What are the defining characteristics of left-wing and right-wing extremist groups?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, left-wing and right-wing extremist groups exhibit distinct ideological motivations and operational patterns. Left-wing terrorism is primarily motivated by opposition to capitalism, imperialism, or colonialism ^[1]. These groups typically target symbols of economic and political power, viewing their actions as resistance against systemic oppression. The data shows that left-wing terrorist attacks and plots in the United States have increased in recent years, particularly since 2016 ^[1].

Right-wing extremist groups, conversely, are driven by ideologies that often include white supremacy, anti-government sentiment, and opposition to multiculturalism. The FBI defines domestic terrorism broadly as violent, criminal acts committed by individuals or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences ^[2]. However, the data reveals a stark disparity in lethality and frequency between these two categories.

The statistical reality shows a significant imbalance in violent outcomes. Right-wing extremist violence has been more frequent and more lethal than left-wing violence in the United States ^[3]. Most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the overwhelming majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism ^[3]. Since 2002, right-wing ideologies have fueled more than 70% of all extremist attacks and domestic terrorism plots in the U.S., according to the Anti-Defamation League ^[4]. More specifically, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 ^[3].

Recent policy responses indicate government recognition of the domestic terrorism threat. A presidential memorandum has directed the National Joint Terrorism Task Force to investigate and disrupt entities and individuals engaged in acts of political violence and intimidation, prioritizing crimes such as assaulting federal officers, conspiracy against rights, and money laundering ^[5]. The memorandum also designates domestic terrorism as a national priority area and directs the development of grant programs for law enforcement partners ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important contextual gaps that complicate simple categorizations of extremist violence. The challenge of definition and tracking is significant - there are differences in how political violence is defined and a lack of centralized databases for tracking such incidents ^[3]. This methodological inconsistency may affect the accuracy of comparative statistics between left-wing and right-wing violence.

The temporal dimension adds crucial nuance. While right-wing terrorism has declined in 2025, it could easily return to previous high levels ^[1]. This suggests that extremist violence patterns are fluid and can shift based on political, social, and economic conditions. The increase in left-wing attacks since 2016 ^[1] demonstrates how political climates can influence extremist activity levels.

Individual versus organizational motivations present another layer of complexity. The investigation into the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk found no evidence connecting the suspect to any left-wing groups, with the shooter's motivations appearing to be personal and ideological rather than connected to a larger left-wing movement ^[4]. This highlights that not all politically motivated violence stems from organized extremist groups.

Legal challenges in prosecuting domestic terrorism cases add another dimension. Former Justice Department counsel noted that finding federal charges for domestic terrorism cases can be challenging due to the lack of a federal law making acts of domestic terrorism a stand-alone crime ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and seeks factual information about extremist group characteristics. However, the analyses reveal that political narratives around extremist violence often distort reality. Research shows that President Trump's and his administration's claims about left-wing groups fomenting political violence are not based on actual facts ^[3]. This suggests that political leaders may deliberately mischaracterize the threat landscape for partisan advantage.

The data contradicts common political talking points that attempt to create false equivalencies between left-wing and right-wing violence. The overwhelming statistical evidence shows right-wing extremism poses a significantly greater threat in terms of both frequency and lethality ^[3]. Any analysis that presents these threats as equivalent would constitute a misrepresentation of the factual record.

Media and political incentives may contribute to skewed perceptions, as different actors benefit from emphasizing different aspects of the extremist threat landscape depending on their political objectives.