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.
There is a large and growing movement of left-wing terrorism in the United States that is organized, funded, and protected by Democratic officials. stephen milller says
Executive Summary
Stephen Miller’s statement that “there is a large and growing movement of left-wing terrorism in the United States that is organized, funded, and protected by Democratic officials” overstates the evidence: researchers document a measurable rise from very low levels in left-wing incidents but still find left-wing violence remains far lower in lethality and scale than right-wing and jihadist violence, and no reliable evidence shows systematic organization, funding, or protection by Democratic officials. Multiple recent analyses call for attention to rising left-wing incidents while warning against partisan exaggeration and emphasizing that most political violence historically and recently has been driven by right-wing actors [1] [2].
1. A spike in left-wing incidents — real but small in context
Recent analytic work documents an increase in left-wing incidents from historically low baselines: 2025 marked the first year in decades where recorded left-wing attacks outnumbered far-right attacks, but that shift reflects very low prior right-wing numbers and a modest rise in left-wing plots and attacks rather than a mass mobilization [1]. The studies show averages climbing from roughly 0.6 incidents yearly in the 1990s to about 4.0 per year in the 2016–2024 period, indicating an upward trend that merits monitoring. Importantly, left-wing incidents have produced very few fatalities—only two deaths since 2020 in one dataset—so the increase is primarily in lower-lethality events and plots, which contrasts sharply with the scale and deadliness historically linked to right-wing and jihadist attacks [1].
2. Evidence does not support claims of coordinated, state-protected networks
The assertion that left-wing terrorism in the U.S. is “organized, funded, and protected by Democratic officials” lacks corroboration in the available analyses. Experts describe contemporary left-wing actors mostly as loosely affiliated networks, small cells, or lone actors, which limits capacity for complex, highly lethal operations and complicates evidence of centralized funding or protection [1]. Investigations into funding show decentralized channels and murky ties at best; some reporting raises questions about foreign contributions to activist networks, but these do not amount to proof of institutional sponsorship or a party-led protection scheme. Peer-reviewed briefs and prominent think-tank reports uniformly caution against leaping from isolated funding links to claims of Democratic officials’ complicity [3] [1].
3. The broader data picture still points to right-wing violence as the larger lethal threat
Multiple analyses emphasize that right-wing extremist violence accounts for the majority of domestic terrorism deaths in recent decades, often constituting roughly three-quarters to four-fifths of fatalities since 2001. This pattern persists despite year-to-year fluctuations in incident counts, and experts warn the decline in right-wing incidents may be temporary rather than signaling a long-term reversal [2]. That broader mortality and frequency context matters when assessing claims of a “large” left-wing terror movement: while left-wing incidents have risen from low baselines, they do not approach the lethality, organizational depth, or historical prevalence of right-wing extremist violence [1] [2].
4. Political rhetoric and incentives shape competing narratives
Senior officials and political operatives have incentives to frame unrest in ways that support policy goals; claims of a vast left-wing terror movement have been used as justification for aggressive countermeasures, but analysts caution that rhetoric exceeds the empirical record and may risk misallocating resources [4] [5]. At the same time, some policymakers and commentators call attention to specific violent episodes linked to left-leaning actors, arguing those episodes show emergent risks that deserve preventive action. The tension between precautionary responses and the danger of partisan exaggeration is central: experts urge evidence-based resourcing for counterterrorism that addresses threats across the ideological spectrum rather than privileging one narrative [1].
5. What the evidence recommends — targeted, nonpartisan responses
Scholars and practitioners converge on policy prescriptions that stress resourcing counterterrorism broadly, avoiding overreaction, and maintaining unequivocal political condemnation of violence across ideologies. Effective responses focus on improved intelligence for decentralized threats, community interventions to prevent radicalization, and legal measures that target criminal conduct rather than political beliefs; these approaches address both rising left-wing incidents and the persistent right-wing lethal threat [1]. The evidence does not support treating left-wing activity as a state-protected enterprise; instead it calls for calibrated, nonpartisan strategies to reduce violence while protecting civil liberties and avoiding politicized suppression of lawful dissent [1] [6].