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.
Fact check: Do democrats or republicans have a higher rate of reported hate crimes?
Executive Summary
A preponderance of recent analyses from September 2025 finds that right‑wing or Republican‑aligned political violence and extremist attacks have been more frequent and deadlier than left‑wing incidents, contradicting claims that left‑leaning actors are the principal source of political hate violence [1] [2]. Competing claims that left‑leaning incidents — including Antifa and BLM unrest — account for the majority of incidents and fatalities are explicitly disputed in this corpus, and the studies cited here emphasize consistent patterns showing greater lethality and frequency on the political right [3] [4].
1. Why the recent studies point to a right‑wing violence majority — and what they actually measured
Multiple studies published between September 17–20, 2025 analyze incidents of politically motivated violence and domestic terrorism and conclude the right‑wing has produced a larger share of fatalities and frequent attacks in the United States. These works aggregate data across decades and recent years, noting major lethal events associated with right‑wing extremism and concluding that lethality and frequency metrics favor the right [2] [1]. The research framing focuses on fatalities and documented extremist attacks, which are measurable outputs; measurement choices — fatalities versus number of incidents — shape the conclusion, so the studies emphasize deadly episodes as decisive evidence [2].
2. The counterclaim: articles asserting left‑leaning violence predominates and the dispute over methods
Some analyses, notably a September 17, 2025 piece, assert that left‑leaning violence, including protests tied to Antifa and BLM, comprise a large share — reportedly 70–90% of incidents and 75–85% of fatalities since 2016 — though that article’s methodology and findings are explicitly disputed by other studies in the same September window [3]. Critics argue these figures rely on selective timelines, media reports, and definitions that may conflate protest‑related unrest with targeted extremist violence; the contested nature of sources and categorization leads to starkly different tallies depending on inclusion rules [3] [5].
3. How analysts define “hate crimes,” “political violence,” and “extremism” matters
The body of reporting emphasizes that definitions vary between studies — “hate crime,” “domestic terrorism,” and “politically motivated violence” are not used uniformly — and those definitional choices materially change which side appears more culpable [4] [5]. Studies that categorize events by perpetrator ideology and incident intent tend to place greater weight on organized extremist attacks, where right‑wing actors account for most fatalities, whereas efforts that count protest disturbances or broadly labeled “riots” may produce different proportional results [1] [3]. The takeaway is methodological transparency determines comparative outcomes.
4. Notable examples cited as evidence and why they sway the balance
The analyses point to high‑fatality right‑wing attacks as pivotal data points — mass casualty events such as well‑documented shootings and synagogue or church attacks are repeatedly invoked to explain why right‑wing violence accounts for a disproportionate share of deaths in domestic terrorism tallies [2]. These singular but deadly incidents dramatically affect fatality‑based metrics, and the studies highlight that the concentration of lethality in a subset of attacks on the right drives the overall statistical picture, reinforcing conclusions about greater lethality on that side [1].
5. The role of political narratives and potential agendas in interpreting the data
The reviewed corpus shows clear competing narratives: some outlets and commentators emphasize left‑wing culpability, often in reaction to political claims, while multiple academic and investigative pieces published Sept 17–20, 2025 counter that right‑wing extremism is the dominant source of lethal political violence [3] [2] [4]. These conflicts suggest potential agendas: efforts to exonerate or indict one side appear tied to contemporary political debates. Readers should note that the timing and framing of analyses coincide with partisan disputes, which may influence selective emphasis in different pieces [1].
6. What remains unresolved and important caveats to the headline finding
Despite consistent findings across several recent studies that right‑wing extremist violence has been more frequent and deadly, the research acknowledges unresolved issues: inconsistent data collection, the challenge of attributing ideology in chaotic events, and divergences when counting incidents versus fatalities [4] [5]. Therefore, while multiple independent analyses from September 2025 converge on a right‑wing violence majority in fatalities and extremist attacks, conclusions are sensitive to definitional choices and timeframes, and the debate persists where methodologies differ [2] [1].
7. Bottom line for the original question — who has a higher rate of reported hate crimes?
Across the September 17–20, 2025 analyses reviewed here, the balance of evidence in these studies indicates Republican‑aligned or right‑wing actors have been responsible for a higher share of deadly extremist attacks and related domestic terrorism fatalities, and thus appear to drive higher rates of severe politically motivated hate violence in these datasets [1] [2]. However, contested reports asserting left‑leaning predominance exist and highlight that measurement choices and definitions are decisive, so any definitive public claim should specify which data, definitions, and timeframes are being used [3] [5].