Fact check: What are the most recent FBI statistics on domestic terrorism by ideology?

1. Why 1,700 investigations matters — the bureau’s recent public tally

FBI Director Kash Patel publicly stated the bureau is investigating roughly 1,700 domestic terrorism cases, a raw caseload figure that signals sustained investigative activity and resource commitment. This figure was presented in September 2025 and was accompanied by an emphasis on a sizable portion of those investigations involving nihilistic violent extremism, a label officials use for actors motivated by apolitical, misanthropic or mass‑destruction intent rather than traditional political ideologies ^[1]. The bureau’s headline number is useful for scale but does not break cases down by precise ideology, incident severity, or investigative status, limiting direct comparisons with past FBI tallies or independent datasets ^{[5] [6]}.

2. What independent researchers see — anti‑government violence on the rise

A CSIS analysis of three decades of domestic terrorism data finds a sharp increase in attacks and plots targeting government institutions motivated by partisan or anti‑government beliefs, documenting 21 such incidents from 2016 to 2024 compared with just two in prior decades. This change signals a shifting ideological composition of politically motivated violence toward more organized or partisan anti‑state actors, not merely fringe lone offenders ^[2]. The CSIS data highlight that while operational patterns and targets have evolved, anti‑government sentiment has become more frequent and coordinated, raising distinct counterterrorism concerns compared with past lone‑actor patterns.

3. Longstanding pattern: right‑wing extremists account for the deadliest incidents

Multiple analyses, synthesizing government and independent datasets, indicate that right‑wing extremist violence has produced roughly 75–80% of domestic terrorism deaths in the U.S. since 2001, reflecting both the lethality and frequency of attacks tied to white supremacist, anti‑government, or other far‑right ideologies. This mortality share underscores that while the number of plots or investigations can fluctuate, fatal outcomes have disproportionately emanated from right‑wing movements, a pattern that remains a central analytic touchpoint for policymakers and investigators ^{[3] [2]}.

4. The new variable: nihilistic violent extremism complicates ideological categories

FBI briefings and subsequent reporting describe a growing subset of cases labeled “nihilistic violent extremism”, linked to attackers motivated by apolitical misanthropy, internet subcultures, or ideologies rejecting existing political frameworks. This category is analytically important because it does not fit neatly into classic left‑vs‑right classifications, can radicalize quickly online, and may inspire copycat attacks with unpredictable targets. Officials say this trend is visible in recent mass‑casualty plots and school violence cases, complicating priorities and resource allocation within domestic counterterrorism ^{[1] [7]}.

5. Federal assessments say the threat remains high across ideologies

The U.S. government’s Homeland Threat Assessment 2025 frames the domestic terrorism environment as sustained and high risk, warning that violent extremist responses to sociopolitical developments will keep the threat active across multiple ideologies. The assessment stresses that while certain ideologies (notably right‑wing anti‑government extremists) have driven the deadliest attacks historically, converging drivers — grievance, conspiracy narratives, and online radicalization — elevate risks across the ideological spectrum, making simple attribution inadequate for resource planning ^[4].

6. What’s missing from public figures and why breakdowns vary

Public statements like the FBI’s 1,700‑case figure are valuable for transparency but lack standardized, public breakdowns by ideology, offense type, and investigative outcome, producing gaps analysts must fill with independent datasets and academic studies. Differences in definitions — how agencies classify “domestic terrorism,” “extremism,” or novel categories such as nihilistic violence — lead to variation across reports and complicate direct comparisons ^{[5] [6]}. For a fuller picture, stakeholders need consistent, dated datasets showing convictions, fatalities, plots versus preparations, and ideology coding.

7. What to watch next — indicators that will change the picture

Near‑term indicators likely to reshape statistical narratives include updated FBI or DOJ releases that disaggregate the 1,700 investigations by ideology and outcome, additional independent multi‑year studies extending the CSIS work through 2025, and law enforcement reporting on the operational links between nihilistic online networks and physical attacks. Policymakers and researchers should monitor whether the share of nihilistic‑label cases grows and whether right‑wing anti‑government actors continue to account for the bulk of lethal incidents; these trends will determine resource priorities and policy responses ^{[1] [2] [3]}.