Is right wing terrorism more prevalent than left wing terrorism in the US?

1. Summary of the results

The majority of the analyses provided suggest that right-wing terrorism is more prevalent than left-wing terrorism in the US. According to the Cato analysis, right-wing actors were responsible for 391 deaths (11% of total) while left-wing actors accounted for only 65 deaths (2%) from 1975-2025 ^[1]. The PBS/The Conversation piece also supports this claim, estimating that right-wing actors cause roughly 75-80% of domestic terrorism deaths since 2001, while left-wing incidents represent only 10-15% of events and under 5% of fatalities ^[2]. The CSIS brief reports that far-right terrorism accounts for the majority of U.S. terrorist incidents (57% of attacks/plots) and a larger share of fatalities, with left-wing terrorism comprising only 25% of incidents ^[3]. Similar findings are presented in other analyses, including ^[2], ^[1], and ^[3], which all suggest that right-wing terrorism is more prevalent than left-wing terrorism in the US. However, it is worth noting that not all analyses provide a clear comparison between right-wing and left-wing terrorism, such as ^[4], which finds no difference between the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing and Islamist extremists in the US ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Some analyses highlight the importance of considering the context and timeframe when evaluating the prevalence of right-wing versus left-wing terrorism. For example, the Cato analysis notes that when the 9/11 attacks are excluded, right-wing share rises to 63% of murders versus 10% for the left ^[1]. Additionally, ^[5] discusses the broad global impacts of COVID-19 on terrorism, but does not provide specific US statistics or comparison between right-wing and left-wing terrorism ^[5]. The Global Terrorism Database is also mentioned as a comprehensive source of terrorism incident data, but does not present US-specific figures on right-wing versus left-wing terrorism ^[6]. Alternative viewpoints, such as the idea that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent, are also presented in some analyses ^[4]. It is also worth considering the potential for underreporting or misclassification of terrorist incidents, which could impact the accuracy of the analyses ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Furthermore, the analyses could benefit from a more nuanced discussion of the motivations and ideologies behind right-wing and left-wing terrorism, as well as the role of social and economic factors in contributing to these forms of violence.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement asks if right-wing terrorism is more prevalent than left-wing terrorism in the US, which may imply a binary or simplistic understanding of the issue. The analyses provided suggest that the answer is yes, but also highlight the complexity and nuance of the issue. Some analyses may be subject to bias or limitations in their methodology, such as the Cato analysis, which relies on a specific dataset and timeframe ^[1]. Additionally, the PBS/The Conversation piece may be influenced by a particular ideological perspective, which could impact the interpretation of the data ^[2]. The CSIS brief, on the other hand, presents a more neutral and fact-based analysis, but may still be subject to limitations in its data or methodology ^[3]. It is also worth considering who benefits from the framing of the original statement, such as politicians or advocacy groups who may use the data to support their own agendas ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Furthermore, the analyses could be influenced by confirmation bias, where the researchers or authors selectively present data that supports their pre-existing views, rather than considering alternative perspectives or evidence ^{[4] [2] [1]}. Overall, it is essential to approach the topic with a critical and nuanced perspective, recognizing the potential for bias and misinformation in the original statement and the analyses provided ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.