Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Republican / democrate violence
Executive Summary
Americans across the political spectrum increasingly see politically motivated violence as a growing national problem, with multiple national polls in late 2025 reporting roughly 85–87% of respondents saying political violence is increasing or is a serious problem; however, partisan perceptions of who is responsible diverge sharply, with Republicans more likely to point to left-wing threats and Democrats more likely to point to right-wing threats [1] [2]. Parallel trend analyses and expert briefs show that actual incident data is ambiguous: some studies report a rise in left-wing incidents in 2025 while other datasets and analyses find both left- and right-wing threats have increased and that elected officials from both parties face more threats than before, underscoring a complex, multi-directional pattern of political violence [3] [4] [5].
1. Why Americans Say Political Violence Is a Growing Crisis — Polls Reveal Widespread Alarm
Multiple national surveys conducted in September–October 2025 show overwhelming public perception that politically motivated violence is increasing and that polarization is a serious national problem. A YouGov study found 87% saying political violence is a problem and 59% calling it a very big problem, with Republicans slightly more likely to rate it as “very big” than Democrats [1]. Pew’s October 2025 survey similarly reported 85% seeing an increase and documented nearly identical levels of concern across party lines, while toxic-polarization tracking projects show similarly high shares saying political division threatens the country, with most partisans viewing the other side as a real danger [2] [6]. These polls present broad consensus on rising danger even as they reveal divergent narratives about sources and responsibility.
2. Partisan Blame — Each Side Sees the Other as the Main Threat
Surveys consistently show that partisans assign blame differently: Republicans disproportionately identify left-wing extremism as the major problem, while Democrats disproportionately point to right-wing extremism. Pew’s late-October polling recorded 77% of Republicans naming left-wing extremism as a major problem and 76% of Democrats naming right-wing extremism, a near mirror-image of concern [2]. Marquette and YouGov polling likewise found majorities saying both left- and right-wing violence are problems, but with sharp partisan splits in which side is viewed as primarily responsible [7] [1]. This pattern suggests public threats are filtered through partisan lenses, meaning policy responses and media narratives are likely to diverge based on who is defining the problem.
3. Incident Data and Scholarly Analyses — Signals Are Mixed, and 2025 Shows New Patterns
Scholarly briefs and incident-tracking projects paint a more complicated picture than partisan perceptions. A Chicago Project on Security and Threats analysis and expert commentary argue that threats to officials and political targets have risen since 2017 and that the pattern in 2025 shows violence emerging from both left and right [4]. Contrastingly, a focused brief on left-wing terrorism finds left-wing incidents increasing and, in 2025, for the first time in decades outnumbering far-right incidents, indicating shifts in tactical patterns and mobilization on the left [3]. These divergent findings reflect differences in definitions, time windows, and counting methods, meaning the empirical record supports both interpretations to varying degrees depending on methodology.
4. Who Is Being Targeted — Elected Officials, Protesters, and Bystanders All at Risk
Incident trackers and analyses highlight that members of Congress and other public officials have faced a rising volume of threats and harassment since 2017, with increases reported across party lines, indicating that political status and visibility, more than partisan identity, can drive victimization risk [4]. Polling shows meaningful shares of Americans fear violence against political leaders and believe threats to leaders are a very big problem, and many respondents view both left- and right-wing actors as potential perpetrators [7]. Longitudinal survey data also finds a persistent minority—around a quarter—expressing that violence can be justified for political ends, with small year-to-year shifts in willingness to use force against opponents, which complicates assessments of immediate risk and speaks to enduring societal drivers of violence [5].
5. What’s Missing and Why Context Matters — Definitions, Counts, and Media Frames Shape Perception
The datasets and analyses differ in definitions of “terrorism,” “extremism,” and what constitutes an “incident,” which produces divergent conclusions about whether the left or right is currently more active. Pew and YouGov provide public-perception snapshots showing broad alarm but partisan attribution differences, while incident-focused briefs and academic datasets produce conflicting trend claims depending on scope and coding choices, such as whether property destruction, threats, or lethal attacks are counted [1] [2] [3]. The media and political actors also shape narratives: partisan messaging amplifies incidents that fit existing frames, and that amplification affects how the public perceives risk. For policymakers and analysts, the critical missing context is standardized, transparent incident coding and cross-validated longitudinal data to reconcile public fears with measurable trends.