Which demographic groups commit political violence in the U.S. most frequently since 2000?
Executive summary
Since 2000 the preponderance of lethal politically motivated violence in the United States has come from the political right—multiple government and independent analyses attribute roughly three‑quarters or more of domestic political‑terror fatalities to right‑wing extremists [1], a pattern underscored by Reuters’ finding that 13 of 14 clear partisan fatal attacks after the Capitol riot were committed by right‑wing assailants [2]; at the same time, jihadist attacks peaked in earlier decades and left‑wing incidents have been rarer though not absent, with recent scholarship noting some upticks and important caveats about definitions and measurement [3] [2] [4].
1. Right‑wing extremists account for the majority of lethal political violence
Multiple datasets and government assessments show right‑wing actors—especially lone actors and small networks tied to white‑supremacist, anti‑government, or militia ideologies—have been responsible for the majority of domestic terrorism deaths since 2001, estimated at roughly 75–80 percent of fatalities in some analyses [1], and journalistic investigations found most recent partisan killings were right‑wing motivated [2].
2. Islamist/jihadist attacks and their changing footprint
Jihadist‑inspired attacks in the U.S. rose in two waves after 2001—early in the Obama years and during the Islamic State’s peak—and then declined after IS lost territory in 2019, leaving individual incidents but a smaller overall footprint compared with the right‑wing threat in recent years [3].
3. Left‑wing violence: limited but noted increases and definitional complexity
Scholars report left‑wing incidents have been less frequent and historically more likely to target property rather than people, although some datasets and recent analyses register increases in certain years and caution that counting depends heavily on how “political violence” and ideology are defined [3] [4].
4. Who are the perpetrators—demographics and social profiles
Researchers observe that many perpetrators defy simple labels, but studies and expert commentary emphasize that much contemporary right‑wing violence is carried out by older, established men—often white and working‑age—with jobs and families, motivated by narratives of cultural or demographic threat [3] [5]. Analyses also note perpetrators sometimes have mental‑health issues and adopt a mix of grievances that resist tidy left‑right classification [3] [6].
5. Data gaps, competing interpretations, and political uses of the numbers
There is no single federal database capturing all political violence, and different studies produce varied tallies depending on whether they count murders, threats, property attacks, riots, or policing actions, which leaves room for divergent narratives—some outlets stress the right‑wing lethality record [1] [2], while commentators argue politically motivated violence remains rare in broader population terms [7] and that research can overstate public support for violence if measures are poorly designed [8].
6. Public attitudes and the risk environment
National surveys show meaningful minorities expressing justification for some political violence under certain conditions and stable levels of willingness across 2023–2024 for a range of actions—findings that underline risk without proving imminent mass mobilization—while targeted harassment and threats against officials have risen, disproportionately affecting women and minority officeholders [9] [10].
7. Bottom line: frequency, lethality, and caution about overreach
Taken together, the best available government and independent analyses point to right‑wing affiliated actors as the most frequent source of lethal political violence in the U.S. since 2000, with jihadist incidents peaking earlier and left‑wing incidents smaller in number though occasionally rising; however, inconsistent definitions, incomplete centralized data, and political framing mean conclusions must be tempered by transparency about methodology and the limits of current reporting [1] [3] [4].