It feels like the world is ending every time you open X or turn on the news. Assassination attempts on Donald Trump, the shocking murder of Charlie Kirk in 2025, and endless talk of a "Second Civil War" have basically become the background noise of American life. But then you look at the actual data. Specifically, you look at the Cato Institute political violence study released by Alex Nowrasteh in September 2025. It tells a story that is, frankly, kind of weird and totally different from the "doom-scrolling" narrative.
Honestly, the numbers are so low they almost don't make sense given how angry everyone is. Since 1975, only about 0.35% of all murders in the United States were tied to political terrorism. Think about that. You're significantly more likely to die in a car crash or by a lightning strike than by a political extremist. Yet, the study has sparked a massive firestorm, with some people calling it a "whitewash" and others saying it's the only sane analysis left in Washington.
The Raw Reality of the Cato Institute Political Violence Study
If you want to understand the Cato Institute political violence study, you've got to start with the big one: 9/11. That single day accounts for a staggering 83% of all politically motivated deaths in the U.S. since 1975. When Nowrasteh and his team looked at the data, they realized that including 9/11 basically breaks the math. It’s such a massive outlier that it hides everything else.
Once you set 9/11 aside to see the "everyday" trends, the picture changes. Between January 1, 2020, and mid-September 2025, there were 79 murders linked to political terrorism. That sounds like a lot until you realize it represents 0.07% of all homicides in that period. Basically, 7 out of every 10,000 murders. The study argues that while these deaths are tragic and "socially corrosive," the supply of actual violence is nowhere near meeting the massive demand for it created by the media.
Breaking Down the Ideologies
Everyone wants to know who is more violent: the Left or the Right? The Cato data doesn't pull punches, but it also doesn't fit a neat 30-second soundbite.
- Right-wing violence: Since 2020, right-wing extremists (including white supremacists, anti-abortion radicals, and "incels") were responsible for 44 deaths. That's about 54% of the total.
- Left-wing violence: During the same window, left-wing extremists (including anti-police radicals and black nationalists) were responsible for 18 deaths, or about 22%.
- Islamist violence: This accounted for 15 deaths (21%).
- The "Unknowns": A tiny sliver of 1% came from people whose motives were just too messy to categorize.
The study points out that right-wing violence has historically been deadlier because the attackers often use firearms in crowded places. Left-wing violence, conversely, has a long history of targeting property—think arson or vandalism—rather than people, though the 2025 spike in attacks against political figures like Kirk and Hortman is starting to shift those percentages.
👉 See also: Effingham County Jail Bookings 72 Hours: What Really Happened
Why Conservatives Are Furious About the Findings
Not everyone is buying what Cato is selling. By late September 2025, the Conservative Action Project and several high-profile activists urged Cato to retract the study. Why? Because of what was left out.
The critics argue that the Cato Institute political violence study is "methodologically flawed" because it starts in 1975. If you start in 1965, you catch the Weather Underground and the thousands of bombings from the Vietnam era. By starting in '75, the study "conveniently" misses a peak of left-wing chaos.
There’s also a big fight over what counts as "political." For example, the study didn't include the fatalities from the 2020 BLM riots because most weren't classified as "terrorism" by the strict definition used. Critics say this is a huge mistake. If a city burns for a month for a political cause, shouldn't those deaths count? Cato says no, unless there’s a clear, non-state actor using force for a specific political goal. It’s a technical distinction that makes a lot of people very angry.
The Problem with "Lone Wolves"
One of the most interesting parts of the study—and the follow-up commentary by scholars like Ilya Somin—is that many of these "terrorists" are just broken people. Take Shane Tamura, who shot up an NFL-related target in Manhattan in July 2025. Was he a political soldier? Or just a guy who lost his mind and found a political excuse?
The study notes that "demand for political violence exceeds the supply." We have millions of people shouting for blood on social media, but very few people actually willing to pick up a gun. Those who do are often peripheral to the movements they claim to represent. They are "loners" with messy manifestos that don't always align with a specific party platform.
✨ Don't miss: Joseph Stalin Political Party: What Most People Get Wrong
Is Democracy Actually at Risk?
The Cato Institute political violence study suggests that while the fear of violence is at an all-time high, the act of violence remains rare. But there's a catch. Even if the deaths are few, the impact is massive. A single assassination attempt can change the trajectory of an entire election. It creates a "partisan death spiral" where one side feels justified in breaking the rules because they think the other side is literally trying to kill them.
You’ve probably seen the polls. About 23% of Americans now say that "true patriots" might have to resort to violence to save the country. That's up from 15% just a few years ago. The Cato researchers, like Walter Olson, argue that we are "rationalizing" violence. We see an attack on our side and think hitting back is "fair play."
Actionable Insights: What You Can Actually Do
It's easy to feel helpless when the "doom loop" starts spinning. But the data from the Cato Institute political violence study actually offers a weird kind of hope. If the violence is rare, we don't have to live in state of constant panic.
1. Stop the "They" Talk
When a crazy person does something violent, stop saying "They are attacking us." Use the individual's name. Don't blame 100 million people for the actions of one "lone wolf" who spent too much time in dark corners of the internet.
2. Demand Restraint from Leaders
The study shows that violence spikes when leaders use dehumanizing language. If a politician calls the other side "vermin" or "enemies of the state," they are lowering the cost of violence. Hold your own side to a higher standard than the "other" side.
🔗 Read more: Typhoon Tip and the Largest Hurricane on Record: Why Size Actually Matters
3. Fact-Check the "Rise"
Next time you see a headline saying political violence is "skyrocketing," check the source. Are they counting mean tweets? Or are they counting actual physical attacks? Keeping the definitions clear prevents us from overreacting and passing laws that end up hurting our own civil liberties.
4. Support Civics Education
A lot of the "support" for violence comes from a basic misunderstanding of how the system works. People think the system is "broken" because they didn't win an election. Rebuilding an understanding of the Electoral Count Act and the role of local election officials can lower the temperature.
The truth is, America is a messy, loud, and often angry place. But according to the Cato Institute political violence study, we aren't nearly as violent as the internet wants us to believe. We are living through a period of "rhetorical escalation," not a physical war. The best way to keep it that way is to refuse to be intimidated by the small number of people who actually want to cause harm.
Next Steps for Deepening Your Understanding:
- Review the specific datasets from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) that Cato used to see how they categorize "incels" versus "traditional" political actors.
- Examine the 2025 CSIS report on left-wing plots to compare their trajectory with the Cato fatalities data.
- Read the "Human Freedom Index 2024" to see how political instability in the U.S. is affecting our global ranking compared to peer nations like Switzerland or New Zealand.