Even accounting for the George Floyd riots of 2020, is left-wing political violence in the US still lesser than right-wing political violence?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses consistently support the claim that right-wing political violence remains more deadly and frequent than left-wing violence in the United States, even when accounting for the George Floyd riots of 2020. Multiple sources provide compelling statistical evidence for this conclusion.

Right-wing extremist violence accounts for approximately 75% to 80% of domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 ^[1], demonstrating a clear pattern of higher lethality. An academic study examining ideologically motivated homicides between 1990 and 2020 found that far-right extremism has been more active and deadly than far-left extremism ^[2]. This finding is further reinforced by data showing that right-wing terrorists have accounted for 11% of murders in terrorist attacks since 1975, while left-wing terrorists have accounted for only about 2% ^[3].

However, recent trends show some complexity in the data. A 2025 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that left-wing terrorist attacks outnumbered right-wing attacks in the first half of 2025 ^[4]. Despite this numerical increase, the analysis emphasizes that the overall number of left-wing incidents remains low and the lethality of these attacks is very low compared to right-wing and jihadist attacks ^[4].

The George Floyd protests of 2020 provide important context for understanding left-wing violence patterns. Research indicates that the vast majority of demonstrations associated with the Black Lives Matter movement have been peaceful ^[5], though some violence did occur. Notably, authorities used force in over 54% of demonstrations during this period ^[5], suggesting that government response may have escalated tensions.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements that affect the analysis. First, there's insufficient discussion of the definitional challenges in categorizing political violence. The sources reveal that left-wing terrorism has specific characteristics, including low lethality rates and lack of organization ^[6], which may affect how incidents are classified and counted.

The question also omits the rise in left-wing terrorism since 2016, driven by anti-government and partisan extremism ^[6]. This temporal context is significant because it shows evolving patterns rather than static comparisons. Additionally, the analyses reveal that non-state intervention and violent counter-demonstrations have increased ^[5], suggesting that political violence involves complex interactions between different groups rather than simple left-versus-right dynamics.

Another missing perspective concerns the broader impact of political violence beyond direct casualties. One source cites a Harvard study indicating that previous violent anti-police protests led to increased homicides and felonies ^[7], suggesting that the effects of political violence extend beyond immediate participants and victims.

The question also fails to address government and law enforcement responses, which vary significantly between different types of political movements. The heavy-handed response to BLM demonstrations ^[5] contrasts with responses to other forms of political violence, potentially affecting both the occurrence and reporting of incidents.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains subtle framing that could introduce bias. By specifically mentioning "even accounting for the George Floyd riots," it implies these events were particularly significant for left-wing violence statistics, potentially overemphasizing their impact on the overall comparison.

The phrasing "left-wing political violence" versus "right-wing political violence" may also create false equivalencies. The sources indicate that the threat to human life from these types of attacks is relatively small overall ^[3], but the question's framing suggests these are equally significant categories of concern.

Additionally, the question's binary framing ignores the complexity revealed in the analyses. The sources show that far-right extremism should be a prioritized concern for government policy and law enforcement agencies ^[2], but this doesn't necessarily mean left-wing violence should be dismissed entirely.

The timing aspect is also potentially misleading. While historical data strongly supports right-wing violence being more deadly, recent 2025 data shows left-wing attacks outnumbering right-wing attacks ^[4], though with much lower lethality. This suggests that simple historical comparisons may not capture evolving dynamics.

Finally, the question lacks acknowledgment that most domestic terrorists in the US are politically on the right ^[1], which provides important baseline context for understanding the relative scales of different types of political violence.