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.
What are the most significant left-wing extremist groups operating in the US since 2016?
Executive summary
Since 2016, reporting and academic analyses identify anarchist/anti‑fascist currents (often labeled “Antifa” or anarchist violent extremism), environmental/animal‑rights groups (e.g., ELF/ALF), and small Marxist‑Leninist or autonomist cells as the most-discussed left‑wing extremist actors in the United States; multiple sources note left‑wing incidents rose from very low baselines after 2016 but remain far fewer and less lethal than right‑wing attacks [1] [2] [3]. Major government and research accounts emphasize decentralization and event‑driven violence rather than cohesive national organizations [1] [4].
1. The loose coalition: “Antifa” and anarchist violent extremism — a decentralized threat
Government and academic readers use the term “Antifa” as shorthand for a decentralized network of anti‑fascist and anarchist militants rather than a formal hierarchical organization; the FBI and DHS highlighted anarchist/left‑wing violent extremism (AVE) as among the groups “presenting the greatest threats of violence” in 2015–2019, noting violence tended to be locally organized, event‑driven, and opportunistic [1]. Analysts stress that this current is fragmented, with lone actors or ad hoc affinity groups planning or committing attacks—so the risk profile is about decentralized violence at protests and targeted attacks rather than orchestrated national campaigns [1] [2].
2. Environmental and animal‑rights extremists: property damage, occasional escalation
Groups historically identified as left‑wing violent extremists include Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF); reporting and think‑tank work treat them as a separate current that has largely focused on arson and property attacks rather than mass‑casualty violence, though they remain of interest to law enforcement because of tactics and occasional escalation [2] [4]. These movements are small, clandestine, and episodic, and researchers note their actions historically targeted property rather than people, which influences assessments of lethality and national threat [5] [4].
3. Marxist, socialist, and autonomous groups: historical roots, limited modern footprint
Longstanding Marxist or revolutionary groups (historic Weather Underground, CPUSA links in older eras) are part of the catalog of left‑wing militant tendencies, but contemporary reporting and scholarly work show their operational footprint since 2016 is limited compared with anarchist currents and environmental extremists; government studies emphasize that left‑wing groups today are typically small and urban‑based rather than cohesive national insurgencies [4] [6]. Available sources do not describe a large, unified Marxist organization post‑2016 mounting sustained violent campaigns [4] [6].
4. What the data says about frequency and lethality compared to the right
Multiple analyses find left‑wing incidents increased from very low levels after 2016 but still constituted a minority of incidents and fatalities compared with right‑wing extremism; academic and journalistic summaries put left‑wing incidents at roughly 10–15% of political‑extremist incidents in some time frames and under 5% of fatalities, while right‑wing violence has been more frequent and deadly in recent decades [3] [5] [7]. PNAS and other comparative studies corroborate that far fewer deaths are attributable to left‑wing actors in recent years [8] [7].
5. Why analysts see a post‑2016 uptick — and limitations of that narrative
CSIS and other analysts link a post‑2016 rise in left‑wing incidents to more contentious politics and reactions to the expansion of far‑right movements, but they qualify that the rise is from low baselines and that left‑wing violence remains decentralized and less lethal than right‑wing or Islamist terrorism [3] [2]. Researchers caution that counts of organizations do not map directly onto lethality or operational capacity, and that data gaps and definitional variations (what counts as “terrorism” or “extremist incident”) limit cross‑study comparisons [3] [5].
6. Operational implications for policy and reporting
Authorities and scholars recommend tailored responses: monitor decentralized networks and event‑driven risks, prioritize prevention at large events, and avoid conflating disparate actors under single labels like “Antifa,” because doing so obscures granular intelligence needs and risks politicizing enforcement [1] [2]. At the same time, policymakers told analysts that over‑focusing on one category can leave blind spots—several reports urge balanced resources across ideologies based on lethality and activity [3] [2].
7. Bottom line and reporting cautions
Available sources consistently describe the most significant left‑wing extremist activity since 2016 as anarchist/anti‑fascist networks, environmental/animal‑rights cells, and small autonomous or Marxist currents, all largely decentralized and event‑driven, with increased attention after 2016 but lower lethality than right‑wing extremists [1] [2] [3]. Journalistic and policy clarity requires distinguishing decentralized movements from formal organizations and noting that comparative threat assessments emphasize frequency and fatalities when prioritizing resources [5] [8].