Tally U.s. political violences over the last 10 years by the left and the right.
This fact-check may be outdated.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 available analyses, right-wing extremist violence significantly outpaces left-wing violence in the United States over recent years. Multiple sources consistently report that right-wing extremists account for approximately 75-80% of domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 and about 85-90% of incidents, while left-wing violence comprises only 10-15% of incidents and under 5% of fatalities [1].
The data reveals that politically motivated murder remains statistically rare in America, with only 3,599 people murdered in terrorist attacks from 1975 to 2025, representing about 0.35% of all murders [2]. Within this context, right-wing terrorists have been responsible for 11% of murders, while left-wing terrorists account for approximately 2% of murders, with Islamist ideology being the most common motivating factor [2].
Recent trends show an alarming escalation in political violence, with over 150 politically motivated attacks occurring in the first half of 2025 alone - nearly twice as many as the same period the previous year [3]. This includes attacks on politicians from both parties and government buildings, demonstrating that political violence affects the entire spectrum, though the data suggests a clear asymmetry in frequency and lethality.
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question seeks a precise 10-year tally, but the analyses reveal significant methodological challenges in counting political violence. Sources note the difficulty of creating accurate counts due to varying definitions and fragmented datasets [4]. This limitation means that while general trends are clear, exact numerical breakdowns by ideology over the specific 10-year timeframe requested may not be readily available.
An important alternative perspective emerges from conservative sources, which argue that the American Left has entered a "gray zone" of political violence where violence is not fully condemned [5]. This viewpoint suggests that while left-wing violence may be less frequent in terms of deaths and incidents, there exists a cultural acceptance or celebration of figures who have engaged in political violence, such as Angela Davis, which could provide strategic advantages in public debate [5].
The analyses also highlight that both Democrats and Republicans have been targeted in recent political violence, including high-profile cases like the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist [6]. This suggests that while statistical trends favor one direction, the reality includes victimization across the political spectrum.
Furthermore, the sources emphasize that politically motivated violence has a disproportionate impact beyond its statistical frequency, as it amplifies fear and influences policy decisions far beyond what the raw numbers might suggest [1]. This context is crucial for understanding why even relatively rare incidents generate significant political and social consequences.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question appears neutral on its surface, but it contains an implicit assumption that may lead to misleading conclusions. By requesting a simple "tally" of left versus right political violence, the question suggests that both sides contribute equally or comparably to political violence, when the evidence overwhelmingly indicates a significant asymmetry favoring right-wing extremist violence.
The framing could inadvertently promote false equivalency - a common rhetorical device that presents two sides as equally problematic when the data clearly shows one side is responsible for the vast majority of incidents and fatalities. This type of framing can obscure the actual threat landscape that security professionals and policymakers need to address.
Additionally, the request for a simple numerical comparison ignores the complexity of defining and categorizing political violence. The analyses reveal that researchers struggle with varying definitions and fragmented datasets [4], making simplistic tallies potentially misleading. The question also fails to account for the different types and severity of violence, treating all incidents as equivalent when the lethality and impact vary significantly.
The timing of the question is also relevant, as it comes during a period of documented escalation in political violence [3], which could influence how the data is interpreted and used in political discourse.