ÌÇÐÄÊÓƵ

After the Sept. 10, 2025, assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump claimed that in the U.S., and "they should be put in jail."

"The radical left causes tremendous violence," he said, asserting that "they seem to do it in a bigger way" than groups on the right.

Top presidential adviser Stephen Miller also weighed in after Kirk's killing, saying that left-wing political organizations constitute "."

"We are going to use every resource we have … throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again," Miller said.

But policymakers and the public need reliable evidence and actual data to understand the reality of politically motivated violence. From , it's clear that the president's and Miller's assertions about political violence from the left are not based on actual facts.

and a review of related work, we can confidently say that most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism.

Political violence rising

The understanding of political violence is complicated by differences in definitions and the of an important government-sponsored study of domestic terrorists.

Political violence in the U.S. has and takes forms that go unrecognized. During the 2024 election cycle, nearly half of all states reported , including .

illustrates the growing threat. The , Tyler Robinson, allegedly planned the attack in writing and online.

This follows other politically motivated killings, including the of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. and former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband.

These incidents reflect a . Threats and violence are increasingly treated as acceptable for achieving political goals, posing serious risks to democracy and society.

Defining 'political violence'

This article relies on some of our , , federal reports, and to assess what is known about political violence.

Support for political violence in the U.S. is spreading from extremist fringes , making violent actions seem normal. Threats can move from online rhetoric to actual violence, .

But different agencies and researchers use different definitions of political violence, making comparisons difficult.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security as threats involving actual violence. They do not investigate people in the U.S. for constitutionally protected speech, activism or ideological beliefs.

Domestic violent extremism is as violence or credible threats of violence intended to influence government policy or intimidate civilians for political or ideological purposes. This general framing, which includes diverse activities under a single category, guides investigations and prosecutions.

Datasets compiled by academic researchers use narrower and more operational definitions. counts incidents that involve intentional violence with political, social or religious motivation.

These differences mean that the same incident may or may not appear in a dataset, depending on the rules applied.

The FBI and emphasize that these distinctions are not merely academic. Labeling an event "" rather than a "" can change who is responsible for investigating an incident and how many resources they have to investigate it.

For example, a shooting might be coded as terrorism in federal reporting, cataloged as political violence by the , and prosecuted as homicide or a hate crime at the state level.

Patterns in incidents and fatalities

Despite differences in definitions, several consistent patterns emerge from available evidence.

Politically motivated violence is a , but its impact is magnified by .

In the first half of 2025, 35% of personnel or facilities—more than twice the rate in 2024.

Right-wing extremist violence has been deadlier than left-wing violence .

and , right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting to approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001.

Illustrative cases include the , when white supremacist Dylann Roof killed nine Black parishioners; the in Pittsburgh, where 11 worshippers were murdered; the , in which an anti-immigrant gunman killed 23 people. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an earlier but still notable example, killed 168 in the .

By contrast, left-wing extremist incidents, including those tied to anarchist or environmental movements, have made up about 10% to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities.

Examples include the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front , which were more likely to target property rather than people.

, with anarchist groups and other demonstrators clashing with police. The clashes resulted in multiple injuries and arrests. In 2016, by a heavily armed sniper who was targeting white police officers.

Hard to count

There's another reason it's hard to account for and characterize certain kinds of political violence and those who perpetrate it.

The U.S. focuses on prosecuting criminal acts rather than formally designating organizations as terrorist, such as conspiracy, weapons violations, and hate crime laws to pursue individuals for specific acts of violence.

Unlike foreign terrorism, to formally charge an individual with . That makes it difficult to characterize someone as a domestic terrorist.

The State Department's applies only to groups outside of the United States. By contrast, U.S. law bars the government from labeling domestic political organizations as because of First Amendment free speech protections.

Rhetoric is not evidence

Without harmonized reporting and uniform definitions, the data will not provide an accurate overview of political violence in the U.S.

But we can make some important conclusions.

Politically motivated violence in the U.S. is . Political violence has a disproportionate impact because even rare incidents can amplify fear, influence policy and deepen societal polarization.

Right-wing extremist violence has been . The number of extremist groups is substantial and , although a count of organizations does not necessarily reflect incidents of violence.

High-profile political violence often brings . Yet the empirical record shows that political violence remains concentrated within specific movements and networks . Distinguishing between rhetoric and evidence .

Trump and members of his administration are threatening to target whole organizations and movements and the people who work in them with aggressive legal measures—to or . But research shows that the majority of political violence comes from people .

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .