Fact check: What are the most notable incidents of political violence in the US since 2015?

1. What sources claim — the headline allegations that shape the record

Analysts summarize several core claims about political violence since 2015: an uptick in demonstrations with violent episodes, greater participation by organized violent groups and vigilantes, targeted harassment and threats against local officials, and episodic lethal incidents framed as political assassinations. ACLED’s US-focused datasets and country hub material document demonstration and political-violence event counts and trends, while conflict-watch analyses forecast escalations tied to elections and polarizing legislation. These claims are presented as systemic trends rather than isolated anomalies and rely on curated event data and expert interpretation ^{[4] [3]}.

2. The most frequently cited incidents and their contested meanings

Source analyses highlight several emblematic episodes used to characterize the period: high-profile attacks during protests, politically motivated killings referenced in 2024–25 commentary, and demonstrations like the so-called “No Kings” protests that drew attention for violent fringes and contested narratives. Some sources treat incidents as evidence of organized mobilization, while others emphasize ideological influences or lone-actor dynamics, producing divergent explanations for similar events. The narratives around incidents are therefore as politically consequential as the incidents themselves ^{[5] [1]}.

3. Underlying dynamics — what drove the violence according to analysts

Reports converge on several drivers: polarizing elections, contested immigration policy, abortion access debates, and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation all served as focal points for mobilization and conflict. Analysts also flag weakening public trust in law enforcement and the growth of vigilante activity as amplifiers of violence, with organized groups exploiting grievances to recruit and coordinate. These structural drivers are used to explain not only when violence occurs, but why it may become more diffuse and localized, including threats against school boards and local officials ^{[2] [3]}.

4. Data sources, their strengths, and what they omit

ACLED and affiliated monitors provide curated event files and methodological transparency that enable trend analysis, but they do not fully resolve causal disputes or capture all clandestine activity. The datasets document demonstrations and violent events, giving a quantitative backbone to qualitative claims, yet limitations persist around classification (what counts as “political”), underreporting of threats, and the interpretation of motive. Analysts therefore supplement ACLED counts with case studies and open-source reporting to build narratives, resulting in competing emphases across reports ^{[1] [4]}.

5. Competing narratives and potential agendas shaping the record

The analyses reflect at least two competing framings: one that emphasizes organized extremist groups and vigilantism as primary threats, and another that focuses on broader political polarization and protest dynamics with episodic violence. Political actors may capitalize on particular incidents—labeling movements as “terrorist” or portraying violence as isolated—to advance policy aims like law-and-order measures or restrictions on protest. Reports note instances where labeling (for example, calling antifa an organization versus an ideology) materially alters public perception and policy responses ^{[5] [1]}.

6. What the most recent reports warn about next and what to watch

Recent trend analyses from early 2024–2025 caution about increasing risks: escalating threats and harassment of local officials, continued mobilization around elections and social-policy flashpoints, and potential for assassinations or lethal attacks to be framed as political acts. Analysts recommend monitoring event counts, geographic spread of vigilante incidents, and how political labeling evolves because those factors will shape law enforcement and legislative responses. The forecasts position 2024–25 as a period where existing patterns may intensify absent effective mitigation ^{[2] [3]}.

7. Bottom line: synthesis, evidence gaps, and responsible interpretation

Collectively, the sources document a multi-faceted pattern of political violence since 2015: measurable increases in demonstration-related violence, rising vigilante and organized-group activity, and high-profile lethal incidents that fuel contested narratives. However, evidence gaps remain in motive attribution, underreporting, and the influence of labeling on public policy. Responsible interpretation requires combining event data with case-level investigation, awareness of sources’ framing, and scrutiny of how political actors use incidents to legitimize broader agendas ^{[4] [1]}.