Those 'Studies' That Show Political Violence Is Mostly Right Wing Are Bunk

Debunked! Most Political Violence Does Not, In Fact, Come From The Right - @bungarsargon in @realDailyWire https://t.co/bni21stXJQ

— Benjamin Domenech (@bdomenech) April 28, 2026

As with the "mass shootings" statistics, which mostly include gang violence in places like Chicago and L.A., the "right-wing violence" stats are manipulated to create a false narrative. They include things that have nothing to do with right-wing politics, and recode left-wing violence as right-wing, and include prison gang fights as politically motivated. 

There is a "related case" listed on the docket. It's under seal so we don't know who it is, but it does look like there are others who either have been or are going to be charged here. https://t.co/hoKRQnL5Ys pic.twitter.com/MzyTHnRWzj

— Ken Silva (@JD_Cashless) April 28, 2026

Batya Ungar-Sargon, like many of us, is sick of it, so she took to her Substack to demonstrate how corrupt these studies, on which most Pravda lies are based, and that were repackaged in the FBI intelligence that Biden used to slander MAGA. 

"There needs to be blood": Democrats' voters tell them to "get shot" in Trump resistance push https://t.co/tqOWVnFshu

— Axios (@axios) July 7, 2025

When doing donuts on rainbow sidewalks is classified as right-wing violence and shooting Charlie Kirk is described as not politically motivated, you know the stats are juked. When you read that we may "never know the motive" of people taking shots at Trump, you should, perhaps, be a bit skeptical of the claims that conservatives are shooting up Democratic Party events. 

Islamist attacks on LGBTQ+ venues? Right-wing, you know. 

The third assassination attempt on President Trump’s life this weekend has reignited a debate between Left and Right about where political violence in America comes from.

The Right points to the assassination attempts on the President, the murder of Charlie Kirk, the rise of Islamist terrorism, the rabid violence of the George Floyd riots, the elevation of political violence fan Hasan Piker to celebrity status in the Democratic Party, and the recent polling showing that the more liberal a person is, the more likely they are to support political violence.

On the Left, people point to January 6 as well as data purporting to show that most political violence comes from the Right. After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, The Economist ran a piece claiming to explain “what the data show,” which suggested that most political violence was a Right-wing phenomenon. Other publications cited studies from the Center for Strategic & International Studies or the CATO Institute.

It's an argument you hear all the time, on TV, from law enforcement, from Democrats, and, of course, the SPLC, which pays for right-wing violence. 

It's also bunk, and common sense says so. You only need to go to a left-wing march, such as No Kings, to see calls to violence surrounding you, think about the political attacks you can remember, and say hmmm.

But through constant repetition and appeals to authority, the claim becomes fact. 

The killing of Charlie Kirk is part of a grim pattern of political violence in America. This is what the data show https://t.co/VWFdw2meqh pic.twitter.com/sUb85aoFTh

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) September 16, 2025

As Ungar-Sargon points out, citing "the data" in mainstream publications is as reliable as the claims that the COVID vaccine was 100% effective at preventing infection or transmission, as Rochelle Walensky did on national TV. It sounds authoritative, but it is a lie. 

March 29, 2021 Rochelle Walensky, Director of CDC, infamously declared on MSNBC:

"Vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick."

Emails obtained by FOIA from Jan 30, 2021 show that Walensky knew this was a lie at the time she said it.

1/12 pic.twitter.com/9rdmGuEHPM

— Kevin Bass (@kevinnbass) September 5, 2025

Spare me references to "the data." Show me the data, and how you come up with it. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

One "study" of political violence includes vandalizing a painted crosswalk, but none of the political assassinations or attempted assassinations of 2024 or 2025. They include meth dealing, but not the George Floyd riots. 

Compare this to a list compiled by Forbes of 19 people who lost their lives during the first 14 days of George Floyd riots. Why don’t these people merit a mention in the Prosecution Project? They were killed during a politically motivated explosion of violence and rioting. These were, to cite the Project’s own criteria, “crimes that seek ‘a socio-political change or to communicate’ to outside audiences.” Yet they do not appear in the dataset.

Surely we can all agree that their omission massively skews the data.

Maybe you think that people murdered during political riots shouldn’t count as victims of political violence. But what about a meth dealer who happens to belong to the Aryan Brotherhood? Should their meth dealing count as political violence?

The Prosecution Project thinks so! Among the Right-wing examples it makes sure to include, you’ll find an Aryan Brotherhood meth gang that merited 10 entries for drug-related crimes. I’m no fan of the Aryan Brotherhood, but can you honestly say this is an example of Right-wing political violence? In what world does producing meth constitute “crimes that seek ‘a socio-political change or to communicate’ to outside audiences”?

You can also find people on the list who did things like vandalize an LGBTQ crosswalk—though not people who vandalized entire neighborhoods in 2020 in the name of racial justice.

Is vandalism political violence? I guess only if you’re conservative. 

The Prosecution Project also counts every time and every person who blocked access to an abortion clinic.

You may not agree with blocking access to an abortion clinic, but a tally of political violence that counts those instances and not Charlie Kirk’s assassination is deeply, deeply flawed.

If you are prosecuted for praying in a hallway outside an abortion clinic, you have committed an act of political violence. 

I'm pretty sure that's not what most people think of. Shooting up a classroom filled with kids because you are angry about not being affirmed as a trans man is. 

What about all the anti-ICE and pro-Hamas violence? The vandalization of Tesla dealerships?

Nope. Not political violence. 

Moreover, even when acknowledging that left-wing political violence is on the rise, CSIS admits it went out of its way to absolve the Left of even more violence. In a recent report, it excluded pro-Palestinian terrorism from the Left, reclassifying it as “ethnonationalist incidents rather than left-wing ones,” despite the Palestinian cause becoming the most important litmus test for belonging on the Left these days.

This is just a naked attempt to absolve the Left of a signature issue because that issue inspires violence and the people tallying up the crimes want the Left to win.

The report also excluded the massive anti-Tesla terrorism of last year, and it refused to include any of the anti-ICE political violence across the nation we saw over the last year, arguing that these incidents “did not reach a level of violence” that satisfied their criteria. I just don’t understand that. It is a textbook example of trying to change politics through acts of violence.

As we all know, you can make the numbers say anything you want if you control what variables are included and which are not. 

I live in a dark blue state, and I know I shouldn’t be shocked, but I was in mixed company with casual acquaintances, and one of them made a comment about “what happened Saturday“ and expressed disappointment… At first I didn’t realize what they were talking about, but then the…

— GeroDoc (@doc_gero) April 28, 2026

I live in a dark blue state, and I know I shouldn’t be shocked, but I was in mixed company with casual acquaintances, and one of them made a comment about “what happened Saturday“ and expressed disappointment… At first I didn’t realize what they were talking about, but then the person repeated it and then a couple other people in the group nodded approvingly and made approving comments, and I realized that it’s actually an extremely mainstream view amongst Democrats that Donald Trump should be assassinated and killed

But really, all you need to do is listen to what leftists say, think about who is shooting at whom, go to any No Kings rally, or watch videos of protests that Democratic politicians praise, and you know who is pushing political violence in this "age of rage" that Jonathan Turley writes about. 

One last note: kudos to Batya Ungar-Sargon, who is doing the Lord's work exposing the Left.