Is the left or the right more politically violent?
Executive summary
The weight of empirical research and multiple datasets indicates that right-wing political violence has been more frequent and deadlier in the United States historically and in recent years, though scholars warn the landscape is changing and some analyses find rising left-wing incidents from very low baselines [1] [2] [3] [4]. Nuanced, peer-reviewed comparisons show left-wing-associated acts are less likely to be violent, while right-wing and Islamist actors in U.S. data show similar propensities for violence, and global patterns differ from domestic ones [5] [6] [3].
1. What the major comparative studies say: right-wing more lethal, left less violent
A multi-dataset academic comparison led by University of Maryland and collaborators concluded that, across datasets, acts tied to left-wing causes are less likely to be violent, and in U.S. data there was no statistically significant difference between right-wing and Islamist extremist violence — a finding that frames left-wing violence as lower in probability and lethality relative to the other categories examined [5] [3] [6].
2. Contemporary reporting and synthesis: right-wing attacks account for most fatalities recently
Journalistic and expert syntheses in 2025–2026 report that most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right and that right-wing extremist attacks have been both more frequent and more lethal in recent years, a pattern highlighted by PBS, The Conversation and related reporting that draws on university datasets [1] [2].
3. A complicating trend: left-wing incidents rising from low baselines
Analyses from CSIS and coverage in Axios and NPR found that left-wing political violence has increased over the past decade — in some datasets enough to register a relative uptick — but these increases are described as rising from very low historical levels and still well below the overall volumes and fatalities attributed to right-wing and jihadist actors historically [4] [7] [8].
4. Method matters: definitions, coding and time windows change the story
Researchers repeatedly caution that results depend on definitions (what counts as terrorism, attempted vs. deadly attacks), coding choices and timeframes; for example, CSIS’s dataset and coding produced different temporal patterns than longer historical databases, and analysts note single high-profile assassinations can skew short-term comparisons [7] [8]. The scholarly comparative study used two distinct datasets to reduce such bias and still found left-linked acts less likely to be violent [3].
5. Perception versus data: partisan lenses shape which danger people emphasize
Public opinion surveys show sharp partisan divides about which side is the bigger threat: many Democrats see right-wing extremism as the major problem, Republicans are likelier to say left-wing extremism is the bigger threat, and plurality national polls show Americans split on which side is worse — reflecting how fear and media coverage interact with facts [9] [10] [11].
6. What this means for policy and reporting: target the dominant current threat while watching for change
Given consistent findings that right-wing violence has caused more fatalities and is more frequent in much of the U.S. record, resources and policy attention have tended to focus accordingly, but analysts urge that rising left-wing incidents, variable coding decisions and geopolitical differences mean counter-extremism efforts must remain adaptable and evidence-driven rather than partisan [1] [4] [3].
Conclusion — direct answer to the question
Based on the available, cited research and major journalistic syntheses, the right is currently more politically violent in the United States in both frequency and lethality overall, while left-wing violence tends to be less likely to be violent and remains lower in deaths historically, even as some recent studies document an increase from low levels that merits attention [3] [1] [4] [7].