Fact check: Are there any notable examples of right-wing extremist violence in the US since 2020?

1. Summary of the results

Since 2020 there are multiple documented examples and datasets pointing to right-wing extremist violence in the United States, with several analyses citing that a majority of domestic terror attacks and plots in 2020 were attributed to white supremacists and other right‑wing actors ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting and research groups highlight incidents involving organized groups such as the Proud Boys and decentralized actors linked to the Boogaloo movement, alongside lone-actor attacks and plots that targeted protesters, institutions, and minority communities ^{[3] [4]}. Analysts also note a broader trend: right-wing political violence has been characterized as more frequent and often deadlier than left-wing political violence in multiple reviews of recent years ^{[5] [4]}. These sources present both incident-level examples and aggregated counts, indicating a sustained pattern rather than isolated spikes ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several pieces of context are frequently omitted or under-emphasized in the analytical summaries provided. First, definitions and classifications vary: some datasets differentiate between “extremist” and “terrorism,” or classify incidents by ideology based on intent, affiliation, or target, which can change attribution rates ^{[6] [7]}. Second, temporal framing matters: statistics cited for 2020 reflect a single year influenced by protest cycles, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2020 election; multi-year trends (2001–2020 comparisons) can produce different proportions of deaths and plots attributed to right-wing actors ^[4]. Third, alternative viewpoints stress methodological limits—reporting biases, uneven law‑enforcement attention, and the role of online radicalization pathways—which complicate direct year-to-year comparisons and can lead to divergent conclusions about trajectory and scale ^{[4] [8]}. These factors affect interpretations of “notable” and “majority” claims.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Framing that asks simply “Are there notable examples?” is factual and answerable, but the broader narrative risks selective emphasis that benefits particular agendas. Emphasizing percentage shares (e.g., “67% of attacks”) without clarifying definitions, scope, or year-to-year variability can amplify perceptions of an immediate, monolithic threat and serve political actors seeking to prioritize certain policy responses ^{[1] [2]}. Conversely, downplaying incident clusters or labeling widely reported violent events as isolated can minimize accountability and benefit groups trying to avoid scrutiny ^{[3] [6]}. Analysts and outlets making strong claims often rely on datasets with differing inclusion rules; readers should note that classification choices affect headlines and which actors or incidents receive attention ^{[5] [7]}.