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: How have incidents of political violence changed over time in the United States?
Executive Summary
A large majority of Americans now believe politically motivated violence is rising, with surveys in October 2025 showing roughly 85% holding that view and partisan disagreement primarily about causes and targets [1]. Empirical data and expert analyses present a mixed picture: right-wing extremists historically account for most deadly domestic political violence, but multiple 2025 reports document a notable uptick in left-wing incidents and a drop in right-wing attacks, prompting debate about whether the landscape has genuinely shifted or simply reflects short-term fluctuations [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Why Americans feel the country is heating up — public perception versus data
Survey research in October 2025 finds 85% of Americans say politically motivated violence is increasing, with Republicans and Democrats similarly likely to agree on the trend but sharply divergent on who is to blame and why [1]. The public perception is important because it shapes political incentives and policy responses; scholars and journalists note that high-profile incidents such as assassinations and targeted attacks amplify fear and media attention, increasing the sense of crisis even when annual incident counts fluctuate. Perception can thus outpace or distort empirical trends, creating pressure for immediate political action.
2. Long arc: political violence has recurred across U.S. history
Historical reviews place current concerns in a longer continuum, noting assassinations, bombings, and riots across U.S. history, and asserting that recent years show violence at levels not seen since the 1970s [2]. Analysts emphasize context: spikes often follow political polarization, economic stress, or successful tactical shifts by extremist actors. Contextualizing 2020–2025 within decades of data reveals both continuities and ruptures — continuity in cyclical surges, rupture in the specific ideologies and technologies (like social media) that facilitate organization and radicalization [2].
3. The dominant picture until 2024: right-wing lethal violence
Multiple analyses through 2024 and early 2025 conclude that right-wing extremists were responsible for the vast majority of deadly domestic terrorism incidents, producing the lion’s share of fatalities even when other categories produced more events [6] [2]. These findings have informed federal and academic threat assessments and underpinned policy discussions about countering right-wing extremist networks. The lethality metric matters: event counts and casualty counts can tell different stories about which movements pose the most lethal immediate threat [6].
4. The contested 2025 shift: left-wing incidents rise, right-wing incidents fall
Several 2025 reports and datasets document a rise in identifiable left-wing attacks and a simultaneous decline in right-wing attacks, with some studies noting that 2025 was the first year in decades where left-wing incidents outnumbered right-wing ones [3] [4] [5]. Researchers caution that absolute numbers remain low and that left-wing actions have been less lethal on average. The statistical significance and durability of this shift remain contested, and analysts urge caution before declaring a sustained realignment.
5. Methodological debates and partisan frames shaping interpretations
Critics of the left-wing rise narrative underscore methodological limits: small sample sizes, classification challenges, and short-term variability can yield misleading conclusions, and some argue the data are too noisy to support broad claims [7]. Conversely, proponents note consistent year-on-year trends in some datasets and link policy changes and political rhetoric to behavioral incentives. Both sides have incentives—academics for methodological rigor, journalists and advocates for narrative clarity—so triangulation across datasets and longer time horizons is essential [7].
6. High-profile cases and political incentives that stoke escalation
Journalistic analyses connect high-profile attacks, notably the 2025 assassination of Charlie Kirk, to a broader ecosystem where political actors, media dynamics, and social platforms can amplify extremist messaging and reward escalation, creating perverse incentives for political actors to stoke rather than cool tensions [8]. Policymakers confront trade-offs between restricting dangerous communications and protecting speech; the policy choices of administrations can also correlate with shifts in incident patterns, though causality is difficult to establish. High-profile violence thus both reflects and accelerates polarization.
7. Bottom line: mixed evidence, urgent need for sustained monitoring
The combined evidence through late October 2025 shows clear public alarm, a historical pattern of episodic spikes, and a recent statistical uptick in left-wing incidents alongside a drop in right-wing attacks, but methodological caveats and differing metrics mean the claim that the overall danger has permanently shifted is premature [1] [3] [7] [5]. Policymakers and researchers should prioritize consistent data standards, transparent classification, and multi-year trend analysis while addressing underlying drivers—polarization, social media dynamics, and political incentives—that amplify the risk of future violence. Sustained, multi-source monitoring remains the most reliable path to clarity.