The shockwaves from the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, continue to reverberate across the United States, exposing deep political fault lines and sparking renewed debate over the realities—and rhetoric—surrounding domestic terrorism. As politicians, law enforcement, and the public grapple with the fallout, a quietly deleted government study and clashing narratives about the true sources of political violence have come to dominate headlines and conversations alike.
Kirk, a well-known right-wing figure, was gunned down during a speaking event at Utah Valley University, the first stop on his highly publicized American Comeback Tour. The alleged shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, reportedly confessed to his roommate and romantic partner that he shot Kirk because he "had had enough" of Kirk’s "hatred." While Robinson’s own political ideology remains unclear—he described his father as a "pretty diehard MAGA member"—the event has been seized upon by leaders and activists across the spectrum to make broader points about the state of American politics.
President Donald Trump, never one to shy away from controversy, responded with characteristic bluntness. In a Fox and Friends interview on September 17, 2025, he declared, "The radicals on the left are the problem. They’re vicious, and they’re horrible, and they’re politically savvy." He added that he "couldn’t care less" about efforts to bridge America’s deepening political divides. Trump also ordered American flags to fly at half-staff in Kirk’s honor—a gesture that, while symbolic, drew criticism from those who noted his silence following other politically charged violence, such as the June 14 killing of Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband. Notably, Trump did not order flags lowered for the Hortmans, even though investigators believe their deaths were politically motivated, nor did he do so for Minnesota State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, who survived a similar attack thought to be carried out by the same gunman.
In the days following Kirk’s murder, Trump doubled down on his claims, stating before departing for a United Kingdom state visit, "Most of the violence is on the left." Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed this sentiment, blaming "left-wing radicals" for Kirk’s killing and vowing they "will be held accountable." Meanwhile, Stephen Miller, Trump’s top policy adviser, told Vice President JD Vance on Kirk’s own talk show (which Vance was guest-hosting from his ceremonial White House office), "We are going to channel all of the anger as we work to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks using every resource we have." Miller described feeling "focused, righteous anger" and called the assassination part of an "organized campaign." Vance, for his part, accused "crazies on the far left" of falsely claiming the White House would target constitutionally protected speech, insisting the administration would instead pursue "the NGO network that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence."
Yet, these statements stand in stark contrast to the data. According to a study by the libertarian Cato Institute, since 2020, right-wing terrorists have accounted for 54 percent of the 81 people killed as a result of political violence in the U.S. Left-wing activists were responsible for 22 percent, and Islamist fundamentalists for 21 percent. The Cato Institute further notes that, since 1975, Islamist terrorists have caused 87 percent of all political violence deaths in the U.S.—a number heavily influenced by the 9/11 attacks. However, in the decades since, the threat profile has shifted. As Colin Clarke, a domestic terror researcher, told Time Magazine, "If you look at the numbers in terms of lethality, it is the far right that’s been far more lethal—Tree of Life, the El Paso Walmart attack, the Buffalo supermarket shooting." Clarke pointed out that Trump often omits mention of right-wing attacks, questioning, "Do we only care about one type of extremism? And if so, why wouldn’t we care about the more lethal threat?"
Perhaps the most telling development, however, has been the quiet removal of a government study from the Department of Justice (DOJ) website. The study, titled "What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism," was published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in January 2024. It found that, since 1990, far-right extremists have killed over 520 people in at least 227 events, compared to 42 attacks by far-left extremists that killed 78 people over the same period. The study, still accessible via the Wayback Machine, stated bluntly, "The number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism." The NIJ’s research, initially funded by Congress in 2012, also delved into the social-psychological processes behind white supremacy, noting that those interviewed were "authoritarian, anti-liberal, or militant nationalists who had a general intolerance toward people of color" and often supported violence to achieve their goals.
The DOJ has yet to comment publicly on why the study was removed, but the timing—immediately after Kirk’s assassination—has fueled suspicion and controversy. As reported by 404 Media and The Independent, the deletion appears to coincide with a broader effort to frame the current wave of political violence as primarily a left-wing phenomenon, despite the study’s findings to the contrary. The White House, meanwhile, has pointed to incidents like vandalism against Tesla vehicles and anti-ICE protests as examples of left-wing extremism, even as it sidesteps questions about right-wing attacks.
This selective focus has not gone unnoticed by critics. Many Americans, particularly those on the center and left, have expressed frustration at what they see as a double standard in the official response to political violence. The lowering of flags for Kirk but not for the Hortmans has become a flashpoint, with some arguing that the administration is using tragedy to score political points rather than address the root causes of extremism. Even Trump’s own comments have drawn scrutiny—when asked why flags were not lowered for the Hortmans, he replied, "I’m not familiar, who?... Well, I would have done if the governor had asked me to do that."
Underlying all of this is a growing sense of unease about the direction of American politics. The deletion of the NIJ study, the partisan rhetoric, and the apparent unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths about the sources of domestic terrorism have left many wondering whether the country can find common ground—or even agree on basic facts. As the debate rages on, the legacy of Charlie Kirk’s assassination may be less about the man himself and more about the battle over the narrative he leaves behind.
In a nation already divided, the clash between rhetoric and reality around political violence shows no signs of abating. The facts, however, remain stubbornly clear: the threat of domestic terrorism is real, complex, and—according to the government’s own research—most deadly when it comes from the far right.
