How does left wing violence compare to right wing violence in terms of frequency and severity?

1. Summary of the results

The data on left-wing versus right-wing violence reveals a complex and evolving landscape with significant shifts occurring in recent years. Historically, right-wing extremist violence has dominated domestic terrorism statistics in the United States, accounting for approximately 75% to 80% of domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 ^[1]. Left-wing extremist incidents have traditionally made up only about 10% to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities during this same period ^[1].

However, 2025 marked a significant turning point in these trends. For the first time in over 30 years, left-wing terrorist attacks outnumbered those from the violent far right in the first half of 2025 ^{[2] [3]}. This shift occurred primarily due to a dramatic decrease in right-wing terror attacks rather than a massive surge in left-wing violence ^[2]. The Center for Strategic and International Studies documented this trend reversal, though they emphasized that the absolute number of left-wing incidents remains relatively low ^[2].

The nature and lethality of attacks differ significantly between ideologies. Left-wing attacks are characteristically less lethal and more targeted towards government and law enforcement facilities ^[3]. The lethality of left-wing attacks remains relatively low compared to other ideologies ^[3], while right-wing attacks have historically been responsible for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism ^[1].

The rise in left-wing violence correlates with specific political developments, particularly since President Donald Trump's rise to political prominence in 2016 ^[3]. Despite this increase, left-wing terrorism still remains lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several critical contextual factors are absent from simple frequency and severity comparisons. The difficulty in defining and characterizing political violence creates significant challenges for researchers, as there are differences in definitions and the lack of formal designation of domestic terrorist organizations ^[1]. This methodological complexity means that assessing political violence is inherently subjective ^[4].

The analyses reveal that studies and datasets compiled by researchers often contradict popular narratives about rising left-wing violence ^[4]. While media attention may focus on specific incidents, the broader data suggests these may not be representative of broader trends ^[4].

The recent shift in 2025 requires careful interpretation. The fact that left-wing attacks outnumbered right-wing attacks was partly due to a decline in right-wing incidents rather than solely an increase in left-wing activity ^[3]. This nuance is crucial for understanding whether we're witnessing a genuine surge in left-wing violence or a temporary statistical anomaly.

Counterterrorism implications also provide important context. Experts emphasize the need for counterterrorism efforts against both left- and right-wing terrorism ^[3], suggesting that focusing exclusively on one ideological threat while ignoring another could be strategically problematic.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while seemingly neutral, contains implicit assumptions that could lead to biased interpretations. By asking for a direct comparison of "frequency and severity," it may encourage oversimplified answers that ignore the complex definitional challenges inherent in categorizing political violence ^[1].

Media narratives and political agendas can significantly distort public perception of these trends. The analyses suggest that claims about rising "radical-left" violence may not be supported by comprehensive data analysis ^[4]. Politicians and media figures across the political spectrum have incentives to emphasize threats from opposing ideologies while downplaying violence from their own side.

The timing of data collection and analysis introduces another potential source of bias. The dramatic shift documented in 2025 could be used selectively by different political actors to support contradictory narratives about which ideology poses the greater threat.

Research methodology bias also plays a role, as most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right according to comprehensive studies ^[1], yet this finding might be disputed by those who define terrorism differently or focus on different time periods.

The question itself may inadvertently promote a false equivalency between left-wing and right-wing violence when the historical data shows right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities ^[1], suggesting that severity comparisons reveal stark differences rather than rough parity between ideological threats.