Fact check: What are the most notable right-wing extremist attacks in the US since 2015?

1. Why three attacks dominate the recent narrative—and what data shows

Public discussion of post‑2015 right‑wing attacks centers on Charleston ^[3], Tree of Life ^[4], and El Paso ^[5] because each produced high fatalities, explicit racial or antisemitic motives, and national media attention; researchers use these cases as anchors for measuring trends in lethal ideological violence ^[1]. Empirical studies and reviews published between 2023 and 2025 show an increasing share of lethal domestic terrorism events linked to far‑right actors, and broader datasets indicate a rise in extremist plots over recent decades, though methodologies and inclusion criteria vary across studies ^{[6] [7]}.

2. The Charleston shooting’s role in the shift of public and policy focus

The 2015 Charleston church massacre is widely cited as a turning point because the attacker explicitly referenced white‑supremacist ideology and targeted Black worshippers, producing sustained national debate on domestic race‑based terror and prompting policy and security reassessments; this case is regularly listed among the most consequential modern right‑wing attacks in summaries produced by analysts in 2024–2025 ^[1]. Law enforcement and academic reviews link Charleston to later shifts in threat perception and to increased attention to racially motivated violent extremism in assessments issued after 2015 ^[6].

3. Tree of Life and the weaponization of conspiracy‑driven antisemitism

The 2018 Tree of Life synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh represented an intensification of antisemitic violence tied to online radicalization, resulting in one of the deadliest antisemitic attacks in U.S. history; analysts cite it alongside Charleston and El Paso as emblematic of the lethal intersection of ideology, firearms access, and social media echo chambers ^[1]. Post‑attack research emphasizes how conspiracy narratives and targeted hatred motivated the assailant and catalyzed policy debates about hate crimes, extremist material, and community protection measures ^[7].

4. El Paso as a cross‑border, anti‑immigrant flashpoint

The 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre is commonly characterized as an anti‑immigrant mass shooting linked to white‑nationalist rhetoric, and analysts treat it as a regional and political flashpoint given its timing amid heated national immigration debates; the attack’s manifesto and selections of target populations underscored ideological motive in official and scholarly assessments ^[1]. Subsequent analyses connect El Paso to broader patterns of violence tied to nativist and white‑supremacist themes, prompting renewed focus on how political discourse can be exploited by violent actors ^[6].

5. Broader trend claims, contested figures, and methodological caveats

Multiple recent reports claim a large uptick in far‑right plotting and that right‑wing actors accounted for roughly three‑quarters of domestic terrorism deaths since 2001; however, researchers warn that definitions, data sources, and coding choices—for example, whether to include lone actors, criminality overlaps, or partisan militias—affect trend estimates and cross‑study comparisons ^{[6] [7] [1]}. Analysts publishing in 2023–2025 uniformly warn readers to treat single‑source tallies cautiously and to consider competing datasets that yield different proportions and trend lines ^[7].

6. Counterclaims that shift blame to the left—and why they matter

Some sources assert that political violence is primarily driven by left‑wing networks such as Antifa and cite official statements or selective incidents to support that view; this narrative was amplified in political communications in 2025 and seeks to reframe resource allocation and legal responses ^[2]. Fact‑based reviews contrast this claim by showing that empirical homicide and mass‑attack tallies since 2001 credit a majority of deaths to right‑wing actors, illustrating a clear disagreement between partisan messaging and multi‑source incident data ^{[1] [6]}.

7. What’s missing from headlines—and implications for policy and research

Reporting often highlights mass‑casualty incidents while undercounting smaller lethal attacks, foiled plots, and nonfatal extremist violence; comprehensive studies from 2023–2025 call for standardized definitions, transparent datasets, and longitudinal tracking to capture the full scope of ideologically motivated violence and to inform prevention strategies ^{[7] [6]}. Policymakers and researchers should weigh both high‑profile massacres and aggregated, lower‑profile events when designing interventions, recognizing that differing agendas influence which incidents gain prominence in public discourse ^{[2] [1]}.