Left-Wing Creator Analyzes Political Violence Data After Charlie Kirk Assassination Sparks National Debate
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar Introduces War Powers Resolution to Restrict Unauthorized Military Strikes
24:55
Professor Pride on Charlie Kirk, the Reichstag Framing, and Why LGBTQ People Should Arm Themselves Now
6:16
George Abaraonye Breaks Silence on Controversial Reaction to Charlie Kirk's Murder and Media Firestorm
1:40:41
Left-Wing Creator Analyzes Political Violence Data After Charlie Kirk Assassination Sparks National Debate
A left-wing content creator The Double Take examines multiple studies and government reports to address claims about political violence in America following the Charlie Kirk assassination. Drawing from sources including the Cato Institute, FBI, DHS, and various research organizations, the analysis reveals patterns in domestic terrorism data from 1975 to 2025. The creator argues that despite overwhelming evidence from multiple sources with different political affiliations, public perception remains skewed due to media coverage patterns and narrative control strategies. The video explores how political movements respond differently to violent incidents and why most Americans don't know what the data actually shows about the frequency and lethality of political violence across the ideological spectrum.
Examining Claims About Political Violence in America
Following the death of Charlie Kirk, numerous voices across the political spectrum have offered their perspectives on political violence in America. The right has used this moment to advance a specific narrative: that the majority of political violence in the United States comes from the left, with conservatives being the primary victims. However, when examining this claim, a significant problem emerges—the lack of supporting evidence.
Politicians and media figures on the right frequently make these assertions without presenting data to back them up. They simply state their claims and move forward, relying on the audience to accept them at face value. But assertions without evidence don't constitute sound arguments. To determine the truth, we must examine the actual facts and research available on this topic.
What Multiple Research Organizations Found
Multiple reputable organizations have investigated political violence in America, including independent think tanks across the political spectrum and government agencies. Despite using different methodologies, data sets, and organizational approaches, their findings consistently point to the same conclusion: right-wing violence represents the greatest ongoing domestic terror threat in the United States and has been for decades.
The Cato Institute, a libertarian right-leaning think tank created by one of the Koch brothers, published a report tracking political violence from 1975 to the present. Their data reveals that politically motivated terrorism from the right resulted in 391 deaths, while politically motivated terrorism from the left resulted in 65. While 65 is still 65 too many, this represents six times as many fatalities from right-wing terrorism. The report further shows that excluding 9/11, right-wing terror fatalities outnumber both Islamic terrorism and left-wing terrorism combined.
Government Agency Reports Paint Similar Picture
A joint report from the FBI and DHS presented to multiple Congressional committees in 2021 examined domestic terrorism data from 2015 to 2019. Rather than using partisan labels, the report categorized violent extremists by their beliefs and motives. The categories included racially or ethnically motivated extremists (such as white supremacists), militia extremists concerned about government overreach, sovereign citizens, anti-capitalist anarchists, and environmental and animal rights extremists.
The findings were clear: in every year covered by the report, the vast majority of fatal domestic terror attacks came from racially motivated violent extremists, specifically white supremacist extremists. Most remaining fatalities were caused by militia or sovereign citizen extremists. In 2015, three fatalities were caused by an abortion extremist who opposed abortion rights. Meanwhile, anti-capitalist anarchist extremists and environmental and animal rights extremists caused zero deaths during the years examined, though the report noted these groups do cause economic and property damage.
The Report Trump's Administration Removed
Another government source, a report from the National Institute of Justice covering political violence from 1990 to 2024, was recently pulled from the NIJ website by the Trump administration. Visitors attempting to access it are now redirected to the homepage. Fortunately, the Wayback Machine preserved copies of this report.
This report drew on multiple government-run databases tracking crime and terrorism in the United States. The findings clearly stated that far-right violence caused 227 attacks resulting in 520 deaths, while far-left violence was responsible for 42 attacks and 78 deaths. Once again, right-wing violence proved both more frequent and more deadly.
Additional Research Confirms Pattern
New America, a think tank, published a report tracking fatalities caused by extremists after 9/11. Their tally shows 139 fatalities caused by right-wing extremists and three caused by left-wing extremists. Even adding Charlie Kirk's death would only bring that number to four, which doesn't significantly change the overall picture.
The Anti-Defamation League also published a report making clear that right-wing extremists are responsible for the vast majority of extremist-related murders over the past decade. The report acknowledges that left-wing extremism exists and presents problems, but consistent with the FBI and DHS findings, these groups usually target property rather than people.
Understanding the Consistent Message Across Sources
These reports come from organizations with different political persuasions, different organizational structures, and different methodologies and data sets. While the absolute numbers may vary between reports, they all agree on the fundamental conclusion: right-wing violence not only occurs more frequently than left-wing violence, but it's more harmful, resulting in vastly more fatalities and more often deliberately targeting people over property.
Critics may attempt to dismiss these findings as biased or ideologically driven. However, the data comes from diverse sources representing different political leanings, from libertarian think tanks to government agencies. All these reports explain their methodology and cite their data sets. Anyone disagreeing with the results can examine the data themselves and attempt to identify problems or conduct better analysis. Simply dismissing extensive research based on feelings rather than evidence is not a convincing argument.
The 2025 Report That Generated Headlines
Several months ago, the Center for Strategic and International Studies released a report with a headline that caught significant attention: left-wing violence had become more common than right-wing violence in the first half of 2025, reaching the highest levels in 30 years. Some on the right and in mainstream media framed this as disproving all previous research.
However, examining what the report actually says provides important context. First, it shows that left-wing violence was more common than right-wing violence only in the first half of 2025, meaning that for every period before that, right-wing violence was more common. Second, the "30-year high" of left-wing violence represents an increase from four incidents per year to five incidents per year (or six if counting Charlie Kirk).
Meanwhile, the same report shows that from 1994 to 2024, right-wing violent incidents have consistently averaged around 20 incidents per year. Left-wing violence appears more common than right-wing violence for this single year only because right-wing violence suddenly dropped from its usual high levels, and because left-wing violence is normally so rare that even the smallest increase represents a record high.
Why Right-Wing Violence Decreased in 2025
The report cites only one example of right-wing violence from 2025: the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. The authors propose a hypothesis for the sudden drop in right-wing violence—that the extreme right-wing feels satisfied with the current administration. They even quote a Proud Boys leader asking, "What is there to complain about right now?"
This presents an uncomfortable implication for the right. The biggest source of political violence in the United States comes from white supremacist extremists. If these individuals have stopped acting out because they're satisfied with the current administration's actions, this could be seen as confirming criticisms that Trump's policies have racist intent and effects. If the most extreme white supremacists in the country find the administration so pleasing that they no longer feel the need to take action, this raises serious questions about the nature and direction of those policies.
The Gap Between Facts and Public Perception
Despite clear and readily available research showing that political violence overwhelmingly comes from the right, most Americans remain unaware of this fact. A Marquette Law poll published recently found that when asked whether left-wing or right-wing violence is a bigger problem, 27% of respondents said left-wing violence, 22% said right-wing violence, and 51% think both sides are equally to blame.
This represents a significant problem. Multiple research studies consistently show that right-wing violence outnumbers left-wing violence in both frequency and severity by large margins. Yet only 22% of poll respondents correctly identified right-wing violence as the bigger problem. This disconnect reveals much about the media environment and how thoroughly the right has controlled narratives even without factual support.
Why the Media Doesn't Cover This Data
The mainstream media rarely discusses this information. Right-wing media never touches this data, but mainstream outlets aren't much better. While they occasionally cover individual incidents of right-wing violence, they don't systematically debunk right-wing narratives with the depth required. At most, they offer quick statements that claims from Trump or others are "unsubstantiated" without providing detailed context.
When the right successfully makes enough noise about an incident like Charlie Kirk's death, the media—afraid of being accused of liberal bias—essentially allows the right to set the narrative. Coverage shifts toward what the right wants, and stories of right-wing violence are quickly forgotten by the public. This is a major reason why the public remains so misled on this topic.
Comparing Responses: Melissa Hortman vs. Charlie Kirk
The stark difference in how the right responded to two violent incidents illustrates their narrative control strategy. In June, Melissa Hortman and her husband were shot and killed by an assassin with a long history of right-wing beliefs who had a hit list of Democratic politicians and abortion providers in his car. The gunman also shot John Hoffen and his wife, though they survived.
Trump's response was an online post calling the shooting "terrible" without mentioning the victims' names or identifying the shooter's ideology. He refused to call Tim Walz, Minnesota's governor, about the incident, saying it would be a waste of time. No flags were lowered to half-staff.
When Charlie Kirk was shot, Trump released both a personal video statement and an official White House statement. He ordered flags at the White House flown at half-staff—typically reserved for major national tragedies. The right held a memorial service filling a stadium, with Trump walking out accompanied by fireworks. At this event, Trump declared that most political violence comes from the left, without citing any sources or presenting any facts.
The Strategy Behind the Spectacle
The complete difference in responses isn't just hypocrisy—it's strategy and an example of narrative control. Trump didn't need to cite sources at the stadium memorial because the grandiosity of the event itself served as the argument. The bombast and scenery magnified Charlie Kirk's death into something everyone could see and feel viscerally.
Charlie Kirk was one person. Melissa Hortman and her husband were two people—theoretically the greater loss of life. But the right understands that for most people, this won't matter as long as they only hear about it in a quick news blurb. By magnifying Charlie Kirk's death into a national tragedy that dominates screens and minds, they make people feel it was the much bigger tragedy and greater loss of life.
This is why Trump can claim most violence comes from the left despite statistical evidence to the contrary. The pure bombast of the scenery is meant to emotionally imprint the truth of his statement onto the audience. And it works.
The Availability Heuristic in Action
The right understands a truth about mass media better than the left does: appearances are reality. If they can get people to hear and see something over and over again—even if it's literally the same single incident—people will believe it happens more often than it really does.
This is a well-studied psychological phenomenon called the availability heuristic. When it's easier to recall something, when we have more vivid memories of it, we believe it's more common or more severe than it actually is. This is why people think plane crashes and shark attacks are more common than they really are.
The Media's Role in Amplifying Right-Wing Narratives
The right couldn't execute this strategy without complicit media. In their quest for false neutrality and fear of being accused of bias against the right, mainstream outlets repeat and amplify whatever narrative the right decides to push, legitimizing it and doing their work for them.
Consider the CSIS study that found more left-wing violence than right-wing violence in the first half of 2025. All that happened was left-wing violence had one or two more incidents than usual while right-wing violence suddenly dropped. But mainstream media ran with headlines stripped of all context, making it appear there's a sudden frenzy of left-wing violence representing a major new problem.
Meanwhile, did these same publications run articles every other year about how there are five times as many violent right-wing incidents as left-wing ones? Did they report when right-wing violence was more common and more lethal, as it was for every year before 2025? No. They only wrote stories about the one isolated data point that makes the left appear more violent.
What Needs to Change
The left needs to learn to play this game too, but with an important advantage: the ability to do it with truth. There's no need to substitute facts with showmanship and spectacle. The facts can be shown directly. But perhaps assuming the truth can speak for itself has been a weakness for the left and for pro-science people combating movements like the anti-vaccine movement, which is reactionary and currently in power.
The assumption that convincingly making a case is enough doesn't match the reality we live in. We live in a world with complicit media that either doesn't know or doesn't care how the right is manipulating them, where people get news from social media algorithms practically designed to amplify right-wing content. The truth will not simply speak for itself.
The progressive left needs to overcome these structural barriers with effort. That means not just stating the truth, but stating it over and over again with style. Links to all the reports and studies cited can serve as resources to help communicate actual facts to others. While this alone isn't enough, it's a start.
Building a Unified Left-Leaning Media Space
One developing idea involves creating a unified and cooperative left-leaning online media space where creators and audiences can effectively communicate and work together to constructively take back media space and algorithmic territory from the right. The last time this was done effectively was in 2019 with what was called BreadTube.
No single small channel can bring this about alone or claim leadership of such a movement. But putting the idea out there allows the broader community to discuss and develop it further. The facts are clear: facts don't care about feelings. But the right understands that you don't have to deal with facts if people don't see them. They and the complicit media excel at ensuring people don't see them. The challenge is doing better while armed with the truth.
