Right wing extremism is far more dangerous than far left.
Executive summary
The weight of empirical research and multiple datasets shows that right‑wing extremist violence has historically been more frequent and deadlier in the United States than far‑left violence, even as some 2025 reporting documents a relative rise in left‑wing incidents compared with a recent dip in right‑wing attacks [1] [2] [3]. Analysts caution that short‑term shifts in counts do not overturn long‑term patterns: right‑wing actors still account for the majority of terrorist plots and fatalities across multi‑decade studies, while left‑wing attacks remain fewer and often less lethal [2] [4] [1].
1. Historical pattern: right‑wing violence predominates in scale and lethality
Large comparative studies covering decades find right‑wing actors represent a plurality or majority of politically motivated violence and fatalities: one global dataset coded right‑wing perpetrators at 59% of incidents versus 23% for left‑wing [1], and U.S. analyses conclude right‑wing attacks and plots have accounted for the majority of domestic terrorist incidents since the 1990s [2]. Multiple scholarly and policy outlets summarize that right‑wing violence has been both more frequent and more deadly than left‑wing violence across the modern era of U.S. domestic terrorism research [3] [2].
2. Recent volatility: 2025 saw a relative spike in left‑wing incidents but context matters
The Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that, for the first time in decades, left‑wing incidents outnumbered right‑wing ones in 2025, driven by an uptick in left‑wing plots and a notable short‑term decline in right‑wing events [5]. Media summaries framed this as left‑wing attacks outpacing right‑wing for the first time in more than 30 years [4], but researchers and critics emphasize that such year‑by‑year comparisons can mislead if not viewed against longer trends and casualty counts [6].
3. Lethality and casualties remain a decisive metric
Even when short‑term counts shift, fatality totals across longer windows show right‑wing violence producing far more deaths: one 10‑year comparison cited 13 deaths from left‑wing violence versus 112 from right‑wing attacks and 82 from jihadists, underscoring differences in lethality [4]. Experts note left‑wing attacks since 2020 have been overwhelmingly non‑lethal and less deadly relative to other ideologies, with only a handful of associated fatalities across several years [5].
4. Methodology disputes and the politics of framing
Data collection choices—definitions of terrorism, time windows, inclusion of plots versus completed attacks—drive divergent headlines; the same CSIS data that highlighted a left‑wing numeric edge in 2025 also attracted critiques for framing short‑term patterns as broader trends [5] [6]. The Justice Department’s removal of a 2024 study finding far‑right violence “continues to outpace” others sparked debate about institutional agendas and how political pressures can reshape which findings gain public prominence [2].
5. Why right‑wing danger persists despite recent variations
Scholars point to ideological features—such as authoritarianism, dogmatism, and organized militia networks—that make right‑wing violence more prone to lethal outcomes and persistent plotting in the U.S. context, parallels drawn between right‑wing and Islamist extremists in willingness to use deadly force [1]. Longitudinal research and national datasets still show higher volumes of right‑wing plots and a concentration of deadly incidents that keep that threat as the dominant concern for most counterterrorism analysts [2] [1].
6. Bottom line and caveats
The direct answer: on balance and over the long run, right‑wing extremism has posed a greater danger in frequency and lethality than far‑left extremism in the United States, though 2025 produced meaningful short‑term shifts that merit attention and further study [1] [5] [2]. Any assessment must remain data‑driven, transparent about definitions and windows, and candid about how political incentives shape which findings are amplified or downplayed [6] [2].