.png)
The attack on the U.S. Capitol is probably the centerpiece of the page.
A mob attacked police, invaded the Capitol, disrupted Congress's certification of the presidential election, and resulted in deaths and numerous injuries.
The important political-violence issue isn't simply that some people at the Capitol were violent. It was that the violence occurred in an effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of presidential power.
The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were among the extremist organizations whose members were prosecuted for seditious conspiracy related to January 6.
Why it matters:
Political violence becomes especially dangerous to democracy when it is used to overturn an election or intimidate elected officials into rejecting legitimate election results.
A particularly important part of the story is what happened before January 6.
Trump repeatedly claimed the election had been stolen despite failing to produce evidence sufficient to establish that claim in court.
That rhetoric was consumed by people who subsequently participated in the Capitol attack.
You don't have to claim that trump personally ordered the Capitol attack to recognize that repeatedly telling millions of people that their government had been stolen from them created a potentially dangerous political environment.
The Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally brought together white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other far-right groups.
Heather Heyer was killed when a car was deliberately driven into a crowd of counter-protesters.
Trump's infamous response that there were “very fine people on both sides” became one of the most consequential controversies surrounding his presidency.
The important nuance: Trump also explicitly said neo-Nazis and white nationalists should be condemned, so it isn't accurate to say he simply endorsed them.
But his handling of the event became a major example of the controversy over whether presidential rhetoric sufficiently condemned political extremism.
The Proud Boys aren't simply a political club that occasionally gets unruly.
Members were involved in serious violence surrounding political demonstrations and January 6.
The group became increasingly associated with political violence and street confrontations.
Trump's 2020 presidential debate instruction to the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” became a particularly famous example of how political rhetoric can be interpreted by extremist groups.
The point is:
A sitting president publicly addressing an extremist organization in this manner can give that organization legitimacy and encouragement.
The Oath Keepers are another example of the far-right anti-government movement becoming directly involved in political violence.
Members participated in the January 6 attack, and several leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy.
This illustrates a broader problem:
When political disagreement evolves into the belief that the federal government is illegitimate, violence becomes easier to rationalize.
In 2020, federal prosecutors charged members of an anti-government militia movement with plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
The FBI said the group discussed kidnapping the governor and putting her on trial.
This is important because it occurred before January 6 and demonstrates that political violence on the far right wasn't simply a product of the 2020 election aftermath.
In 2022, a white supremacist gunman killed 10 people at a Buffalo supermarket, specifically targeting Black victims.
The killer's manifesto was steeped in the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory and white-nationalist ideology.
This is an example of ideological violence rather than partisan campaign violence, but it belongs on a page about political violence because racial and demographic conspiracy theories have become an important part of extremist political ideology.
In 2019, a gunman killed 23 people at a Walmart in El Paso.
His manifesto explicitly expressed anti-immigrant and white-nationalist beliefs and referenced the "Great Replacement" theory.
This is one of the strongest examples of extremist political rhetoric turning into mass violence.
In 2018, a gunman killed 11 Jewish worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue.
The attacker had posted antisemitic and white-nationalist material online and blamed Jews for immigration into the United States.
Now, this isn't conventional "Republican vs. Democrat" political violence. It's far-right ideological violence, and that distinction is important.
The anti-abortion extremist movement has also produced political violence.
The most notorious example is Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider who was murdered inside his church in 2009 by an anti-abortion extremist.
There have also been bombings, arsons, threats and attacks against abortion clinics.
This is an important category because it demonstrates that political violence from the right isn't exclusively about elections or Trump.
The ADL's long-running research is useful here.
Its analysis of 2017–2022 identified 67 domestic terrorist incidents committed by right-wing extremists, including successful attacks, failed attacks and foiled plots. Those incidents resulted in 58 deaths.
And its most recent annual murder analysis is even more striking:
In 2024, all 13 documented extremist-related murders in the United States were connected to right-wing extremists.
Eight involved white supremacists and five involved far-right anti-government extremists.
The longer-term figure is also notable:
From 2015–2024, far-right extremists accounted for 328 of 429 extremist-related killings — approximately 76%.
That does not mean 76% of all political violence in America is committed by Republicans or conservatives. That's an important distinction.
It means that among the specific category of extremist-related killings tracked by ADL, far-right extremists accounted for the overwhelming majority.
This is not an argument that the political right is uniquely violent.
Left-wing extremists, Islamist extremists and other ideological movements have also committed terrorism and political violence. The difference is that the available long-term data show far-right extremists have accounted for the largest share of deadly extremist violence in the United States in recent decades.
That's particularly useful because 2024 also demonstrates why you shouldn't make absolute claims: ADL found six far-right terror incidents, compared with seven Islamist-related incidents and four far-left/other incidents that year.
The vast majority of conservatives and Republicans are not violent extremists. But political violence has repeatedly emerged from America's far-right fringe, including white supremacists, anti-government militias, sovereign citizens, anti-abortion extremists and election-denial movements.
The concern isn't that conservative political beliefs cause violence. The concern is what happens when political opponents are portrayed as enemies of the country, elections are portrayed as illegitimate, government institutions are portrayed as tyrannical, and violence becomes justified as a defense of the nation.
America has seen that progression before—and January 6 demonstrated how quickly political extremism can become physical violence.
Web Design - Wally Dog Designs
EXTREME Applications, Inc.
© Copyright 2004-2026