What motivation drives the most terrorist attacks
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Political motivations — a broad category that includes partisan, anti-government, ethnonationalist and other politically framed grievances — now account for the largest share of terrorist incidents in many Western countries and are rising as a driver of violence globally, even as religiously‑motivated groups remain the deadliest in certain regions [1] [2]. Data and expert assessments show a multi‑layered picture: political violence is growing in frequency and geographic reach, while groups like Islamic State continue to cause high-casualty attacks in parts of Africa and the Middle East [1] [3].
1. Political motives have become the dominant trigger for attacks in the West
Recent Global Terrorism Index reporting finds that in Western countries politically motivated attacks overtook religiously motivated ones, with religious attacks declining sharply and political attacks being roughly five times more common in the West [1]. U.S.-focused analyses echo this shift: right‑wing and other politically motivated domestic extremists accounted for the majority of attacks and plots over recent decades, and have increased substantially in the last several years, with right‑wing actors responsible for the plurality or majority of incidents in U.S. datasets cited by CSIS [2].
2. “Political” spans partisan violence, anti‑government, ethnonationalist and single‑issue terrorism
The term political encompasses a range of drivers: partisan or anti‑government violence, racially or ethnically motivated (REMVE) attacks, and single‑issue actors (from animal‑rights to abortion opponents) who frame violence as political action [4] [5] [6]. U.S. government reporting and think‑tank studies point to rising attacks driven by partisan hatred, conspiratorial anti‑government narratives, and racialized grievances—categories that are classified as political or REMVE in official counts [7] [6].
3. Religiously motivated groups still cause the deadliest attacks in many regions
Global datasets and the GTI show that despite declines in religiously framed attacks in some regions, groups such as Islamic State remain among the deadliest perpetrators worldwide — IS expanded operations and caused large numbers of deaths concentrated in places like Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Sahel in recent GTI analysis [1]. Academic reviews of recent high‑casualty events (for example the October 7, 2023 attacks and ensuing conflicts) underscore that religiously or ideologically framed militant groups can still produce strategic, high‑fatality events even when numerically less frequent [8].
4. Frequency vs. lethality: political attacks are more numerous; religious groups often more lethal per event
Quantitative studies and databases reveal a key distinction: political motivations now drive a larger share of incidents (frequency), especially in democracies and the West, whereas some religiously‑aligned organizations, when active, tend to produce higher casualty counts per attack [1] [3]. Global datasets like the GTD provide longitudinal context showing increases in attack frequency over decades while GTI reporting highlights regional concentration of deaths [9] [1].
5. Drivers, propaganda and the operational environment interact — interpretation matters
Scholars emphasize that motivations cannot be read from single acts alone: propaganda, organizational aims, local conflicts and political polarization shape both intent and target selection, and drivers can overlap (political grievances harnessed by religious rhetoric or vice versa) [5] [8]. U.S. advisories also warn that international conflicts (e.g., Israel‑Iran tensions) can spur ideologically framed violent mobilization within otherwise domestic political landscapes [10].
6. Data caveats and how to read competing claims
Available sources vary in scope and timeframe: GTD has rich historical coverage through 2020, GTI and recent government assessments update regional and thematic patterns through 2024–2025, and national reports concentrate on domestic threats [9] [1] [7]. These methodological differences mean the simple answer — “political motivations drive the most attacks” — is supported for many Western and domestic datasets, while global lethality metrics still often implicate religiously motivated groups in the deadliest single events [2] [1].