What notable far-left extremist groups have been active in the US since 2020 and what are their ideologies?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Since 2020 U.S. reporting and research identify several strands of far‑left extremist activity: decentralized anti‑fascist networks commonly called “Antifa” and affiliated local antifa collectives (e.g., Rose City Antifa), anarchist violent extremists (often termed AVE), and small eco‑ or animal‑rights violent cells (e.g., ELF/ALF‑style actors); analyses show far‑left attacks were fewer and far less lethal than far‑right attacks (one widely cited fatality attributed to a far‑left attack since 2001) [1] [2] [3]. Government and academic sources emphasize decentralization, overlapping ideologies (anarchism, anti‑capitalism, anti‑fascism), and event‑driven violence rather than large hierarchical organizations [4] [1].
1. Who counts as “far‑left” since 2020 — a messy category
Scholars and government reports treat the far left as a heterogeneous set: anarchists, anti‑fascists (“antifa”), eco‑extremists, and radical Marxist/Communist currents; these currents share anti‑capitalist, anti‑imperialist, and often anti‑state commitments but differ on organization and tactics [5] [6] [1]. Many analysts caution that “Antifa” is not a single organization but a banner for decentralized local groups and tactics (black bloc, direct action) with no formal hierarchy [1] [7].
2. The main names and currents cited in reporting and research
Reporting and research most often call out: decentralized Antifa‑identified collectives (e.g., Rose City Antifa) as anti‑fascist street‑mobilizers; anarchist violent extremists (AVE), described in government and university work as locally organized, event‑driven actors; and eco/animal‑rights militants (in the ELF/ALF tradition) who have conducted sabotage or incendiary attacks historically and in recent analyses [3] [4] [8]. Many institutional trackers group these as “anarchists/anti‑fascists/eco‑extremists” rather than single nationwide groups [3] [9].
3. What their ideologies look like in practice
Ideological cores combine opposition to capitalism and the state with a commitment to direct action: anarchists oppose centralized government and hierarchical power; antifa adherents prioritize confronting what they define as fascism/racism; eco‑extremists target property seen as harming environment/animals. These ideologies often inspire a mix of non‑violent protest, property damage, and, in some cases, violent tactics—though the currents interpret and apply anti‑fascism and anti‑capitalism differently across locales [8] [6] [5].
4. Scale and lethality compared with other threats
Multiple sources underscore that far‑right violence has produced far more fatalities. One review cited by researchers found a single fatality attributed to far‑left attack over a long span, while far‑right attacks caused far larger numbers of deaths [1] [2] [10]. CSIS and GWU analysis nonetheless report upticks in demonstration‑related violence in 2020–2021 and an increase in the share of attacks/plots by anarchists and anti‑fascists in those years, even as far‑right incidents remained likelier to be lethal [3] [4].
5. Organizational behavior: decentralized, opportunistic, event‑driven
Government and academic work characterizes violent far‑left actors as small, leaderless or loosely networked, and often driven by local events (e.g., protests) rather than centralized planning—an approach that both complicates law‑enforcement tracking and reduces the predictability of attacks [4] [1]. The FBI and DHS have described these groups as preferring small‑cell or ad hoc tactics to avoid hierarchical vulnerabilities [7].
6. Disagreement over threat emphasis and political framing
Experts dispute policy responses and rhetoric: some U.S. officials and congressional hearings emphasized left‑wing violence in 2020 hearings and statements, while many scholars and watchdogs point out that statistical lethality and the largest body of violent incidents remain associated with the far right, warning that singling out amorphous antifa networks can shift attention from the more lethal threats [11] [10] [12]. Commentators and researchers also caution that designating loosely affiliated protest collectives as formal terrorist organizations raises legal and analytical problems because many “groups” barely exist as structured entities [12].
7. Reporting limitations and what’s not in these sources
Available sources emphasize protest‑linked activity through 2021 and assessments up to mid‑2025 but do not provide a definitive, comprehensive roster of every named “group” active post‑2020; they stress currents (antifa, AVE, eco‑extremists) more than stable national organizations [1] [4] [3]. Specific claims about recent individual incidents or newly formed named groups after 2024 are not detailed in these materials — not found in current reporting.
Bottom line: authoritative trackers and analysts identify anti‑fascist collectives, anarchist violent extremists, and some eco/animal‑rights militants as the main far‑left currents active since 2020, united by anti‑capitalist and anti‑state ideologies and decentralized, event‑driven tactics; these currents account for a rise in demonstration‑linked violence but remain far less lethal historically than far‑right movements, a point emphasized across CSIS, GWU, and other sources [3] [4] [1].