Fact check: Left violence more dangerous

1. The startling claim driving headlines — left-wing incidents outnumber right-wing for 2025

Multiple recent analyses report that incident counts of left-wing political violence rose in 2025 and, on a head-count basis, exceeded right-wing incidents, marking the first such occurrence in more than three decades according to aggregated datasets ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The Center for Strategic and International Studies documented a sharp drop in recorded right-wing attacks in the first half of 2025 while noting an increase in left-wing attacks and plots, producing the statistical crossover for that year ^[2]. This shift is driven by a small absolute number of incidents; researchers emphasize the counts remain relatively low compared with long-run totals.

2. Long-term mortality and lethality tell a different, sobering story

Analysts point out that right-wing extremist violence has produced the majority of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001, with estimates often near 75–80% of fatalities, citing high-casualty events such as Charleston and El Paso ^[3]. Even where 2025 shows more left-wing incidents numerically, historical patterns and lethality metrics continue to show greater risk of mass-casualty outcomes from right-wing actors, meaning incident counts alone can obscure broader harm and potential future danger ^[3].

3. What the 2025 increase actually represents — cluster effects and high-profile acts

The 2025 uptick is concentrated in a few discrete events, including shootings at an ICE detention facility in Dallas and the assassination of a public figure noted by journalists, which can dramatically shift year-to-year tallies ^[4]. Researchers caution that small absolute numbers mean a single incident can flip annual rankings; the CSIS analysis highlights that left-wing incidents rose from historically low averages to a handful of 2025 events, while right-wing incidents fell sharply, creating the crossover ^{[1] [2]}. This pattern suggests statistical volatility rather than a settled realignment.

4. Data limitations, methodological caveats, and competing datasets

Different research groups apply varied definitions for “left-wing” and “right-wing,” criteria for what constitutes an attack versus a plot, and cutoffs for inclusion, producing divergent counts and interpretations ^{[1] [2]}. The Conversation and academic overviews emphasize that datasets focusing on deaths, plots, perpetrator motive, and ideology will yield different pictures; the September 2025 studies use incident counts which privilege frequency over lethality ^[3]. Observers must therefore weigh operational definitions and collection methods when comparing claims.

5. Contextual drivers and plausible explanations offered by analysts

Researchers and journalists point to multiple plausible drivers for the observed shift: changing mobilization and recruitment dynamics, law enforcement disruptions of right-wing networks, and reactive incidents tied to immigration and political flashpoints that motivated left-wing violence in 2025 ^{[2] [4]}. Analysts note that societal polarization, high-profile political events, and micro-level grievances can produce temporal spikes. However, these explanations remain inferential; the data show correlation in time but cannot fully isolate causation without deeper case-by-case investigation ^[2].

6. What policymakers and the public should not conclude from the crossover

The crossover in incident counts for 2025 should not be read as proof that left-wing violence is now the dominant long-term threat to U.S. public safety. The more robust and policy-relevant measures — lethality, network capacity, and sustained organizational strength — continue to indicate substantial right-wing extremist danger, even amid a temporary numerical shift in incidents ^[3]. Policymakers should maintain balanced counterterrorism attention across ideologies and base responses on multiple indicators, not a single annual tally ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Where watchdogs and researchers say attention should go next

Experts call for improved, transparent, and harmonized data collection on political violence that captures motive, lethality, organizational ties, and temporal patterns to avoid overinterpreting short-term fluctuations ^{[1] [3]}. They recommend continued monitoring of both left- and right-wing threats, targeted disruption of violent plots regardless of ideology, and public reporting that contextualizes incident counts alongside deaths and capabilities. The September 2025 analyses underscore that both ideologies can pose danger, and nuanced, multi-metric assessments are essential ^[2].