Which US states have the highest rates of politically motivated violence?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a significant gap in available data regarding which specific US states have the highest rates of politically motivated violence. None of the sources provide state-by-state breakdowns or rankings of politically motivated violence rates ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. However, the sources do offer substantial insights into the broader patterns of political violence across the United States.

Right-wing extremist violence dominates the landscape of politically motivated violence in America. The data shows that right-wing terrorists account for approximately 75% to 80% of US domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 ^[2]. This represents a stark contrast to left-wing violence, with right-wing terrorists responsible for 11% of total murders in terrorist attacks since 1975, while left-wing terrorists account for only about 2% ^[1]. The sources consistently emphasize that most domestic terrorists in the US are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism ^[2].

The geographic distribution mentioned in the analyses is limited but noteworthy. Cases of politically motivated violence have been documented across multiple states including Utah, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Florida ^[3], suggesting that this phenomenon is not concentrated in a single region but rather distributed across different parts of the country.

White supremacist and anti-government extremist groups represent significant drivers of this violence, with detailed analysis showing specific motivations and ideologies behind these incidents ^[5]. The sources indicate that domestic terrorism incidents encompass various types of targets and motivations, with right-wing extremist violence being the predominant threat ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The most glaring omission in addressing the original question is the complete absence of state-specific data or analysis. While the sources provide comprehensive national-level statistics, they fail to deliver the geographic granularity needed to identify which states experience the highest rates of politically motivated violence. This represents a critical data gap that prevents a complete answer to the question posed.

The temporal context of political violence trends is insufficiently addressed. While sources mention data spanning from 1975 to 2025 ^[1], there's limited discussion of how these patterns have evolved over time or whether certain periods have seen spikes in particular regions. The mention of "recent surge in political violence" ^[4] lacks specific timeframes and geographic context.

Economic, social, and demographic factors that might correlate with higher rates of politically motivated violence in certain states are entirely absent from the analyses. This omission prevents understanding of underlying causes that might make some states more susceptible to political violence than others.

The sources also lack discussion of law enforcement response variations across different states, which could significantly impact both the occurrence and reporting of politically motivated violence. Some states may have more robust tracking and prevention systems, potentially affecting the apparent rates of such incidents.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain explicit misinformation, but it carries an implicit assumption that reliable state-by-state data on politically motivated violence rates exists and is readily available. The analyses demonstrate that this assumption is problematic, as comprehensive state-level data appears to be lacking in current research and reporting.

There's a potential for confirmation bias in how the question might be interpreted or answered. Someone seeking to support a particular political narrative might selectively highlight incidents from states that align with their preconceptions, rather than relying on comprehensive statistical analysis.

The framing of the question as seeking "highest rates" suggests a quantitative precision that the available data cannot support. This could lead to misleading conclusions based on anecdotal evidence or incomplete datasets rather than rigorous statistical analysis.

Media coverage bias may also influence perceptions of which states have higher rates of political violence. Incidents in certain states might receive disproportionate coverage based on media market size, political significance, or other factors unrelated to actual frequency, potentially skewing public perception of where political violence is most prevalent.