Fact check: Left-wing violence vs right-wing violence in the U.S.

1. What each source actually claims — and where they diverge

The provided sources make overlapping but distinct claims. Several analyses document a resurgence of far-right violent extremism, noting ideological revival and gendered patterns of radicalization that suggest evolving mobilization dynamics ^[1]. Separate reports and datasets highlight sharp increases in attacks against religious institutions, particularly churches, with an 800% increase over six years presented in one advocacy study that connects many incidents to anti-Christian bias and culture-war issues ^{[7] [2]}. Contrastingly, other pieces argue that left-wing linked attacks have recently risen, even stating that far-left incidents have outpaced far-right attacks for the first time in decades, citing specific assassinations and attempts ^{[5] [6]}. These divergences reflect different emphases: organizational extremism versus sector-targeted violence versus episodic politically motivated attacks.

2. Timing matters — how publication dates shape the narrative

The timeline across sources spans mid-2024 through late 2025 and changes the picture. The SPLC and court-reporting examples from 2024 emphasize persistent and systemic far-right threats, including extremist group counts and hate-driven attacks like the Planned Parenthood firebombing, framing right-wing extremism as longstanding and structurally embedded ^{[4] [3]}. By contrast, several September–November 2025 pieces argue recent spikes in left-wing incidents have shifted the balance, claiming left-linked attacks surpassed right-linked ones in a new study and citing recent high-profile assassinations ^{[5] [7]}. The discrepancy often stems from different windows of observation and inclusion criteria, so readers must note publication dates and period covered by each analysis.

3. Counting incidents vs. measuring organizational threat — different metrics, different conclusions

Some sources count incident tallies—church attacks, clinic bombings, assassinations—producing headline figures like the FRC’s church-attacks dataset or studies asserting a numerical crossover favoring left-linked incidents in recent months ^{[7] [2] [5]}. Other sources assess organizational strength and spread, such as the SPLC’s group counts and analyses of far-right networks, which emphasize sustained infrastructure and legislative influence ^[4]. These methodological choices yield divergent conclusions: incident-focused reports can show rapid swings driven by a few high-profile attacks, while organizational analyses portray deeper, chronic threats that persist across longer timeframes ^{[4] [6]}.

4. Targets and motives reveal asymmetries despite surface similarities

Across the analyses, targets and motives differ and reveal asymmetries. Church attacks and anti-Christian bias are highlighted as part of culture-war dynamics tied to abortion and transgender debates, implying targeted religious animus ^{[7] [2]}. Far-right material emphasizes hate and anti-government organizing that correlates with sustained group activity and legislative consequences ^[4]. Far-left-linked incidents described in some reports include politically targeted assassinations and attacks on conservative figures, suggesting a shift toward politically targeted lethal violence in certain recent incidents ^{[5] [6]}. These patterns indicate that violence is not uniform across ideologies; motivations, targets, and organization differ.

5. Reliability signals and potential agendas in the reporting

The analyses come from a mix of advocacy, academic, and journalistic framing, requiring caution. The Family Research Council and affiliated reports emphasize anti-Christian bias and may foreground church attacks relative to other datasets ^{[7] [2]}. The SPLC’s group-count approach focuses on structural threats from far-right organizations and has been critiqued by those it labels, indicating political stakes in classification ^[4]. Conversely, pieces arguing a left-wing surge cite a study claiming a historic crossover, which warrants scrutiny about definitions of “far-left,” scope, and incident inclusion ^{[5] [6]}. Readers should treat each claim as framed by the author’s objectives and methodology.

6. What’s missing — gaps that change interpretation

Key gaps across the supplied analyses limit definitive conclusions. There is inconsistent disclosure about methodology—how incidents were verified, whether attempted or completed acts were counted, and how ideological attribution was assigned—making cross-source comparisons fraught ^{[1] [2] [5]}. National-level law enforcement trend data and longitudinal datasets that standardize definitions over time are absent from the provided set, which would clarify whether recent spikes represent sustained shifts or short-term fluctuations. Without standardized metrics, claims that one side “surpasses” the other remain contingent on study design.

7. Bottom line for readers seeking the big picture

The supplied sources together show that both right-wing and left-wing political violence are real and evolving threats, with differing patterns: far-right threats show organizational depth and persistent hate-driven attacks, while recent reporting documents a rise in high-profile left-linked incidents that in some counts have exceeded right-wing incidents in narrowly defined windows ^{[4] [5] [1]}. Policymakers and the public should therefore focus on transparent datasets, clear definitions, and cross-validated incident counting to assess trends rather than relying on single-study headlines; absent that, claims about which side is worse will continue to reflect methodological choices and potential agendas ^{[7] [2]}.