What political group in the United States incites more political violence?

Checked on September 21, 2025
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

This fact-check may be outdated.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

The analyses provided suggest that right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and deadly than left-wing violence [1]. According to the data, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001, while left-wing extremist incidents have made up about 10% to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities [1]. Additionally, studies have shown that far-right extremists killed more than six times as many people in ideologically motivated attacks as far-left extremists since 1990 [2]. These findings contradict the claim that the left incites more political violence. President Trump's announcement to designate antifa as a 'major terrorist organization' may be an attempt to shift focus from right-wing violence [3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

A key missing context in the original statement is the lack of definition of what constitutes "political violence". Different sources may have different definitions, which could lead to varying conclusions [4]. Furthermore, mental illness or incoherence may play a role in some violent incidents, making it complex to define the political motives of the perpetrator [4]. Alternative viewpoints, such as those presented by former President Barack Obama, emphasize the need to unite the country and recognize that there are 'extremists' on both sides of the aisle [5]. It is also important to consider that right-wing ideologies have fueled more than 70% of all extremist attacks and domestic terrorism plots in the United States since 2002 [6]. The decentralized nature of antifa and the president's lack of authority to designate domestic terrorist organizations also need to be taken into account [3].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be misleading or biased as it does not provide a clear definition of "political violence" and does not account for the disproportionate amount of violence attributed to right-wing extremism [7] [1] [2]. President Trump and his allies may benefit from this framing, as it allows them to shift focus from right-wing violence and politicize incidents like the assassination of Charlie Kirk [3] [4]. On the other hand, left-wing groups and antifa may be unfairly targeted and stigmatized as a result of this narrative [3]. A more nuanced understanding of the issue, considering multiple sources and viewpoints, is necessary to accurately assess the situation [3] [4] [5] [7] [1] [2] [6].

Want to dive deeper?
Which political groups have been linked to the most violent incidents in the US since 2020?
How does the FBI classify and track domestic terrorism by political affiliation?
What role do social media platforms play in inciting or preventing political violence in the US?
Can political rhetoric from public figures contribute to increased violence, and if so, how?
How do law enforcement agencies differentiate between hate crimes and political violence?