Fact check: What studies has the DOJ removed regarding right wing attacks?

1. Summary of the results

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has removed a study from its website that showed right-wing attacks outpace those by the left ^[1]. This study, which analyzed data from the National Institute of Justice, found that since 1990, right-wing extremists have committed over 220 attacks resulting in more than 500 casualties, while radical leftist groups were responsible for fewer than 50 incidents with a significantly lower toll ^[2]. The removal of the study follows the killing of Charlie Kirk, and the Trump administration's subsequent crackdown on the 'radical left' ^[3]. Other studies have examined the nexus between right-wing extremism and the military, finding that the worst conceivable manifestations have thus far not materialized ^[4]. Additionally, a comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and worldwide found that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent ^[5]. The Justice Department has reportedly removed a study from its website that documented the frequency of far-right violence, according to 404 Media, which found that far-right extremists have committed more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

• The original statement lacks context regarding the specific studies removed by the DOJ and the motivations behind their removal ^{[1] [3] [2]}.
• Alternative viewpoints, such as the influence of rhetoric on political violence, suggest that the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk and the increased support for political violence from both sides of the political spectrum, with almost a quarter of the public willing to support political violence in some form, may be relevant to the discussion ^[7].
• The Trump administration's response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the potential for crackdowns on certain types of rhetoric may also be a relevant factor ^[8].
• The fact that some sources do not provide any information relevant to the removal of studies by the DOJ regarding right-wing attacks ^[9] highlights the need for more comprehensive information on this topic.
• The analysis of the nexus between right-wing extremism and the military ^[4] and the comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists ^[5] provide additional context that may be relevant to understanding the removal of the studies by the DOJ.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may benefit those who wish to highlight the threat of right-wing extremism, as it draws attention to the removal of studies that document the frequency of far-right violence ^{[1] [6]}. On the other hand, the Trump administration and its supporters may benefit from the removal of these studies, as they contradict the administration's claims that the 'radical left' poses a greater danger ^[3]. Additionally, those who wish to downplay the threat of right-wing extremism may benefit from the lack of information and context regarding the removed studies ^[9]. The potential for bias in the media is also a concern, as some sources may be more likely to report on certain types of violence or extremism over others ^{[5] [7]}. Overall, a nuanced understanding of the complex issues surrounding right-wing extremism and political violence is necessary to accurately assess the situation and avoid misinformation ^{[1] [3] [2] [4] [5] [7] [6]}.