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.
Fact check: What are the FBI's definitions of left-wing and right-wing extremism?
Executive Summary
The examined materials show that the FBI does not publish a single, fixed textual definition of “left-wing” or “right-wing” extremism; instead federal reporting and agencies increasingly classify threats by behavior and motive categories such as “nihilistic violent extremism” (NVE) or by incident-specific affiliations. Contemporary public statements and analyses emphasize a surge in domestic investigations—about 1,700 active domestic terrorism cases—and a notable shift in recorded political violence patterns, with some trackers reporting far-left-linked attacks surpassing far-right attacks in recent counts [1] [2].
1. Why there’s no tidy FBI dictionary entry for “left” or “right” extremism — and what officials use instead
The materials indicate the FBI avoids a single rigid label for ideological extremism and instead organizes threats by behavioral motifs and operational intent, such as violent intent, target selection, and allegiance to extremist causes. Recent federal discourse highlights a newer operational category, NVE, describing actors motivated by generalized hostility or chaos rather than coherent political ideology, which the FBI and other agencies now track alongside traditional left- and right-wing designations [1] [3]. This approach prioritizes actionable threat characteristics—planning, capability, intent—over static ideological taxonomy in investigative practice [1].
2. What the “NVE” category changes — and what it does not
The NVE classification signals a shift toward recognizing ideology-agnostic violence: actors who seek to harm institutions or create chaos without subscribing to a disciplined political program. Reporting in September and December 2025 frames NVE as complementing, not replacing, left- and right-wing threat tracking; it explains why some cases formerly categorized by political affiliation are now described in behavioral terms [1]. Agencies emphasize that NVE captures a real phenomenon—a rise in nihilistic attacks—while still maintaining investigations into ideologically motivated groups when evidence shows political aims [1] [3].
3. How many domestic cases and what the numbers imply about left/right balance
Public statements and reporting cite about 1,700 domestic terrorism investigations at points in late 2025, a figure used to illustrate rising caseloads and complexity [4] [1]. Independent trackers such as policy centers reported that, for a defined recent period, violent incidents linked to the far left exceeded those linked to the far right—a departure from the prior decades’ patterns [2]. These numeric snapshots reflect time-bound trends in incidents and investigations rather than a permanent realignment; they require caution because counting methodologies, time windows, and classification criteria vary across agencies and NGOs [2] [1].
4. What official sources say — and what they omit
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and FBI public materials in the provided analyses emphasize mission and integration over lexicon specificity: ODNI’s strategic statements focus on intelligence fusion and counterterrorism missions without offering precise rhetorical definitions of left- or right-wing extremism [3]. That omission reflects an institutional preference for operational language—incident type, tactics, and threat vectors—rather than fixed political labels. The lack of explicit definitional text in the cited documents leaves gaps that external researchers and media fill with diverse taxonomies, producing divergent public narratives [3].
5. How outside analysts and centers interpret the shift — competing frames and potential agendas
Think tanks and media outlets in late 2025 framed the data differently: some emphasized an emerging left-linked violence trend to signal a changing threat landscape, while others highlighted the emergence of ideology-agnostic NVEs to argue for broader counterterrorism approaches [2] [1]. These framings carry potential agendas: groups or commentators may stress one category to influence policy, resourcing, or public perception. The materials show competing priorities—some actors want emphasis on ideological movements, others on behavioral threat fusion—so readers should note that classification choices shape policy debates [2] [1].
6. Bottom line for readers seeking a clear FBI definition
There is no single publicly released FBI text in these sources that defines “left-wing extremism” or “right-wing extremism” in rigid terms; instead the bureau and national intelligence entities classify threats by behavioral patterns, targets, and motive assessments, while adopting new constructs like NVE to capture non-ideological violence. For definitive statutory or regulatory definitions, stakeholders must consult formal DOJ, FBI manuals, or congressional texts beyond the provided materials; the current public record presented here shows operational categorization and evolving terminology rather than static ideological definitions [1] [3].