What are notable examples of right wing terrorism in the United States since 2000?

1. Summary of the results

Since 2000, multiple high-casualty incidents and patterns of violence have been identified by researchers and law enforcement as right‑wing extremist or racially/ideologically motivated attacks, with several frequently cited cases: the 2015 Charleston church shooting, the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue massacre, and the 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre (all noted in analytical overviews) ^[1]. Government and policy analyses have concluded that far‑right actors have been responsible for a disproportionate share of domestic extremist killings in the post‑2000 period; those findings were later the subject of internal debate and a removed DOJ study is reported in public coverage ^{[2] [3]}. Recent violent incidents against places of worship and federal facilities have reignited discussion about ideological motives versus individual criminality, with FBI investigations and local reporting treating some attacks as targeted or terror-related ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Alternative reporting highlights politically motivated violence across the spectrum, but the prevailing datasets cited by multiple analysts point to greater frequency and lethality among right‑wing actors in the specified timeframe ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Analyses asserting that right‑wing violence is more frequent and deadly rely on definitional choices—how researchers classify “right‑wing,” “left‑wing,” or “single‑issue” attackers, and whether certain incidents (e.g., domestic standoffs, anti‑government militias) are aggregated. Some sources argue both sides commit politically motivated violence and caution against broad labels that implicate entire political movements ^[7]. The DOJ study removal reported in media reflects institutional sensitivity, methodological debates, and political pressure; independent think tanks and academic datasets (cited in follow‑ups) often corroborate the higher casualty share from far‑right actors but differ on coding rules and time windows ^{[2] [3]}. Recent case reporting (e.g., Michigan church attack, Pittsburgh FBI gate incident) shows investigators sometimes initially withhold motive classification pending evidence, underscoring the need for case‑by‑case attribution rather than automatic ideological assignment ^{[4] [6]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Framing the question as “notable examples of right‑wing terrorism” risks selective recall bias: listing prominent right‑wing attacks without parallel treatment of left‑wing or other ideological violence can convey an impression of exclusivity. Political actors and some media outlets may emphasize particular incidents to support narratives—either that right‑wing extremism is an acute, systemic threat (supported by several datasets and academic studies) or that violence is symmetrical across the political spectrum (an argument stressed in some forum commentary and partisan outlets) ^{[1] [7] [8]}. The DOJ study removal has been used by both camps: critics argue institutional suppression of inconvenient facts, while defenders cite methodological caution; each side benefits from emphasizing parts of the record that support policy or political goals ^{[2] [3]}. For balanced assessment, readers should weigh multiple datasets, note classification rules, and look for official investigative determinations rather than relying solely on politicized headlines ^{[4] [5]}.