How do FBI statistics compare violence between left-wing and right-wing groups?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the available analyses, right-wing extremist violence significantly outpaces left-wing violence in both frequency and lethality according to multiple data sources. The most comprehensive statistics show that right-wing attacks account for approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 [1]. In stark contrast, left-wing extremist incidents have made up about 10% to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities [1].
The Cato Institute provides even more detailed historical data, reporting that from January 1, 1975, through September 10, 2025, a total of 3,599 people have been murdered in politically motivated terrorist attacks in the United States [2]. When including all attacks, 87% of those murdered were killed by Islamist terrorists, 11% by right-wing terrorists, and 2% by left-wing terrorists [2]. However, when the 9/11 attacks are excluded from the analysis, the picture changes dramatically: right-wing terrorists account for 63% of murders in terrorist attacks, Islamist terrorists for 23%, left-wing terrorists for 10%, and unknown or other ideologies for 1% [2].
The data indicates that left-wing extremist activities have historically focused more on property damage rather than lethal violence, with examples including the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front arson and vandalism campaigns in the 1990s and 2000s [1]. Meanwhile, right-wing extremist violence has proven more deadly and sustained over time.
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
Several important contextual factors emerge from the analyses that complicate the straightforward statistical comparison. Assessing political violence in America is inherently subjective, with analysts having to determine which forms of violence count as political and assign ideological labels to attackers or victims [3]. This methodological challenge means that different organizations may reach different conclusions based on their classification criteria.
A significant criticism of violence statistics comes from sources arguing that surveys on political violence, including those from the ADL, are misleading and pad their numbers by including incidents of non-ideological criminality [4]. This perspective suggests that not all violence is the same, with some incidents being perpetrated by mentally ill people with no coherent ideological outlook [4], which could artificially inflate certain categories of political violence.
The FBI's own data presents additional complexity. While domestic terrorism is on the rise, with 231 incidents between 2010 and 2021, the analysis shows that about 35% of these incidents were racially or ethnically motivated [5], but this doesn't provide a direct left-wing versus right-wing comparison. The FBI sources analyzed do not provide specific data or comparisons on violence between left-wing and right-wing groups [6] [7], suggesting that the bureau may categorize domestic terrorism differently than academic researchers or think tanks.
Another crucial missing element is the temporal context. Studies and datasets indicate that radical-left violence is not on the rise in America [3], suggesting that while historical data may show certain patterns, current trends might be different. The analyses also note that individual incidents may not be representative of broader trends in political violence [3].
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question itself appears neutral and fact-seeking, asking for a comparison of FBI statistics on violence between ideological groups. However, the analyses reveal that the FBI's approach to investigating terrorism, including domestic terrorism, does not necessarily provide the specific comparative data requested [7]. This suggests that the premise of the question - that FBI statistics directly compare left-wing and right-wing violence - may be flawed.
The most significant potential for misinformation lies in how different organizations define and categorize political violence. The killing of Charlie Kirk is not representative of broader trends in political violence [3], indicating that isolated incidents can be misused to support broader narratives about ideological violence trends.
Furthermore, the criticism that surveys pad their numbers by including incidents of non-ideological criminality [4] suggests that some statistics commonly cited in public discourse may be inflated or misleading. This creates an environment where different political actors can selectively cite statistics that support their preferred narrative, whether emphasizing the threat from right-wing or left-wing extremism.
The lack of standardized definitions and methodologies across different agencies and research organizations means that claims about comparative violence levels should be approached with significant caution, as the underlying data may not be directly comparable.