Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the most common causes of politically motivated violence in the US?
Executive summary
Political violence in the U.S. is driven by a mix of long-standing and emergent factors: partisan polarization and incendiary elite rhetoric, economic and demographic anxieties, and organized or decentralized extremist mobilization — with evidence that both right-wing and left-wing violence have been significant at different moments in recent years (see CSIS, FactCheck, Reuters) [1] [2] [3]. Public surveys and trackers report rising threats, worry about assassinations, and differing partisan perceptions about causes and culpability [4] [5].
1. Polarization and elite rhetoric: the spark that normalizes violence
Scholars and commentators point to intense partisan polarization and high-profile leaders’ violent or dehumanizing rhetoric as a major proximal cause because it erodes norms and can normalize or “permission” signals for violence; Johns Hopkins’ Lilliana Mason and other analysts link elite language to an environment where unstable actors may act on political grievances [6]. Reporting and government statements tie dramatic public messaging to higher threat levels and to events such as January 6 and subsequent attacks [7] [8].
2. Extremist ideologies and organized networks: the engines of targeted attacks
Longstanding extremist movements — including white supremacists and other right-wing groups — have historically produced more deadly incidents, while data through 2025 show a notable rise in some left-wing attacks and plots, producing a mixed picture in which different ideologies dominate at different times [2] [1]. The CSIS analysis finds that in early 2025 left-wing attacks outnumbered right-wing incidents for the first time in decades, even as long-term trends had previously been driven largely by right-wing violence [1] [2].
3. Radicalization pathways: online ecosystems, memetic contagion, and copycats
Multiple outlets cite online radicalization, “memespaces,” and prestige narratives that encourage imitation as mechanisms that translate rhetoric into action. Analysts warn that decentralized networks and copycat dynamics — not only hierarchical terror groups — make predicting and preventing violence harder [9] [1]. Princeton’s tracking work and other datasets highlight how small spikes in mobilized minorities can have outsized effects in a hyper-mediated environment [1] [10].
4. Socioeconomic and demographic anxieties: underlying grievances
Experts identified economic insecurity and anxiety about shifting racial and ethnic demographics as deeper grievances that feed political violence; Reuters cites these structural drivers as part of a “convergence of factors” that make violence more likely [3]. These underlying stresses do not determine who acts violently but create fertile ground for narratives that justify or glorify violence [3] [6].
5. Tactical shifts: vigilante activity, threats, and attacks on officials
Trend analyses from Princeton’s Bridging Divides Initiative and Brookings flag growing forms of politically motivated incidents: vigilante violence, threats and harassment of officials, and targeted attacks on election administrators or ICE personnel — the latter tied to protests and anti-government mobilization [10] [8] [11]. The Brookings and White House materials emphasize that threats and intimidation also reduce civic participation and chill public service [8] [11].
6. Media, perception, and competing narratives about who’s responsible
Public polls show Americans overwhelmingly think politically motivated violence is rising but disagree sharply about why and who is to blame; partisan respondents typically point at the other side (Pew), and political leaders and outlets offer divergent framings — some emphasizing left-wing threats, others right-wing threats — complicating consensus on causes and responses [5] [2] [4]. FactCheck notes that political actors sometimes depict violence as mainly a left-wing problem even as data historically show strong right-wing-driven trends up to recent shifts [2].
7. What the data does — and does not — settle
Analyses agree that definitions, datasets, and timeframes matter: some sources count different incident types (arson, assassination, plots) and use varying thresholds for “terrorism,” so comparisons are complicated. CSIS, NPR and FactCheck all stress that short-term jumps (e.g., in 2025) can look dramatic relative to prior years but don’t erase decades-long patterns [1] [12] [2]. Available sources do not mention a single, definitive cause that explains all incidents; instead they identify interacting drivers [1].
8. Policy and prevention: competing prescriptions
Recommended responses vary: some officials call for law enforcement disruption of organized networks and a national strategy to counter domestic terrorism (White House), while scholars urge rebuilding social norms, reducing polarization, and protecting civic space so threats do not silence public participation [11] [8]. Debates over labeling groups and prioritizing threats reflect political stakes and competing agendas in policymaking [11] [8].
Limitations and takeaway: reporting and datasets through 2025 show a complex, shifting landscape in which elite rhetoric, extremist networks, socioeconomic grievances, online radicalization, and tactical changes all contribute to politically motivated violence; which factor is most important depends on timeframe, definition, and the incidents examined — and public disagreement about causes is itself a part of the risk environment [3] [1] [5].