Have political violence incidents in the US increased by party affiliation since 2020?

1. The broad trend: a post‑2016 rise that accelerated around 2020

Multiple researchers and investigative outlets conclude that political violence began rising around 2016 and reached levels not seen in decades, with a visible escalation tied to the 2020 election and its aftermath, including the January 6 Capitol attack—events that scholars link to growing partisan polarization and normalization of hostile rhetoric ^{[1] [2] [7]}.

2. By affiliation: right‑wing violence remains the predominant source of lethal attacks

Independent datasets and government reporting consistently indicate that right‑wing or white‑supremacist motivated attacks have accounted for the largest share of deadly political violence since 2020; Reuters’ review found most fatal attacks after Jan. 6 were by people embracing far‑right views (13 of 18 deadly incidents in their sample) ^[1], and broader analyses and FBI/DHS assessments cited by FactCheck and other outlets show right‑wing extremists as the most lethal domestic terrorism threat in recent years ^{[6] [3]}.

3. Left‑wing incidents: numbers rising but lethality lower and trends uneven

Several analyses report a rise in left‑wing incidents—often property attacks, protests or small‑scale plots—and a measurable uptick in certain years, yet these incidents have produced far fewer fatalities than right‑wing attacks; CSIS notes that left‑wing terrorist attacks since 2020 resulted in very few fatalities, even as counts of incidents rose ^[4], and other reviews emphasize that left‑wing violence remains a smaller portion of total fatalities ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Variation across datasets, definitions and time windows muddies simple comparisons

Scholars and reporters stress that comparisons depend heavily on how “political violence” is defined, which datasets are used, and which time frames are selected: some databases count property damage and plots, others count only lethal attacks, and official releases have uneven coverage since 2020, leading to different headline conclusions—examples include the Global Terrorism Database, ACLED, academic studies, Reuters’ curated list, and prosecution‑based tallies, each emphasizing different slices of the phenomenon ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

5. Interpretation, incentives and implicit agendas in reporting

Media outlets, think tanks and political actors have incentives that can skew emphasis—some political voices portray violence as predominantly a left problem while multiple datasets and government reports highlight right‑wing lethality ^{[6] [7]}; researchers caution that partisan rhetoric and selective use of statistics can obscure that violence has affected targets across the political spectrum, that threats and harassment increased for public officials of both parties, and that narrative framings often serve political goals rather than purely descriptive accuracy ^{[7] [8]}.

6. Bottom line: yes, incidents rose and the balance shifted but not symmetrically by party

Available reporting supports a direct answer: political violence incidents have increased since 2020, and while both left‑ and right‑motivated incidents have grown in some measures, the volume and lethality of right‑wing extremist violence since 2020 have been higher in most major datasets and government assessments, even as left‑wing activity has risen in count and visibility in recent years ^{[1] [6] [4] [3]}. Analysts uniformly underscore caveats about definitions, incomplete data and the political uses of statistics; therefore, claims that violence has increased “by party affiliation” require careful qualification about which metrics—incidents, fatalities, plots, or arrests—are being compared ^{[1] [3]}.