What is the definition of left-wing and right-wing violence according to the FBI?

1. Summary of the results

The FBI does not publish distinct formal definitions labeled “left‑wing violence” or “right‑wing violence”; instead, it defines domestic terrorism/domestic violent extremism as violent criminal acts meant to further ideological goals or to influence government policy or intimidate civilians, where the ideology may be political, religious, social, racial, or environmental ^[1]. Scholarly and journalistic analyses therefore map “left‑wing” and “right‑wing” onto ideological families—left‑wing violence is commonly associated with anti‑capitalist, class‑struggle, or revolutionary causes, while right‑wing violence is associated with white supremacy, extreme nationalism, or survivalist strains—but these are analytical categories, not FBI statutory definitions ^{[2] [3]}. Multiple sources note that federal descriptions focus on behavior and intent (violent acts to achieve ideological aims), leaving classification to investigators and researchers ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Absent from the FBI’s generic definition is guidance on thresholds or labels for specific political orientations; this omission leads to variation in how agencies, researchers, and media categorize incidents, and to differing conclusions about prevalence and lethality ^[1]. Some analyses emphasize that right‑wing extremist attacks have been more frequent and deadlier in the U.S. since 2001, citing incident and casualty data to support that claim, while others caution about undercounting or definitional inconsistencies when comparing movements ^{[3] [4]}. Additionally, researchers point out that ideological labels can obscure overlaps—criminality, lone‑actor dynamics, and non‑ideological motives sometimes coexist with declared political aims—so contextual case‑by‑case assessment matters ^[2].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Framing the question as seeking FBI definitions for “left‑wing” and “right‑wing” violence can create the misleading impression that the bureau maintains two formal, symmetrical definitions, when in fact it provides a singular behavioral definition for domestic terrorism and related violent extremism ^[1]. Parties motivated to simplify narratives benefit from claiming a neat FBI taxonomy: advocates for one political side may assert that the bureau treats their opponents differently, while critics of the bureau can accuse it of bias for not adopting partisan labels. Data‑driven accounts that stress differential lethality of right‑wing attacks rely on incident counts and interpretive choices; those emphasizing left‑wing dangers often point to ideological threat narratives—both positions reflect selection choices and analytical framing rather than an FBI dual‑definition ^{[3] [2] [4]}.