No matter how hard ideologues try to exclusively blame their political foes for acts of political violence, the truth is that violent extremists today emerge from across the political spectrum. We have studied this problem and believe that our data can help illuminate an issue too often defined by partisan finger-pointing. As part of a study to be published this week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, we compiled and analyzed a data set of 750 attacks and plots in the United States from January 1, 1994, to July 4, 2025. Our research focuses only on incidents of terrorism, which we define as attacks or plots by a nonstate actor attempting to achieve a political end and exert a psychological influence on a broad population. Among other details, the data set includes the types of weapons used, the intended targets, the number of fatalities, and the ideology of the perpetrators.

We found that left-wing terrorism has increased since President Donald Trump’s rise to political prominence in 2016. Indeed, 2025 marks the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing attacks outnumber those from the far right. Despite its recent increase, however, left-wing terrorism is not nearly as common today as it was in the 1960s and early ’70s. Those years marked the height of groups such as the Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army, best known for kidnapping the newspaper heiress Patty Hearst. In the ’80s and early ’90s, left-wing terrorism declined while jihadist and right-wing terrorism rose, particularly in the forms of anti-government and white-supremacist violence.

Following that trend, according to our analysis, violence on the left accounted for four plots and attacks from 1994 to 2000, compared with 144 on the right. That difference narrowed in the following decade, but the right continued to account for significantly more attacks and killings than did the left.

[Read: Strawberries in winter]

The year 2016 was a turning point for left-wing terrorism, even as right-wing incidents remained much more common. Trump’s political ascent and the expansion of the MAGA movement seem to have reenergized left-wing violent extremism, which accounted for 37 incidents from 2016 to 2024, most of them motivated by either anti-government or partisan sentiment. By July 4 of this year, far-left extremists had already been responsible for five terrorist attacks and plots, putting 2025 on pace to be the left’s most violent year in more than three decades.

On July 4, for example, law-enforcement officials say that an assailant shot and wounded a police officer who was responding to reports of a disturbance at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Texas; meanwhile, another alleged assailant fired at ICE correctional officers. Authorities apprehended 14 suspects, who now face federal charges including attempted murder of federal officers and firearm-related offenses. Details about Kirk’s alleged killer are still emerging, but preliminary evidence indicates that he had left-wing motivations, and could add to this year’s tally.

In many cases, categorizing the ideology of a perpetrator is difficult, if not impossible. Some extremists pick from a “salad bar of ideologies,” as the former FBI Director Christopher Wray once said, many of which don’t fit the traditional right-left dichotomy. In other instances, such as the 2011 shooting of Democratic Representative Gabby Giffords, a perpetrator’s beliefs are so muddled that even calling them “political” exaggerates their coherence—despite the fact that the target is a political figure.

A major shift in politics, however, can cause the losing side to become more combative. Just as Trump’s election led to a rise in left-wing violence, President Barack Obama’s election corresponded with a surge of violence from the right. From 2009 to 2016, right-wing extremists were responsible for 106 terrorist attacks and plots, nearly double the 58 right-wing incidents that occurred in the eight years prior. These tend to be more lethal than left-wing attacks, which generally target specific individuals, such as the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last year or the assassination attempt on Trump at his West Palm Beach golf course. Right-wing extremists, by contrast, are more likely to target whole groups. In the past decade in the United States, 36 left-wing attacks have killed 13 people, whereas 152 right-wing attacks have killed 112.

The Biden administration took important steps to counter the rise of far-right extremism. After January 6, 2021, the U.S. government brought charges against more than 1,000 people, disrupting violent right-wing networks such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. The administration also made right-wing groups a counterterrorism priority, taking measures to reduce the presence of extremists in the military. The far-right-terrorist death toll fell under Biden, compared with the previous four years, but lethal attacks persisted.

This year, however, violence on the right has plummeted. Only one right-wing-terrorist incident occurred in the first six months of 2025: the June assassination of the Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband. This extraordinary drop-off is too recent to allow for any definitive explanations—and the number of terror incidents often fluctuates over short periods—but Trump’s reelection could be a key factor. His victory deflated election conspiracies that had once motivated many extremists. Since then, Trump has taken a maximal approach on some of the far-right’s highest-priority issues, particularly immigration. Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader and a convicted seditionist whom Trump pardoned, recently summed up the president’s potential psychological effect on the violent far right: “We won. We’ve got what we wanted.”

Under Trump, right-wing extremists may feel less need to mobilize, because they sense that their interests are already being taken care of. But Kirk’s death could change this calculus. Conservatives, including members of Congress and online influencers, have used the assassination to support the contention that the left is engaged in “war.” Trump himself has claimed that a network of political organizations fund and support violence, and must be neutralized. This sort of rhetoric could encourage right-wing vigilantism or presage a government crackdown on left-leaning organizations—which in turn could inflame left-wing extremism and pose a grave threat to free speech.

[Jonathan Chait: Stephen Miller’s hypocrisy is right there in his speech]

Exaggerated rhetoric across party lines helps explain why both Republicans and Democrats believe that more than 40 percent of the other side supports murder if it serves their political interests. In reality, less than 4 percent of Americans support partisan violence such as assault or arson, let alone murder. Even that number is too high, of course, but it would surely drop if partisans stopped misconstruing their opponents.

Actually stanching political violence will require America’s leaders to commit to fighting all forms of extremism, not just those associated with their opponents. The Trump administration has prioritized combatting the rise of left-wing terrorism but not right-wing terrorism, which remains a concern despite its decline this year. Developing the programs and expertise to suppress different forms of terrorism takes years, and ignoring a long-term threat to go after a more immediate one could be deadly over time.

Condemning all political violence, especially when it emanates from one’s own side or targets one’s opponents, is also an important means of breaking the cycle of distrust. Many prominent Democrats have done this since Kirk’s shooting. So did many Republicans after the assassination of Hortman and the attack on Paul Pelosi in 2022. Still, both sides need to improve, as evidenced by some left-wing celebrations of Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of Thompson, the health-care executive, and the failure of some conservative leaders to expressly condemn white supremacists, Hortman’s assassin, and other violent extremists.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox has served as a model in unequivocally denouncing extremists, which makes them outcasts instead of heroes. Cox described Kirk’s killing as “an attack on all of us.” And he offered a simple exhortation that would benefit both sides, particularly in moments like these, when violence can spiral: “Disagree better.”

From The Atlantic via this RSS feed