Right wing arguing with right wing
Executive summary
Right-wing infighting is visible across media and politics: high-profile personalities (Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes) and factions have publicly split, creating a struggle over the future of the conservative movement [1] [2]. Analysts and organizations note both ideological fragmentation inside the U.S. right and a wider debate about whether political violence trends reflect shifts in left- or right-wing activity — data show a recent rise in left-wing incidents in 2025 but longstanding asymmetry in lethality and frequency favoring the right [3] [4] [5].
1. The fight is partly personality-driven: media stars and grievance politics
Prominent broadcasters and influencers have driven and amplified disputes on the right, with commentators like Tucker Carlson taking “dark and conspiratorial” turns and figures such as Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly breaking with former allies, illustrating how personal feuds shape policy and identity debates inside the movement [1]. The fallout around Charlie Kirk’s death intensified existing fracturing, provoking accusations and alignments across camps and spotlighting how celebrity-driven conservatism can fragment under stress [1] [2].
2. Ideological fault lines: what the arguments are actually about
Observers frame the splits as a struggle over post-Trump identity: some factions push a more conspiratorial, hard-right or ethnonationalist agenda, while others (including some traditional conservatives and libertarians) resist that turn and try to reclaim institutional conservatism [1]. The fight is not simply rhetorical — it determines endorsements, fundraising, platforming decisions and which candidates or causes gain legitimacy within GOP ecosystems [1].
3. Extremist actors deepen the schism and complicate messaging
Hard-right personalities and white-nationalist figures continue to appear in right-wing media circles, forcing mainstream conservatives to police (or tolerate) associations — an ongoing tension noted by watchdogs and researchers that influences internal purges and alliances [6]. The Southern Poverty Law Center and related reporting document how appearances and endorsements by extremist figures provoke backlash inside the right and widen splits [6].
4. Violence data changes the stakes of internecine arguments
Recent research shows a notable rise in left-wing incidents in 2025, such that some databases recorded left-wing attacks outnumbering right-wing ones through midyear — a development used politically to argue the threat picture has shifted [3] [5]. At the same time, multiple analyses emphasize historical asymmetry: right-wing extremist violence has been more frequent and deadlier in recent years, a fact cited to caution against equating current short-term shifts with long-term parity [4] [5].
5. How opponents weaponize data and events
Political actors have used selective readings of terrorism and violence statistics to justify policy and rhetorical responses: proponents of crackdowns on the left cite the recent uptick in left-wing incidents, while critics warn that focusing narrowly on small-sample changes risks obscuring the larger pattern of right-wing lethality [3] [4] [5]. Fact-checkers and analysts note both the rise and the context — that the 2025 left-wing numbers come after years when right-wing attacks predominated [5] [7].
6. International echoes and electoral consequences
Infighting on the right is not unique to the U.S.; observers point to similar fractures in other countries where far-right parties and coalitions face internal disputes, affecting electoral viability and governance [8]. In places like Colombia, analysts link right-wing infighting to weaker electoral performance and a stronger, more unified left — a cautionary tale for U.S. conservatives about the electoral costs of disunity [9].
7. What the reporting does not settle (and limits of available sources)
Available sources document public feuds, data shifts in 2025, and watchdog alerts, but they do not provide a definitive causal map from infighting to specific policy outcomes in Congress or state parties; those causal chains are not fully established in current reporting [1] [3]. Also, while sources report on the increased visibility of extremist figures on right-wing streams, they do not quantify how many mainstream voters change allegiance because of these appearances [6] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers: stakes and the road ahead
The right’s visible internal warfare is reshaping who speaks for conservatism and what tactics are considered acceptable; that struggle will shape nominations, media ecosystems and policy priorities in the near term [1] [2]. Simultaneously, debates over political violence — driven by recent data showing more left-wing incidents in 2025 but long-term right-wing lethality — will be weaponized by different factions to argue for competing security and speech policies [3] [4] [5].