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: Which is mor frequrnt right wing or left wing violence
Executive Summary
The balance of evidence through September 2025 shows right-wing extremist violence has historically been more frequent and deadlier in the United States, but recent 2025 studies report a notable short-term uptick in left-wing attacks that, in that year alone, surpassed far-right incidents for the first time in three decades. Long-term datasets and fatality counts favor the right-wing as the larger threat over the 2001–2024 period, while multiple 2025 analyses flag a shifting pattern that merits attention rather than definitive reversal [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why conventional tallies keep pointing at right-wing attacks — a long-term fatality story that matters
Multiple analyses emphasize that most U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 have been attributed to right-wing attackers, repeatedly citing that figure in the 75–80% range and specific aggregate counts that dwarf left-wing fatalities [1] [2]. These sources highlight that lethal incidents such as mass shootings and racially motivated attacks have driven the higher death toll associated with right-wing extremism. The consistency across datasets focused on fatalities underscores that counting deaths — not only incident numbers — influences conclusions and policy attention, which has been the prevailing metric in many national security and academic reviews [1] [2].
2. The 2025 pivot: left-wing incidents spike and change the short-term picture
Several September 2025 studies reported a noticeable increase in left-wing attacks, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and related reporting concluding that 2025 was the first year in over 30 years when left-wing incidents outnumbered those from the far right [3] [4] [5]. These analyses focus on the number of attacks rather than fatalities, and they cite recent assassinations and attempted assassinations tied to leftist motives. That methodological distinction — counting incidents versus counting deaths — is central to why 2025 can mark a statistical crossover without overturning the long-term casualty record favoring right-wing lethality [3] [5].
3. Methodology matters: incidents, fatalities, and ideology coding shape conclusions
Comparisons between sources reveal that different metrics yield different answers: studies counting incidents may show left-wing actions rising in a single year, while fatality-focused datasets still record right-wing dominance in deaths since 2001 [1] [3]. Analysts also differ in how they code ideology and group affiliation, with some studies distinguishing between far-right, mainstream conservative sentiments, and lone actors, while others aggregate all politically motivated violence under left or right categories. These coding choices and the selected timeframe (single year vs. multi-decade) explain much of the apparent contradiction across reports [2] [4].
4. Survey data adds another dimension: attitudes toward political violence
Separate from incident counts, public-opinion surveys show higher willingness among some right-leaning cohorts to endorse violence when framed as justified resistance; one recent analysis reported 27% of Republicans endorsing statements about patriots resorting to violence versus 8% of Democrats [6]. This attitudinal data does not directly equate to violent acts but helps explain recruitment, radicalization, and potential for future violence. Analysts caution that expressed support in surveys can be a leading indicator of risk, and that shifts in rhetoric or elite cues may translate into operational activity over time [6].
5. Geographic and international context complicate the U.S.-focused picture
Global reporting underscores that right-wing extremism remains a pronounced concern across multiple regions, with incidents, infiltration into politics, and organized neo-Nazi networks drawing attention in Europe, Latin America, and Australia [7] [8]. These international patterns often parallel U.S. trends in lethality and organizational capability, reinforcing the long-term emphasis on right-wing threats in many policy and law-enforcement circles. Yet the U.S.-specific spike in left-wing incidents in 2025 shows domestic shifts can diverge from longer-term global patterns, highlighting the need for nuanced, country-specific analysis [7] [8].
6. Where sources converge and where they disagree — a balanced takeaway
Across the sources, there is convergence that right-wing violence historically produced more deaths, and that 2025 saw a distinct and noteworthy increase in left-wing attacks by incident count [1] [2] [3] [5]. Disagreement centers on whether a single year’s incident spike constitutes a durable reversal and on which metric — incidents or fatalities — should carry primacy for threat assessment. Analysts and policymakers must therefore weigh immediate trends against historical lethality, and recognize that short-term surges can presage longer shifts but are not definitive proof of a permanent change [1] [4].
7. Practical implications: watch both metrics and sources for policy decisions
The combined evidence argues for policymaking that tracks both incident frequency and lethality over multiple years, monitoring attitudinal shifts and cross-border patterns while avoiding policy swings based on a single-year anomaly. Law enforcement and prevention programs should remain resourced to counter historically deadlier right-wing threats while scaling investigative attention to emergent left-wing activity documented in 2025. Continued transparent data collection and harmonized definitions of ideology and attack types are essential to reconcile future reports and guide focused, effective interventions [2] [5] [1].