What are the most notable instances of political violence in the US since 2020?

1. Summary of the results

The available analyses identify several notable patterns and incidents of political violence in the United States since 2020, including a rise in politically-motivated attacks linked to both left-wing and right-wing actors, high-profile protests that turned violent, and fluctuations in lethality and frequency year-to-year. Multiple assessments report that 2025 shows an unusual increase in left-wing incidents relative to right-wing attacks, while other sources underscore that right-wing extremism has historically caused the majority of domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Specific protest-related violence in Los Angeles, including the burning and vandalism of Waymo vehicles during immigration-related demonstrations, is cited as a concrete example of political unrest ^{[4] [5]}. Strategic assessments call for balanced counterterrorism responses and caution against overreaction, noting differences in target selection, tactics, and lethality across ideological actors ^{[1] [6]}. Collectively, the sources present a picture of evolving threats, with divergent interpretations about which side currently poses the greater danger and repeated emphasis on the need for measured policy responses ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual facts and alternative interpretations are either absent or under-emphasized across the cited analyses. First, long-term trends since 2001—particularly the dominance of right-wing extremist fatalities—are emphasized by some sources but not by those highlighting recent left-wing upticks, which may give a skewed short-term view ^{[2] [3]}. Second, metrics differ: some accounts count incidents, others measure fatalities or disrupted plots; these choices materially change conclusions about which ideology is more active or deadly ^{[1] [6]}. Third, localized events such as the Los Angeles protests are presented without broader data on nationwide protest violence frequency, law enforcement responses, or judicial outcomes, limiting inference about systemic change ^{[4] [5]}. Finally, the assessments note but do not fully quantify factors like policing, intelligence operations, social media dynamics, and ideological crossovers that shape operational capacity and lethality—variables necessary to understand whether observed shifts represent durable trends or ephemeral spikes ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The framing that one ideological side is definitively responsible for “the most notable instances” risks selection bias and political utility: highlighting recent left-wing incident counts without contextualizing historical lethality benefits narratives that claim symmetric or left-dominant threats, which may serve actors seeking to minimize right-wing culpability ^{[1] [2]}. Conversely, emphasizing longstanding right-wing dominance in fatalities can be used to justify targeted law-enforcement focus while downplaying emergent left-wing activity—an angle that may advantage agencies or politicians promoting particular security or policy agendas ^{[2] [1]}. Reporting on discrete incidents, such as the Waymo vehicle arsons, can be weaponized by local stakeholders to argue for harsher policing or political crackdowns if not accompanied by proportional data on scale and causation ^{[4] [5]}. Balanced interpretation requires transparent metric choice, multi-year baselines, and attribution caution; absent these, claims about “most notable” instances can mislead public understanding and policy responses ^{[6] [3]}.