The tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University has thrust the subject of political violence into the national spotlight. As expected, pundits and politicians quickly framed the attack as a rare outburst from the left, leaning on studies showing that right-wing extremists commit more politically motivated murders. Don Lemon, who was fired from CNN in 2023 following allegations of misogynistic and inappropriate behavior toward female colleagues, cited a Cato Institute report to disparage Rep. Nancy Mace, who said the left needs to take accountability for Kirk’s assassination, pushing the narrative that the right is more violent than the left. On paper, the numbers seem convincing: right-wing extremists do account for more politically motivated murders. But the Cato report’s methodology obscures key nuances—ones Lemon, if he weren’t a propagandist, might have acknowledged.
Chief among the issues is how the Cato report defines political violence—narrowly focusing on murder while ignoring the broader purposes of violence, which include intimidation, fear, and disruption.
A scholar who studied terrorism, after reviewing the Cato report, told me, “I think it’s a misunderstanding of terrorism to say that ‘most of the harm’ comes from death. Terrorism’s primary purpose is to cause widespread fear. Yes, that is usually caused by death, but it can also happen through unrest and property damage.”
And indeed, in recent years, there have been so many instances of left-wing motivated unrest and property destruction that, even if they don’t prove the left commits more violence overall, such an adjustment to the methodology substantially narrows the gap.
In response to alleged police brutality, leftists organized violent protests across the country. The FBI and ATF, for example, “tracked 164 structure fires from arson between May 27 and May 30, 2020, during the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul.” Rioters set fires using flammable materials and Molotov cocktails. Similarly, after the police shooting of Jacob Blake, leftist protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, set multiple businesses and vehicles ablaze over several nights of unrest. Yet, CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez, reporting live in front of a building engulfed in flames, described the protest as “mostly peaceful.”
Colleges and universities, too, are central arenas for this violent spirit—places where left-wing unrest is not only present, but actively supported, normalized, and left without consequence.
[RELATED: Charlie Kirk Fought for an Education That Restores American Faith and Values]
Consider Riley Gaines’s experience at San Francisco State University in 2023. Gaines had been scheduled to speak at a Turning Point USA event, but leftist, pro-trans protesters gained access to the venue, physically assaulted Gaines twice, “ambushed,” and “barricaded [her] in a room.” She required a police escort to safety. Videos shared widely on X captured the full extent of the violence. Yet, no one was ultimately charged, with police calling Gaines’s complaints “unfounded.” (Charlie Kirk’s assassin, it’s worth noting, had a transgender partner, and shootings committed by trans people appear to be rising).
Apparently, speech is violence, but violence is not violence. Don’t believe your lying eyes!
Moreover, pro-Hamas protests and encampments have intimidated Jewish students, damaged property, and disrupted classes. While Columbia University drew national attention, Sarah Lawrence College, too, saw students linked to the Divestment Coalition storm the main administrative building, Westlands, late at night. Masked and barricading doors and windows, the group trapped dorm residents and shut down key offices, while an encampment formed outside. The college administration largely stayed silent, with the Dean of Students even permitting outsiders with no affiliation to the university to join in.
Expanding the scope of what counts as political violence very much complicates the narrative that right-wing extremists are the primary perpetrators. Left-wing actors, particularly on college and university campuses, engage in politically motivated violence with alarming frequency. And more than that, leftists—whether campus administrators, professors, or students—more often view violence as an appropriate means to silence people with whom they disagree. (Read Peter Wood’s “FIRE Overstates Conservative Censorship on Campus“).
I reported earlier this year, for example, that Nicholas Decker, a PhD student at George Mason University (GMU), published a Substack essay calling for violence against President Trump and his administration. While GMU involved police, the university ultimately took no disciplinary action—an outcome that likely would have been very different had Decker’s target been the Biden administration or had Decker not aligned with the university’s “diversity, equity, and inclusion” orthodoxy.
[RELATED: Advocating Violence Is Permissible—If You’re a Campus Leftist]
And before I wrap things up, I’d note three points I think are worth thinking over.
First, Islamic extremists, as per the Cato report, still commit violence on a scale that exceeds both right- and left-wing actors, yet the left has often expressed solidarity with Islamic terrorist organizations like Hamas, making the distinction between such organizations and left-wing actors increasingly indistinguishable.
Second, the left has far fewer reasons to resort to lethal violence to achieve its political ends because it already controls all of the major pillars of American society—courts, media, higher education, and urban centers—yet it still frequently relies on disruption and intimidation to enforce its views and silence dissent.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, because the left overwhelmingly controls America’s colleges and universities, these institutions have been able—without meaningful opposition—to inculcate students with narratives such as the oppressed-versus-oppressor hierarchy and “speech is violence” mentality, effectively becoming incubators for political radicalization. Leftist administrators and faculty have, for decades, fostered a culture in which silencing—or even eliminating—opposing voices is seen as a legitimate path to victory. While Kirk’s assassin may not have been radicalized in a college classroom, his actions are emblematic of what happens when students are immersed in a culture that normalizes political intimidation and the suppression of dissent.
My observations here are not to be taken as suggesting that political violence is acceptable, that one side’s violence is more justified than the other, or that murder isn’t a meaningful way to categorize political violence. But the story is far more complicated than simplistic narratives that rely solely on lethal outcomes. To really understand who commits political violence, you have to look at disruption, intimidation, and the environments that foster radicalization. Anyone claiming that the right is responsible for most political violence should be taken with a big grain of salt.
Follow Jared Gould on X.
Author’s Note: This article comes from my weekly “Top of Mind” email, which usually goes out to subscribers on Thursdays. It’s a bit delayed this week, as I was away on vacation.
Image: “Charlie Kirk shooting scene close up” by KSL News Utah on Wikimedia Commons
