What are the most notable examples of right wing terrorism in the US since the January 6 2021 Capitol attack?

1. Summary of the results

Since the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, reporting and investigations have identified several incidents that analysts, law-enforcement officials and news outlets have characterized as right‑wing or ideologically motivated violent acts. Examples cited in available analyses include the sentencing of Seth Aaron Pendley for plotting to bomb an AWS data center ^[1], the Michigan Mormon church mass killing attributed to Thomas Jacob Sanford with reported pro‑Trump symbolism and rhetoric ^{[2] [3] [4]}, and an intentional vehicle attack at the FBI’s Pittsburgh field office by Donald Henson, labeled an “act of terror” by authorities ^[5]. Broader threat assessments note hundreds to over a thousand domestic terrorism investigations since 2021, with a significant share involving violent extremists of differing motivations, including right‑wing actors ^{[6] [7]}. These items are referenced across multiple sources in the analyses provided, which combine case reporting, sentencing records and official investigations to frame a continuing domestic security concern linked to extremist beliefs and targeted violence ^{[1] [2] [5] [6]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Key context omitted by selective listings includes legal designations, motive proof standards and distinctions between criminal acts, terrorism charges and ideological labeling. For example, Pendley’s conviction and sentence are documented ^[1], but broader comparisons—how federal terrorism statutes were applied versus other charges—are not detailed ^[7]. The Michigan church attacker’s political affiliations and PTSD history are reported, yet definitive motive attribution (terrorism vs. mass murder with personal factors) is complex and still subject to investigative and prosecutorial processes ^{[2] [3] [4]}. The FBI’s tally of >1,700 domestic terrorism cases indicates volume but mixes ideologies and threat types; some cases involve nihilistic violence or individual mental‑health crises, complicating categorical claims about a single dominant threat ^[6]. Alternative expert views emphasize the need to differentiate ideology‑motivated terrorism from high‑profile violent crimes to avoid overstating links without publicly available court findings or motive disclosures.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Framing a short list as “the most notable examples” can amplify selection bias and serve competing agendas: advocates for tougher counter‑terror measures may highlight high‑profile ideologically linked acts to argue systemic right‑wing radicalization ^{[7] [1]}, while others may stress individual pathology or mixed motives to caution against politicized labels ^{[6] [5]}. Media and political actors can benefit from emphasizing certain cases—those with clear political symbolism or links to public movements—because they bolster narratives about threat levels or policy urgency ^{[2] [3]}. Conversely, downplaying courtroom outcomes or conflating unproven motive with ideology can mislead public understanding; accurate public policy discussion requires transparent citation of charges, indictments, convictions and official assessments rather than inference from symbolism or partisan affiliation alone ^{[1] [6]}.