As we find ourselves in a moment in which we are, unfortunately, talking about political violence and the commensurate finger-pointing that this generates, it seems useful to me (you know, a weirdo interested in what evidence and data we have on the subject) to look at the numbers.
Recognizing that any attempt to count and classify these kinds of things is imperfect and open to some level of legitimate debate, as to how to code (i.e., what categories and descriptions should be applied to a given event). However, if done properly, it is possible to see what raw data is used and to understand what definitions were applied so that reasonable people can understand what they are looking at.
One of the claims that has been made by the administration and many of their allies in the media and broader society is that the “radical left” is the main perpetrator of political violence in the United States. I would note, to my point in the paragraph above, they do so without any clear definition of “political violence” or of “the radical left.” Indeed, the accusations are incredibly vague.
One study of such violence was produced by the Cato Institute. I think, given our polarized times, that it is worth noting that Cato is a rightward-leaning think tank.* They are more libertarian, certainly, than the current mainstream American right. I would say that my long-term impression of Cato is that they have a point of view, but do good work in the main. They aren’t, for example, The Heritage Foundation (which has a point of view and did hack work as a result, and then degenerated into the ideological architects of our current doom).
The following was posted on their site the day after Kirk was shot: Politically Motivated Violence Is Rare in the United States.
Here’s their basic structure:
A total of 3,599 people have been murdered in politically motivated terrorist attacks in the United States from January 1, 1975, through September 10, 2025. Murders committed in terrorist attacks account for about 0.35 percent of all murders since 1975. Only 81 happened since 2020, accounting for 0.07 percent of all murders during that time, or 7 out of 10,000. Terrorism is the broadest reasonable definition of a politically motivated murder because it is the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a nonstate actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through coercion, fear, or intimidation. That excludes individual hate crimes, which are frequently difficult to distinguish from terrorism but are often more personal and spontaneous.
This strikes me as a reasonable set of parameters.
Using these parameters, it is not surprising to find that most of those deaths happened on 9/11, with the Oklahoma City Bombing coming in second.
Eighty-three percent of those murdered since 1975 were killed by the 9/11 terrorists (Figure 1). The Oklahoma City Bombing accounts for about another 5 percent. Those murdered since 2020 account for just 2 percent. Terrorists inspired by Islamist ideology are responsible for 87 percent of those murdered in attacks on US soil since 1975 (Table 1). Right-wingers are the second most common motivating ideology, accounting for 391 murders and 11 percent of the total. The definition here of right-wing terrorists includes those motivated by white supremacy, anti-abortion beliefs, involuntary celibacy (incels), and other right-wing ideologies.
Left-wing terrorists murdered 65 people, or about 2 percent of the total. Left-wing terrorists include those motivated by black nationalism, anti-police sentiment, communism, socialism, animal rights, environmentalism, anti-white ideologies, and other left-wing ideologies. Those murders that are politically motivated by unknown or other ideologies are a vanishingly small percentage, which is unsurprising because terrorists typically want attention for their causes.
The point of this is to simply look at the facts, not to point fingers. To put it another way, it is not appropriate nor is it just to say, if a person from category A commits such an act, then anyone vaguely associated with category A is guilty or culpable.
The data also matter because they suggest that political violence in the US is more likely to be right-wing than left-wing. If that is true, it means that federal law enforcement, if it sees its job as protecting the public, would focus more heavily on groups of that ilk. Indeed, the Department of Justice had issued a report that right-wing extremism was on the rise. The Trump administration removed it from the website (see The Guardian: US justice department removes study finding far-right extremists commit ‘far more’ violence). Using a different methodology from the Cato study, it came to the same conclusion: right-wing extremism has been more likely than left-wing extremism in the US in recent years.**
Of course, if you are in government and aren’t really worried about the best way to serve the public, and are instead interested in finding pretexts for growing your power and going after your enemies, then you don’t care about data and reality. Instead, you say things like this.
The White House has ramped up its vow for vengeance in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, with deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller promising to bring the resources of the federal government to bear against what he described as “terrorist networks.”
Vice President JD Vance, meanwhile, argued that those identifying as liberals were largely to blame for political violence and endorsed efforts to shame and make job trouble for those publicly cheering Kirk’s death.
Their comments came Monday during an episode of Kirk’s namesake podcast, which Vance hosted from his ceremonial office at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
“It is a vast domestic terror movement,” said Miller, speaking of left-wing political organizations.
“With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people,” he added. “It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”
(Source: NBC News, ‘We will do it in Charlie’s name’: Stephen Miller vows vengeance for Kirk’s murder).
So yes, I want the murderer of Kirk to be prosecuted. If there ends up being some evidence of co-conspirators/a network of groups involved, then yes, prosecute them as well. However, there is no evidence of any additional participants in this crime at this point, and experience suggests that there won’t be any.
While yes, Trump has made social media declarations about Antifa, that isn’t some actual group, despite constant usage of the term as representing some bogeyman. As best as I understand it, Antifa (which is short for anti-fascist) is a loose movement, rather than some network.
On The Daily this past Wednesday, it was suggested that the groups that Miller might target are Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation, because they have provided grants to groups that have engaged in protests. Neither of these is a radical or extreme organization, and targeting them would not be for some righteous crusade against violence, but instead would just be targeting groups the administration doesn’t like.
Meanwhile, I have to note that the only example of domestic political violence in recent memory that actually involved a network of actual extremist organizations was the J6 attack on the Capitol in which groups like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters were directly involved, to name only three.
But, as I keep having to point out, Trump liked that political violence because it was done in his name for his goals. And he legally forgave them all for it.
See also, the following from two Sociologists writing for The Conversation: Right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left-wing violence − what the data shows.
*From its “About Us” web page: “Our mission is to keep the principles, ideas, and moral case for liberty alive for future generations, while moving public policy in the direction of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.”
**Given our history of white supremacist violence, as exemplified by lynching and the general behavior of the KKK, our history does suggest that right-wing extremism has been more of a problem.
