Which political groups have been linked to the most violent incidents in the US since 2020?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the analyses provided, the question of which political groups have been linked to the most violent incidents in the US since 2020 reveals a complex and evolving landscape of domestic terrorism and political violence.
Historical patterns show right-wing dominance in lethality: The data consistently indicates that right-wing extremist violence has been significantly more deadly over the past two decades. Multiple sources confirm that right-wing attacks have accounted for approximately 75% to 80% of domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 [1]. In contrast, left-wing extremist incidents have comprised only about 10% to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities [1], with examples including campaigns by the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front involving arson and vandalism.
Recent shift in incident frequency: However, 2025 marked a significant turning point in the frequency of attacks. The Center for Strategic and International Studies found that 2025 was the first time in over 30 years that left-wing attacks have outnumbered those from the far right [2]. This represents a dramatic shift, with right-wing terror attacks plunging dramatically in the first half of 2025, while left-wing attacks increased [3].
Contributing factors and motivations: The rise in left-wing incidents has been attributed to opposition to the Trump administration and its policies, as well as growing discontent with the political system [2]. The analyses suggest this increase stems from a combination of anti-government extremism and partisan extremism, with opposition to the Trump administration fueling attacks against political leadership and institutions [2].
Lethality differences persist: Despite the increase in left-wing incident frequency, the analyses consistently note that left-wing attacks are generally less lethal than those carried out by right-wing or jihadist groups [2] [3]. This distinction is crucial when evaluating the overall threat landscape.
Broader context of political violence: The analyses reveal that both Democrats and Republicans have been targeted in violent incidents, with experts pointing to social media, polarization, and the availability of guns as contributing factors to the rise in political violence [4]. Recent high-profile cases include the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, the attack on Rep. Nancy Pelosi's husband, and the attempted assassination of Donald Trump [5].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question lacks several important contextual elements that emerge from the analyses. First, it fails to distinguish between incident frequency and lethality, which are crucial metrics that tell different stories about the threat landscape. While recent data shows left-wing incidents increasing in number, right-wing violence remains far more deadly historically.
The question also omits the temporal evolution of these threats. The analyses reveal that the landscape has shifted significantly, particularly in 2025, making historical generalizations potentially misleading when discussing current trends.
Definitional challenges are another missing element. The analyses suggest different organizations and studies may categorize political violence differently, potentially affecting conclusions about which groups are most linked to violence.
The question doesn't account for motivational complexity. The analyses indicate that left-wing violence has been driven by specific political opposition to particular administrations, while right-wing violence appears to have different underlying motivations and patterns.
Geographic and demographic factors are also absent from the original question, though these could significantly influence which groups are most active in different regions or time periods.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
While the original question appears neutral on its surface, it contains potential for bias through its framing. The question asks which groups have been "linked to the most violent incidents" without specifying whether this refers to frequency, severity, or lethality of attacks.
Temporal bias is evident in the 2020 starting point, which may not capture the full historical context needed to understand long-term patterns. The analyses show that data going back to 2001 provides a more complete picture of domestic terrorism trends.
The question's framing could inadvertently promote false equivalency by suggesting that different political groups pose similar levels of threat, when the analyses clearly show significant differences in lethality between right-wing and left-wing violence.
Definitional ambiguity in the term "violent incidents" could lead to misleading conclusions, as the analyses distinguish between different types of political violence, from property damage to lethal attacks.
Finally, there's potential for confirmation bias depending on how one interprets "most violent incidents" - whether focusing on recent frequency trends that favor left-wing incidents or historical lethality data that shows right-wing dominance.