Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does the FBI define and track Right-wing extremist groups?
Executive summary
The FBI defines domestic violent extremism as ideologically motivated threats that involve actual violence and historically labeled specific categories such as “white supremacist extremists” within broader domestic terrorism work [1] [2]. Recent reporting and analyses show U.S. agencies and researchers often treat right‑wing and white‑supremacist violence as the principal domestic terror threat, even as definitions, tracking tools and internal priorities have shifted in 2024–2025 [2] [3] [4].
1. How the FBI frames “right‑wing” and domestic violent extremism
The FBI and DHS use the operational term “domestic violent extremism” to mean threats involving actual violence rather than merely ideological speech; that framing places emphasis on actions and plots, not abstract beliefs [1]. Historically the FBI also used more granular labels such as “white supremacist extremists” (WSE) to describe groups or individuals who engage in violence aiming to advance beliefs in white superiority; that lexicon included other named categories like militia extremists, sovereign citizens and racist skinheads [2]. The Library of Congress summary underscores the FBI’s longstanding focus on Americans who commit violence to achieve domestic ideological goals and who lack foreign direction [5].
2. What the FBI tracks — violence, plots and networks, not ideology alone
Available sources show the FBI’s tracking centers on violent incidents, arrests and conspiratorial plots: prosecutions and FBI criminal complaints cite weapon plans, bomb plots and conspiracies to kill law enforcement, illustrating the bureau’s operational criteria [6] [7]. Academic and think‑tank analyses likewise categorize incidents and arrests rather than only rhetoric; CSIS and ADL reporting inventory attacks, arrests and plots by right‑wing actors to map the threat [4] [6]. The FBI does not treat mere political affiliation or nonviolent advocacy as domestic terrorism under the definitions cited in current reporting [1] [5].
3. Why the “right‑wing” label matters — trends cited by multiple observers
Congressional testimony, civil‑society counts and national security analyses converge on a pattern: far‑right and white‑supremacist actors are linked to a large share of lethal domestic extremist incidents since 2001, with figures like “73% of extremist murders” widely cited in hearings and legislative text [2] [8]. CSIS and other analysts report that right‑wing plots and attacks increased in the 2010s and that right‑wing extremists accounted for the majority of attacks in recent years, a trend that has shaped agency attention [4] [7].
4. Tracking tools and staffing — recent changes and controversies
Reporting from Reuters documents that in 2025 the FBI scaled back staffing in an office focused on domestic terrorism and retired a tool used to track such investigations; sources told Reuters those moves could reduce the bureau’s ability to monitor white‑supremacist and militia threats [3]. The Guardian and other outlets report concern among experts that leadership changes may shift priorities within the FBI, potentially affecting how right‑wing networks are investigated [9]. These itemized operational changes matter because the bureau’s capacity to detect plots depends on both classification and resourcing [3] [9].
5. Definitions vary across agencies and researchers — complicating comparisons
Analysts emphasize that definitions differ: the FBI/DHS focus on threats involving actual violence, while academic datasets and civil‑society trackers use slightly different inclusion criteria, which affects incident counts and trend lines [1] [10]. The Congressional Research Service notes the FBI has shifted language over time and that historical categories like “special interest” or strict left/right labels have appeared inconsistently in public documents [5]. That variation explains why one report might stress right‑wing lethality while another emphasizes mixed‑ideology motivations.
6. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas in the debate
Some lawmakers and civil‑society groups argue the FBI underprioritized white‑supremacist threats in earlier years and that resource allocation should reflect trends showing far‑right lethality [2] [8]. Conversely, recent criticism documented by Reuters and The Guardian portrays leadership moves as deprioritizing domestic terrorism work — critics contend this will diminish monitoring of right‑wing groups and could reflect political preferences at the top of the bureau [3] [9]. Each actor has an agenda: advocacy groups seek stronger emphasis on white‑supremacy; some political actors argue for broader or different targeting of perceived domestic threats [2] [3].
7. What is not clearly answered in current reporting
Available sources do not mention an up‑to‑date, single public FBI list that labels organizations by “right‑wing” in a permanent, formalized way beyond operational categories like WSE referenced in testimony and past lexicons; the bureau emphasizes violent acts and investigations rather than fixed public ideological lists [2] [1] [5]. Details about internal criteria changes to the now‑retired tracking tool are described in Reuters but the exact technical mechanisms and all internal decision documents are not public in the cited reporting [3].
Bottom line: public reporting and congressional testimony show the FBI defines domestic violent extremism around violent acts and has historically used labels like white‑supremacist extremists; independent trackers and analysts consistently identify right‑wing actors as a major source of lethal domestic violence, while recent staffing and tracking changes in 2025 have generated controversy about whether the bureau’s ability to monitor those threats will be diminished [2] [1] [3].