Rise in left-wing terror? – LAist

Report on Domestic Political Violence and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Challenge to SDG 16

Recent escalations in political violence within the United States, exemplified by high-profile assassinations, present a significant challenge to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable institutions. This report analyzes current trends in domestic terrorism, the integrity of related data, and the subsequent impact on national stability and progress toward global sustainability targets.

Analysis of Domestic Terrorism Data and Trends

Contested Findings on Ideological Sources of Violence

A recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) indicated a statistical shift in the perpetrators of domestic terrorism during the first half of 2025. This analysis is critical for developing evidence-based policies that support SDG 16, but its conclusions have generated significant debate.

• The CSIS study identified five terrorist incidents attributed to far-left motivations, compared to one from the far-right, between January and July 2025.
• This finding contrasts sharply with long-term data from federal law enforcement and non-governmental researchers, which has consistently identified far-right extremism as the most persistent and lethal domestic threat, directly undermining SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) through racially and ethnically motivated violence.
• The report’s co-author noted that the decline in right-wing attacks was a more statistically striking trend than the small increase in left-wing incidents.

Methodological Concerns and Data Integrity

The efficacy of institutional responses to violence, a core component of SDG 16, depends on accurate and objective data. However, the CSIS report has faced criticism regarding its methodology, highlighting systemic challenges in the analysis of domestic terrorism.

1. Small Sample Size: Critics argue that basing a trend analysis on five incidents is statistically insufficient to draw robust conclusions about a major shift in the national threat landscape.
2. Subjectivity in Coding: The process of categorizing an act as “terrorism” and attributing it to a specific ideology is highly subjective. Researchers disagree on the inclusion or exclusion of specific events, such as the arson of NYPD vehicles (included) versus attacks on Tesla infrastructure (excluded).
3. Premature Conclusions: Experts caution against assigning ideological motives to violent acts, such as the Charlie Kirk assassination, before comprehensive information is made available through official investigations.

Impact on Sustainable Development and Institutional Trust

Erosion of Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16)

The rise in political violence directly contravenes Target 16.1, which calls for a significant reduction in all forms of violence. The changing nature of this violence, shifting from mass-casualty events to more targeted, personal assassinations, threatens the safety of public figures and erodes the rule of law (Target 16.3).

• The assassination of a state representative in Minnesota and a right-wing activist in Utah exemplifies this trend toward personalized political violence.
• The emergence of non-ideological or “nihilistic violent extremism” further complicates law enforcement’s ability to prevent attacks, weakening institutional effectiveness.

Undermining Institutional Accountability and Transparency

Progress toward SDG 16 is further jeopardized by administrative actions that appear to politicize data and defund independent research, undermining the development of effective and accountable institutions (Target 16.6).

• The Department of Justice reportedly removed a study from its website that identified far-right extremists as the most lethal domestic threat since 1990.
• The Department of Homeland Security discontinued funding for the University of Maryland’s Terrorism and Targeted Violence project, the nation’s only publicly available centralized database on the topic, citing “biased and misleading data practices.”
• These actions compromise the ability of policymakers and the public to form an accurate understanding of domestic threats, hindering the development of effective prevention strategies.

Conclusion: A Setback for Peaceful and Inclusive Societies

The increasing frequency of domestic political violence, coupled with a contentious and potentially compromised data environment, poses a direct threat to the United States’ progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure to maintain transparent, evidence-based security policies undermines SDG 16 by weakening institutions and failing to protect citizens. Regardless of the ideological source, the inability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent this violence leaves the public at risk and corrodes the foundations of a peaceful, just, and inclusive society.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. SDGs Addressed or Connected to the Article

   The primary Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) addressed in the article is SDG 16, which focuses on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     The article’s entire focus is on political violence, domestic terrorism, and extremism within the United States. It discusses assassinations, mass killings, and terrorist plots, which are direct threats to peace and security. Furthermore, it delves into the role and effectiveness of national institutions like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and law enforcement agencies in collecting data, analyzing threats, and preventing violence. The debate over data collection methodologies, the lack of a unified public database, and the alleged political manipulation of research findings all speak to the challenges of building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions, which is a core component of SDG 16.

2. Specific Targets Identified

   Based on the article’s content, several specific targets under SDG 16 can be identified:

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere

     This target is central to the article. The text explicitly discusses various forms of violence and related deaths, including the “assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk,” the “murder of a health care executive,” the “shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise,” and racially motivated mass killings in Charleston, El Paso, and Buffalo. The CSIS study attempts to quantify this violence by analyzing the “number of far-left terrorist plots and attacks” versus those from the far right. The mention of the New Orleans attack that killed 14 people further underscores the relevance of reducing violence and death rates.

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels

     The article highlights significant shortcomings in institutional effectiveness, accountability, and transparency. It states, “there is no public, official, unified and comprehensive database of domestic terrorism incidents in the U.S.” This points to a lack of effective institutional mechanisms for monitoring a critical threat. The article also raises concerns about accountability and transparency by citing the DOJ’s alleged removal of a study on far-right extremism and the DHS’s decision to discontinue funding for the University of Maryland’s Terrorism and Targeted Violence project, which was the “only publicly available centralized data project” of its kind.

   • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime

     This target is implicitly addressed through the critique of the current state of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The expert opinion from Jacob Ware that “the onus is on law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent it and to protect the American people. And they are not doing that right now” directly suggests a failure of national institutions to prevent violence and combat terrorism effectively. The entire discussion about the difficulty in coding and analyzing data implies a need to strengthen the capacity of these institutions to understand and respond to the evolving nature of domestic threats.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied

   The article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

   • Indicator for Target 16.1 (Reduce violence)

     The article directly uses quantitative data that aligns with official indicators like 16.1.1 (Number of victims of intentional homicide) and 16.1.2 (Conflict-related deaths). The CSIS study’s methodology involves counting the “number of far-left terrorist plots and attacks” and comparing them to “right-wing terrorism.” The article cites specific numbers, such as “five instances as left-wing terrorism, and one as right-wing terrorism” in early 2025, and the 14 people killed in the New Orleans attack. These counts of violent incidents and fatalities are direct measures of progress (or lack thereof) in reducing violence.

   • Indicator for Target 16.6 (Effective and transparent institutions)

     While not citing a formal UN indicator, the article implies the need for one related to public access to information and data. The statement that “there is no public, official, unified and comprehensive database of domestic terrorism incidents” serves as a negative indicator of institutional transparency. Therefore, a key implied indicator is the existence and public accessibility of a centralized, official database on domestic terrorism incidents. The discontinuation of funding for the University of Maryland’s project and the removal of the DOJ study are events that can be tracked as negative indicators of institutional transparency and accountability in providing public data.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: laist.com