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.
Which political party has higher records of hate crimes?
Executive Summary
Existing federal hate-crime datasets do not record perpetrators’ party affiliation, so there is no authoritative national statistic that says “Republicans” or “Democrats” commit more hate crimes. Multiple peer‑reviewed studies and summaries of extremist violence show right‑wing extremist actors account for a disproportionate share of lethal politically motivated violence in recent decades, but this is a different measure than everyday hate‑crime incidents reported to police [1] [2] [3].
1. What people are actually claiming — distilled and contrasted with evidence
The core claim under examination asks which political party has higher “records” of hate crimes. Several pieces of evidence cited by advocates conflate distinct measures: electoral party control (presidents or governors), individual perpetrators’ stated political ideology, and broad categories of extremist violence. One 2022 empirical paper compared state‑level party control to hate‑crime reports and found mixed associations — Democratic presidents correlated with fewer hate crimes overall while Democratic governors showed regionally varying correlations, especially in Southern states [4]. Other work links conservative political identification with opposition to hate‑crime penalties rather than direct measures of commission [5]. The federal hate‑crime dataset itself contains no party labels for perpetrators, so any claim that one party “has higher records” is a leap beyond what the primary data record [1] [6].
2. What national data actually measures — important limitations and the FBI picture
The FBI and civil‑society summaries report counts by bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation), offense type, and victimization but do not capture perpetrators’ partisan identity; consequently, national totals cannot answer the party question directly. The FBI’s 2024 release counted 11,679 incidents and noted chronic underreporting and data collection challenges that complicate trend interpretation [1] [6]. Advocacy groups and analyses emphasize this gap and caution against politicizing incomplete datasets. The absence of partisan coding means researchers must infer political ties from indirect indicators — manifestos, prior affiliations, or publicly stated ideology — which biases samples toward high‑profile cases and violent outliers rather than day‑to‑day hate incidents [6] [7].
3. Evidence on politically motivated and extremist violence — a stronger, more consistent pattern
When researchers examine ideologically motivated violence — attacks where perpetrators express a political or ideological motive — multiple analyses converge: right‑wing and white‑supremacist actors account for the majority of fatal domestic extremist attacks in the U.S. since 2001, with estimates frequently in the 70–80% range of deaths from domestic extremist violence [2] [3]. A 2021 criminology study that compared far‑left and far‑right fatal violence found far‑right incidents resulted in more fatalities, and a 2025 synthesis reiterated that right‑wing extremist violence is more frequent and deadlier than left‑wing extremist violence [3] [2]. These findings address lethal, ideologically explicit violence and do not map directly onto routine hate‑crime reporting, but they show a clear pattern in politically motivated deadly violence.
4. Scholarly nuance: party control, regional dynamics, and prejudicial attitudes
Academic work shows that the relationship between party control and hate‑crime incidence is complex and context‑dependent. One state‑level study covering 1997–2019 reported that national executive control and local partisan governance correlate differently with hate‑crime reports depending on region and other socioeconomic factors [4]. Other scholars emphasize that partisan rhetoric, policy decisions, and the social environment can influence reporting, enforcement, and the expression of prejudice, while individual prejudicial attitudes partly explain resistance to hate‑crime enhancements among conservatives [5] [7]. These studies underline that observed associations may reflect policy, reporting practices, or localized socio‑political climates rather than a simple causal relationship between party membership and propensity to commit hate crimes.
5. Bottom line for interpreting claims and what’s still missing
No authoritative dataset links hate‑crime perpetrators to political parties; claims that one party “has higher records” overreach the available evidence. For lethal, ideologically motivated attacks, multiple recent analyses show a disproportionate role for right‑wing extremist actors, but this pertains to deadly domestic terrorism and selective high‑profile cases rather than the full universe of reported hate crimes [2] [3]. Policy debates should distinguish between improving hate‑crime data collection (to capture motives and context), tracking extremist violence separately, and avoiding conflation of partisan affiliation with criminal behavior. Increased, standardized data collection and transparent coding of motive — not partisan labeling — are the evidence‑based steps needed to clarify these questions going forward [1] [6].