelerationism—the idea that violence will bring about societal collapse and a subsequent “racial” rebirth—have been repeatedly tied to high-casualty shootings targeting Black, Jewish, Latino and LGBTQ+ communities, and ADL and other analyses single out these strands as driving many recent mass-killing incidents [2] [1]. Anti-government and anti-abortion extremists have also plotted and carried out lethal attacks, demonstrating that “right-wing” is an umbrella covering distinct violent motivations rather than a single monolithic ideology [1] [2].
3. Tactics, preparations and patterns evident in shootings labeled right-wing extremist
Empirical work finds ideological mass shooters are more likely than non-ideological rampage offenders to engage in planning behaviors such as surveillance, use dehumanizing language about intended victims, and post writings or manifestos online that borrow from previous attackers—patterns documented in comparative research and NGO case studies of recent sprees [6] [7]. Several recent national high-casualty events—El Paso, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Colorado Springs—are cited by monitors as emblematic of white supremacist-inspired mass shootings that used firearms as the primary lethal tool [1] [2] [8].
4. How right-wing extremist shootings are distinguished from other ideologically driven violence
Analysts caution that while left-wing and Islamist-motivated violence occur, right-wing extremists have been responsible for the majority of extremist-related killings in much of the past decade and for most extremist-linked shootings—an empirical claim supported by multiple datasets and syntheses cited by FiveThirtyEight, ADL and academic studies [4] [2] [1]. Nevertheless, authoritative reviews also stress nuance: the categories overlap (e.g., misogyny, incel beliefs, and anti-immigrant sentiments can coexist), and there are years or incidents where other ideologies produced mass-casualty events, so labeling must rest on documented motive and behavior not on political labels alone [9] [3].
5. Why precise definition matters, and how reporting and advocacy shape public perception
Definitional clarity affects law enforcement prioritization, media framing and public policy; journalists and commentators have urged explicit coverage of extremist motive to avoid obscuring connections between ideology and mass shootings, while some political actors and outlets may amplify competing narratives or disinformation around motive for strategic advantage—an issue raised by Poynter and criticized in media commentary pointing to politicized narratives after shootings [7] [10]. At the same time, NGOs compiling statistics (e.g., ADL) make methodological choices—about coding motive, including accelerationism, or grouping subtypes—that shape conclusions about prevalence and trends, so transparency about those choices is essential to interpret reports [1] [2].
6. Bottom line: a working definition for policy and analysis
For purposes of understanding U.S. mass shootings, “right-wing extremism” should be understood as ideologically motivated violence stemming from far-right belief systems—most commonly white supremacy, anti-government fanaticism, anti-abortion militancy and related accelerationist or misogynist currents—where the perpetrator’s stated or demonstrable motive aims to advance those beliefs through mass casualty violence; empirical monitoring shows these currents have accounted for a substantial share of extremist-related mass shootings and deaths in recent years, particularly where firearms were used [1] [2] [4]. Sources used here document patterns and trends but differ in emphasis and methodology, so continued critical scrutiny of data and media narratives is necessary [9] [7].