Mormons At Sutter's Mill & Tragedy Spring -- Part Two

So now, if that's the case, and they were in on the ground floor, the very start of the California Gold Rush, why were they leaving California to go to Salt Lake City by mid-1848?  

Well, that's the question that I asked at the end of Mormons At Sutter's Mill & Tragedy Spring -- Part One. And frankly, while it made very little sense to me at first, I've learnd that it has everything to do with priorities and supporting others.

 
Let's remember, half of those discharged Mormon Battalion soldiers decided to go to their Salt Lake City settlement. It's said that they reached Salt Lake City in October of 1847 to find their people in such a critical need for food, that it looked like starvation was going to wipe them out. Seeing what was happening, church leaders proposed sending expeditions back to California where they knew ample supplies of grain and cattle could be found.

In early 1848, to answer the need for food, three separate groups made up of hundreds of Mormons in California all planned to head for their Salt Lake City settlement as soon as the weather permitted.Two of the groups were from Southern California. It is believed that they probably didn't about the gold strike up North. The third group was from Northern California. It's said they left after they deciding they had panned enough, and were satisfied with what they had.

The Northern California group gathered together and planned on leaving on April 15. Deep snows in the Sierra Nevada Mountains prevented them from going that early. By June, the group was stopped again because of a heavy Sierra snowpack.

The Mormons working for Captain Sutter agreed to let him know when they intended to leave so that he would be able to hire replacements. That was very polite and extremely nice of them because by then it was becoming very difficult to find anyone who were willing to work for wages. Gold fever was making people crazy.

John Sutter is noted as saying, "The big rush did not set in until the middle of May. By then the whole country seemed to have gone mad. Merchants, physicians, lawyers, sea captains left their wives and families in San Francisco in order to become gold diggers. . . . Everything was in confusion and most people did not know what to do."

As for how Sutter saw the Mormons who worked for him, he said, "So long as these people have been employed by me they have behaved very well, and were industrious and faithful laborers and when settling their accounts there was not one of them who was not contented and satisfied."

In early June, the group gathering their supplies for their journey and met just southeast of Placerville, that place that was known as Hangtown back then. It was in a large green meadow they called Pleasant Valley, while waiting for the snow to melt, that they discovered gold there as well and thus spent their idle time prospecting. It was then decided that a more southerly route using Carson Pass, the same route that John Fremont used to enter California in 1844, would be better.

The group consisted of 45 men and one woman under the leadership of Jonathan H. Holmes. Some accounts say their Wagon Train consisted of 18 wagons, other accounts say it was 22 wagons, all pulled by oxen. Along with the supplies, were 300 cattle. All in all, when thinking about those numbers and them having to build their own road as the went, this was no small challenge to get supplies to Salt Lake City.

Only men were allowed on that journey because it was deemed too dangerous for women and children. That didn't stop William Coray's wife, Melissa. Supposedly, she had traveled the entire Battalion route from Iowa to San Diego in 1847. So no, there was no telling her that she couldn't go.

As they went, smaller groups later joined them, bringing the total party to sixty-five men and two women. The second woman was Rachel Reed, who had recently married Battalion veteran Franklin Weaver. Also in the group was a San Francisco convert, Francis Hammond, who later settled in Huntsville, Utah. To blaze a trail, the group send out three men to scout their way.

Now let's talk about Tragedy Spring

On June 25, 1848, Daniel Browett, Ezra H. Allen, and Henderson Cox set out as scouts to find a trail. Each of the scouts were riding horses and each trailed a pack mule. All of them had their U.S. Army-issued muskets. All three men were former members of the Mormon Battalion who served in the Mexican-American War. So yes, it's believed they were all carrying their U.S. Army muskets, the Springfield Model 1842, which was the first percussion-lock musket ever issued to American soldiers.

Along with their muskets, powder horns, lead balls, and percussion caps, each man had a bedroll for sleeping and warmth, food and water, hard tack, and some basic provisions. Scouts were known to supplement their food by hunting if needed. Of course, each scout had a knife, an axe, a shovel, and carried a few repair items for wagons and gear which were also used as first aid supplies for stitching wounds and such. And yes, in case you're wondering, it's said they had with them the gold they had discovered.

On July 3, the main group moved out of Pleasant Valley and started their journey Northeast. By then, it had been over a week since the scouts had left and was last seen. Because it was feared that they may have gotten lost or were in some sort of danger, a group of ten men were sent out to search for them.

The wagon train moved northeast about ten miles to another valley to await news from the search party. The following day, they camped in a meadow that they called Sly Park -- naming it after member Jason Calvin Sly. Another ten days passed on July 14th, they group moved on from Sly Park. That was the day the search party returned reporting no sign of the missing scouts.

The search party had, however, found passage over the mountains. The Mormons broke camp and began the slow, laborious, ascent over the Sierras. And since I'm used to repeating myself, yes, it's vital to this story that we keep in mind that they had to build a road as they went.

The following day, as they climbed the Sierras, they shot echoing salutes with two cannons they had purchased from Sutter. The salute was their contribution to Governor Mason’s Fourth of July celebration below.

On July 18, the road crew that was working slightly ahead of the main party to build a road for the Wagon Train came across a spring and an extinguished campfire. Supposedly, they also found a mound of dirt covering a grave but didn't bother checking it. Instead, the road crew left everything as it was and returned to the main group to tell them what they had found. It is also claimed that as the road crew made their way back to the main group, that the road crew came across a group of Indians. And supposedly, one of the Indians was wearing a vest that belonged to one of their missing scouts.

The next day, July 19, 1848, the rest of the party caught up. Arriving at the site, they discovered the bodies of the three scouts. Inside a shallow grave was the naked bodies of the three missing scouts. Daniel Browett was stuck in the face with an ax. Ezra Allen was found laying next to Browett with Henderson Cox underneath both men.

For me, none of this sounds like an Indian attack. Granted that accounts agree that, "Around the site were bloody arrows and blood-stained rocks, some with locks of hair stuck to them, possibly from being used to crush skulls." But, according to accounts, the site looked like the men were killed in other spots around that campfire and then "dragged" to that grave and buried.

Why would the local Washoe Indians bother digging a grave, nevertheless deciding to drag their victims and burying their bodies in a shallow grave? That doesn't make sense. Why not simply leave them where they fell? That would have been the normal practice in an attack. 

Besides, to my knowledge, in those days, at the time of the massacre of the three men, the Washoe Indians of California did not bury their dead. So why would they have done that since it wasn't something they practiced for themselves? To me, none of what was found sound like something that the California tribes did back then. 

There is one other part to that mystery. It has to do with the belief of the Washoe people. I've been told that unlike some Great Plains tribes that would strip the dead and steal everything back in the day, the Washoe people believed taking a dead person's property was offensive. It was considered very bad medicine as in bad karma.

So to me, it sounds more like something murderous criminals would do to hide their crime. Would outlaws try to give people the impression that Indians committed their crimes? I think it's very possible that such a thing can happen. In fact, from stage coach robberies to murders being committed, we know of reports of such crimes taken place by criminals who have tried to disguise themselves as Indians just not to be recognized and shift the blame to a local tribe.

What we do know for certain is that the three men were ambushed and murdered. Everything belonging to the men had been taken. Each was striped naked and their possessions, including their boots, trousers, shirts, and heavy woolen blanket coats, everything they had with them were taken before being thrown into a shallow grave near a smalll spring.

The group saw this and named that place appropreately, calling it Tragedy Spring. The group reburied them in a new grave under a tree. They piled rocks and stones on top of it, and placed a large round stone upright at the top of the grave to act as a headstone. They held a service for them and Wilford Hudson used his axe to chop the bark away from one side of a nearby fir tree, which he carved an inscription:

"To the Memory 

of 

Daniel Browett, 

Ezra Allen 

and 

Henderson Cox 

Who were supposed 

to have been murdered 

and buried by Indians 

on the night of the 27th of 

June, 1848." 

In his diary, Henry W. Bigler, one of the members of the wagon train, noted the following: "We cut the following inscription in the Balsam Fir that stood near the grave. To the memory of Daniel Browett, Ezrah H. Allen, and Henderson Cox, who were supposed to have been murdered and buried by Indians on the night of June 27, A.D., 1848. We call the place Tragedy Spring."

Accordding to legend, a pouch filled with gold dust belonging to Ezra Allen was found in the brush. Wilford Hudson, a close friend of Allen, volunteered to take the pouch to Allen's wife, Sarah. She had not yet traveled to Salt Lake City and remained in the temporary Mormon settlement of Kanesville. Ezra's pouch was later given to his widow. Legend sayd she made a wedding ring from part of the gold, and used the remainder to finance her journey from Iowa to Utah to join the Mormon settlement in Salt Lake City.

The Tragedy Spring site was memorialized by the Native Sons of the Golden West in 1921. Later, after the tree fell, the part bearing the inscription was cut away and preserved. It was later placed in the visitors center at the Marshall Gold Discovery State Park in Coloma, California.

As for the route that was created in 1848 by Mormon laborers who built Sutter's Mill? 

They left the gold fields of California to make sure their people in Salt Lake City didn't starve. In doing so, that group cut a new 170-mile wagon road from near Sacramento through the Sierra Mountains to join the main California Trail. They did so by following ridges, crossing the West Pass, and going over Carson Pass. With their wagons averaging 10-20 miles per day, they took around 4 months to get to Salt Lake City. That was fairly incredible for the times.

The legacy of the Mormon Emigrant Trail is that it became incredibly popular in its day. In fact, imagine this, during good weather of the peak seasons, traffic was so intense that stopping to cross the trail could take hours. As a result, several trading posts were established along the way. The trail created the first wagon road into Northern California over the Sierra Nevada, connecting to the California Trail at Carson Pass. It served as a crucial route used for commerce and by tens of thousands of gold-seekers flooding into California during the Gold Rush.

Its legacy is that of a group of Mormon pioneers who met the challenge, sacrified personal riches to serve the greater good, and in doing so built the first wagon road over Carson Pass. Today remembered as the Mormon Emigrant Trail. For many, it's just a road sign along Highway 88 pointing out a spot of historical interest.

But for you, you now know that the Mormon Emigrant Trail opened by Mormon Battalion veterans, became a crucial, heavily used route for Gold Rush pioneers seeking California's gold fields starting in late 1848 and especially 1849 by offering a shorter, more direct passage through the Sierra Nevada over Carson Pass. While the primary California Trail from Missouri saw the most overall traffic, the Mormon Emigrant Trail route over Carson Pass was vital for those coming from Salt Lake City, becoming packed with wagons heading to the gold that was once California.

Tom Correa

Mormons At Sutter's Mill & Tragedy Spring -- Part One

I'm heading to Carson City, Nevada, this coming Friday. My wife and I will be taking a couple of friends to a resturant that they love for their 36th anniversary. Carson City is only about 2 hours away, and I love making that drive up Highway 88 over Carson Pass and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. 

Driving up Highway 88, seeing Silver Lake and Caples Lakes, going over the summit is all about seeing some of the most beautiful country around. The summit on Highway 88 is Carson Pass, it sits at an elevation of 8,600 feet. This time of year with the mountains covered in white snow, it's probably one of the prettiest drives you can take.

Just off of Highway 88, a few miles West just before getting to Silver Lake, is a small alpine freshwater spring known as Tragedy Spring. It's name tells us a lot all by itself. It was named Tragedy Spring after local Indians murdered three Mormon men, Daniel Browett, Ezrah H. Allen, and Henderson Cox, on June 27, 1848. The three men killed were with the group that was blazing the Mormon Emigrant Trail.

Before getting into what happened to the three men, let's talk about Mormons in California, Sutter's Mill, the discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill, and the Mormon Emigrant Trail in California which was a route that was blazed in 1848 by Mormon laborers leaving Sutter's Mill. 

That's right, they were leaving Sutter's Mill in 1848. Does that make sense? Well, not really. But let me explain what happened.

Mormons showed up in California during the Mexican–American War between 1846 and 1848. In fact, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), commonly known as "Mormons" or "Latter-day Saints," traveled to California before Mexico sold California to the United States. 

During that time, in July of 1847, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints leader Brigham Young and a large Wagon Train of Mormon pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley -- which at the time still belonged to Mexico. There, they established their Salt Lake City as the principal settlement for their church.

Months before that, Mormons were already arrived by ship to San Francisco in 1846 and by land to San Diego in January of 1847. The later took place when the US Army's Mormon Battalion, made up of almost 400 Mormons, marched to San Diego from Council Bluffs, Iowa during the Mexican-American War. At the end of some of the war, and their enlistments, while some reenlisted, other members of the Army's Mormon Battalion were discharged and stayed in San Diego. By July of 1847, those who were discharged and didn't want to stay in San Diego decided to head to Salt Lake City.

While en route to Salt Lake City, those Mormon soldiers met up with a messenger from Brigham Young. His instructions to former Battalion members was to stay put in California if they didn't have adequate supplies to make the trip. They were told to remain in California for a season, to find jobs, earn wages, and then purchase the supplies they need before heading to Salt Lake City.

It's said that about half the Mormon soldiers who met up with that messenger decided to continue on to Salt Lake City. The other half turned around and went looking for jobs for the season as instructed. Some were hired by wealthy landowner John Sutter. While some of his Mormons employees were assigned to work and maintain what was known as Sutter's Fort, Sutter sent the others into the Sierra Nevada foothills to build a sawmill. Yes, they were assigned to build Sutter's Mill in Coloma, California, on the South Fork of the American River.

 
Sutter's Mill was built by John Sutter who hired former-soldiers of Mormon Battalion as laborers. It was the site where James W. Marshall discovered gold on January 24, 1848. That event lit the fire that became the California Gold Rush. 

My friends, the impact of the California Gold Rush on the history of the United States cannot be overstated. The California Gold Rush from 1848 to 1855 was absolutely pivotal in our history as a nation. While there were other gold strikes here and there, no other event in America History triggered such massive migration, rapid population growth, increase economic growth, created the need for a transcontinental railroad, fueled technological innovation, and fundamentally transforming America by accelerating our Westward expansion, while also establishing the American character as bold risk-takers.

California was fast-tracked to statehood as a slave-free state in 1850, and the California Gold Rush accelerating settlement of the West, including all sorts of towns and cities between the East and West Coasts that are still with us today. All because the influx of gold expanded the U.S. money supply while spurring huge economic growth across the country. activity. The need to connect the distant West led to major investments in transcontinental railroads and telegraph lines.

So yes indeed, the discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill, land owned by John Sutter who hired James W. Marshall to build the sawmill, took place when former soldiers of the Mormon Battalion and local Nisenan Indians were there to build it. Marshall found gold flakes while they were deepening the mill's tailrace which is a channel for water. They were doing that to improve its water power. James Marshall's discovery of those gold flakes changed the United States.

Since, members of the Mormon Battalion were instrumental in building the mill and were present at the discovery, and several former-Battalion members were present when gold was discovered that day in January of 1848, it makes sense that those Mormons would spend their time off mining for gold.

So after gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill in 1848, those Mormons, those former members of the Mormon Battalion, the ones who built Sutter's Mill, enjoyed the fact that they were on the ground-floor of the discovery. Many were in on the first rush to nearby "Mormon Island" where anywhere from 100 to 150 Mormans flocked together there. It's said that those looking for gold worked in groups of five, each working five square yards of land, Monday through Saturday, each making from ten to fifty dollars a day. So many miners were Mormons that the name "Mormon" was given to places like Mormon sland, Mormon Bar, and Mormon Gulch.

According to one report: "There was good reason for the gold fever. What they found was incredible, and it was there for the taking. With no more equipment than a pick and shovel or pan, almost everyone who tried found his share. The gold had been deposited in stream beds and rock crevices, little by little, over vast periods of time. Now it lay exposed and inviting, diversified into dust, flakes, and even fist-sized nuggets."

So now, if that's the case, and they were indeed in on the ground floor, the very start of the California Gold Rush, why were they leaving California to go to Salt Lake City by mid-1848?

Well, that's the question that I answer in Mormons At Sutter's Mill & Tragedy Spring -- Part Two.

Tom Correa

American Ranchers On The Border Feel Safer Now Under President Trump

I voted for President Donald Trump three times. Each time I did, I did so because I saw that he had Americans' best interests at heart. Over the past year, since reentering the White House, unlike during the Biden Administration, when a few highly placed Democrats were running the White House, President Trump has worked tirelessly for us, the American people.

We now have President Trump, who, unlike his predecessors, who bowed down to special interests to get votes, fights for law-abiding, hardworking Americans. And yes, when he entered office in January of 2025, he inherited all sorts of problems. Our economy was hitting rock bottom because of the Socialist/ Communist policies coming out of the White House. And yes, the Biden oligarchy running the country decided that they would not secure our borders. Subsequently, they allowed millions of Illegal Aliens to enter by simply opening our borders. Biden, as senile as he was during his term in office, stated how the United States could take in millions of people from around the world with no problem. That was his mindset even before entering office. 

It's true. We know this because in a 2019 campaign comment, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden said the U.S. could "afford to take in another two million asylum seekers in a heartbeat." This statement was made to emphasize the Democrat Party's idea that our nation's capacity to allow Illegal Aliens into our country without having to go through the process was "justifiable" because it was our nation's "humanitarian obligation" to do so.  This was supposed to be his stance on immigration, which was in direct contrast to that of President Trump, who had more restrictive border policies than what the Democrat Party wanted. 

Why would the Democrat Party be okay with the invasion that we all saw take place? The Democrat Party was losing voters and needed to register Illegal Aliens to vote "Democrat." To get those Illegal Aliens to do so, the Biden Administration issued them Social Security cards and gave them all sorts of free benefits. 

That's the reason why, after Joe Biden took office, the U.S.-Mexico border experienced record-high numbers of Illegal Alien traffic. Besides his "open border" policy creating a huge financial burden on the States bordering the U.S.-Mexico border, he was giving away American taxpayer funds to people here "Illegally." Which, by the way, the nation has learned that the word "illegal" seems to mean nothing to Democrats when it's something they are doing that's illegal. 

Of course, besides the financial burden of the States having to deal with the "Invasion" of millions of Illegal Aliens, mostly young men, drugs flooded into our country, and child-sex trafficking increased by more than a thousand times what it was under President Trump prior to the Biden Administration taking control. And yes, violent crime became the norm for Americans, especially for those who lived in fear along the border and in America's inner cities. 

For those along the border, it wasn't unusual for Drug Cartels to shoot at American ranchers and farmers. It wasn't unusual for American ranchers and farmers to live in fear of being murdered. As for the inner cities, that's where the Biden Administration was relocating many of those who were not supposed to be here. It was as if there was a purposeful plan to destabilize our society with violent intruders who didn't give a damn about our laws. 

The Biden administration implemented various policies, including illegally flying in Illegal Aliens from nations not friendly to the United States. And yes indeed, it didn't take long before we, Americans, learned that many of those countries had released their criminals and emptied out their prisons just to send them to the United States. 

The result was that Joe Biden, or whoever was in charge at the White House and the Biden Administration, since we still don't know who was running the country from 2021 to January of 2025, successfully created the worst border situation anywhere in the world. We were told that we couldn't call Illegal Aliens "Illegal Aliens," and instead we were told to refer to Illegal Aliens as "Undocumented Immigrants" to soften the fact that those people were here in violation of our immigration laws. Yes. illegally. 

Of course, Democrats called us "racists" for pointing out that murderous criminals and drugs were flooding into our country and killing our citizens, especially our young people. I was accused of being a "racist" more times than I can count for talking about the violence that was taking place in places around the country by Drug Cartels and Criminal Gangs. All thanks to Democrat politicians who tried to divert our attention to social issues such as the Left's Woke agenda, the Left's DEI demands, and the Left's indoctrination of American children. And don't fool yourself, I completely agree with parents pulling their children out of Public Schools instead of allowing them to be purposely taught to hate everything good about America. No child should be taught to have shame for being White or for being an American. No teacher should be allowed to do that.  

President Trump has quickly made our U.S.-Mexico border the strongest border in our country's history. In just a few short months, we went from being at our worst to being the best. All it took was America having a President who puts the needs of the American people ahead of the needs of others. 

As President Trump has said, "We’re deporting criminals [and] restoring safety to our most dangerous cities… Drugs brought in by ocean and by sea are now down by 94%."  We have broken the grip of sinister, woke radicals in our schools."

American ranchers living along the U.S.-Mexico border have reported feeling safer now that President Trump is back in office. They report experiencing a significant reduction in illegal border crossings and related criminal activity under the Trump administration's stricter border enforcement policies.

First, crossings have been reduced drastically. Ranchers have stated that the number of Illegals crossing their property daily has decreased drastically under President Trump. And yes, it appears that it remains low with his resumed priority on enforcement. This also provides a sense of relief and improved personal safety to folks along the border.

As for less property damage? With an effort being made on the part of the Federal Government to stop the illegal crossings, American ranchers are reporting less damage to fences, water tanks, barns, livestock, and even their pastures. Less destruction and less theft in general. This all actually allows them to focus more on their work rather than constantly repairing what is vandalized by illegals. It also frees them up from constantly worrying about their security.

It's true. Since President Trump returned to office, ranchers have reported a dramatic drop in trespassers on their properties. Some ranchers along the border are saying that all human and drug trafficking that was so rampant, along with the armed criminals that trafficking brings with it, have "all stopped." 

Many ranchers have long advocated for stronger border security measures, including physical security barriers, which is what a "border wall" is. As for improving their safety and security, ranchers are giving credit where credit is due — namely, to President Trump's efforts to build a wall and increase law enforcement presence.

Of course, ranchers are concerned that the violence will increase later, just as it did significantly aftersomeone in the Biden Administration halted border wall construction and opened the border to the chaos that we all saw firsthand on television. It was so bad that not even the Democrat-controlled Mainstream Media could hide what was happening on the border during the Biden years.   

And no, I don't blame them for being concerned that Democrats will again be in control of the White House and scrub President Trump's policies even though they are effective. Ranchers have noted that more Border Patrol agents are back in the field, and operational control is becoming a reality again because of President Trump. Official statistics from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) show a sharp decline in border encounters since the Trump administration took office again. One report indicates a 96% plunge in apprehensions compared to a previous peak during Biden's tenure.

Why the improvement in such a short period of time? 

The reasons cited for this improved sense of safety include the reinstatement of strict border policies such as "Remain in Mexico," the resumption of wall construction, an end to "catch-and-release" have been credited with deterring illegal entries, and an obvious increased law enforcement presence, and the use of enhanced security measures. 

With all available resources in use, President Trump has authorized the deployment of advanced surveillance technology, such as aerostats (blimp-like surveillance systems) and ground sensors, which have also contributed to a sense of enhanced security in some areas by helping law enforcement track and intercept illegal activity. 

Of course, as demonstrated by the Biden Administration's complete lack of resolve, one can have all the tools available to secure what needs to be secured, but without the will to use those tools, nothing gets accomplished. President Trump has the resolve and the will to secure the border out of concern for us, the American people. That's why the improvement has occurred so quickly. That's why he hasn't passed the buck and made excuse after excuse while allowing an invasion to take place, as was the case during Biden's term in office.

With President Trump's return to office in January 2025, the total number of illegal border crossings and apprehensions has plummeted to record lows, with some data indicating the lowest levels in over half a century. So yes, as a result of a significant decrease in illegal crossings and increased enforcement, American ranchers and other folks along the border feel safer under President Trump's administration.

I remember being in contact with friends along the border during the Biden years, and they all said the same things: "Democrats don't care about us. They don't care about working folks, about farmers, about ranchers. They only care about letting Illegals in for votes. Democrats don't care if Illegals destroy our property, kill our livestock, steal our horses, rob us, shoot at us, try to kill us, or kill innocent Americans. Democrats just don't care."

I'm sure now ranchers and others along the border are "sleeping better" at night knowing that President Trump cares about their safety and security. After all, living with a sense of security is reassuring.

Tom Correa

I Was Taught Communism Is No Different Than Chattel Slavery

Let me state up front that I was taught, "Communism makes people slaves of an oppressive government." I was taught that people in Communist nations are treated as property of the state. Yes, really no different than the type of slavery that Americans fought a Civil War to abolish. 

While slavery is a broad term for forced labor, "chattel slavery" is where people are treated as absolute property (chattel). They are bought, sold, inherited, have no rights, and their children are also enslaved. Chattel slavery is dehumanization. This was the type of slavery that Americans fought the Civil War at the cost of more than 600,000 killed to end.

Chattel Slavery denies enslaved people any legal rights, identity, freedom, or liberty. It is a life lived in fear, totally controlled, cared for by Masters, with absolutely no say over their future. In a Communist state, the people are treated as legal property (chattel) of the government that has total control over their labor, body, and life. The people have absolutely no incentive to do a good job because there is no such thing as "prosperity" in Communism. Folks need to realize that Communist Central Planning produces economies that lead to food scarcity, poverty, and lack of innovation, despite all of the false promises and bluster of a utopian society. Such a society does not make for happy people. Slaves are not happy folks. They never have been. 

It is said that individuals in a Communist society "contribute according to their ability and receive according to their need." But the fact is that they only get what their master, the Communist government, wants them to have. That's why starvation was a real problem in the former Soviet Union. 

Communists have a system in which the state directs labor and owns property, limiting personal freedom and leading to forms of forced labor. The government, the state, controls production and directs labor, exactly like the Slave Masters in the South prior to 1865 directed a slave's labor in return for basic necessities. Communist masters make sure individuals have no real choice but to work for the state, making them, in effect, enslaved by the system. This is slavery since the alternative could mean hunger or imprisonment.

This is why I was taught that the Socialist and Communist concept of collectivism is a form of slavery.  It goes against the individual rights and freedoms we have as Americans. It runs completely counter to our core American principles of American individualism and free-market capitalism. 

We all need to understand that our system of free-market capitalism is what enables Americans, private individuals and businesses, to own what we produce, it's what enables us to compete in a market based on supply and demand. It enables us to set prices, produce, and distribute with minimal or no government interference. 

Our system of free-market capitalism promotes competition, innovation, and individual economic freedom. Our system emphasizes individual ownership of private property, thereby motivating us to generate profit through market forces. 

Individual Americans and private companies own property and resources rather than being subject to government control. Prices, wages, and production levels are set by market competition, not by the government. With the government's role limited to regulatory safety measures rather than production, it is restricted to protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and maintaining order. By doing this, American consumers dictate what is produced through their purchasing decisions. This is what pushes American businesses to compete for customers, driving efficiency and innovation. Free markets naturally generate economic growth and wealth with minimal government intervention.

As for using limited resources, such as how many people we need to hire, how much money we have to keep things running, and how we are going to pay for or buy new equipment to achieve our goals? That's not the government's problem. As a free people, we have the responsibility to work out those issues and more.

And yes, anyone in business will tell you it's all about maximizing output, minimizing waste, and satisfying customer needs. It's all about making sure you have the right resources, do the right things at the right time for the best results, all while preventing underuse or overuse. It's about strategic planning to boost productivity, keep costs down, meet objectives, and grow your business. 

American businesses practicing free-market capitalism have benefited our society through economic growth, job creation, and incentives to create, which have led to product development, innovation, competition, and the promotion of individual freedom. Through a legal framework, we have a system that operates on the principles of private ownership and voluntary transactions with minimal government intervention. 

The free market is a powerful engine for economic growth, creating wealth and raising the general standard of living. Small businesses alone have accounted for the majority of new jobs added to the U.S. economy in recent decades. Competition incentivizes businesses to constantly innovate, develop better products, and find more efficient ways to produce goods and services. This leads to technological advancements and a continuous cycle of progress. 

And yes, good old-fashioned competition among businesses results in a wide variety of goods and services and helps keep prices low. Consumers, by "voting with our dollars," determine which products succeed and which fail, which products make the market responsive to their demands and which ones don't.  

Businesses, particularly small local ones, contribute to the local tax base, enhance community identity, and engage in civic activities, all of which benefit the quality of life in an area. Our free-market capitalist system allows individuals to make their own economic choices, such as choosing a career path, starting a business, or deciding what to purchase. This freedom of choice fosters a sense of initiative, self-reliance, and personal fulfillment. This all gives Americans personal autonomy. 

This is a direct contrast with the failed practices of Socialism and Communism. Socialists and Communists are always pushing the lie that their "vision" of a "workers' paradise" benefits people when we've seen example after example in places like the former Soviet Union, in Cuba, China, and Venezuela of how Socialism and Communism have their leaders living lavishly. In contrast, their people are either starving or eating out of garbage cans -- all because their masters are making it that way. 

Price signals in a free-market capitalist economy help efficiently allocate resources to their most productive uses based on supply and demand. That's not the way it is with Communist Central Planning, where the government dictates and micromanages the lives of its subjects.  

That's the core difference between the core of American principles of American individualism and free-market capitalism versus Socialism and Communist-collectivism: Communist-collectivism puts the priority on a group's good over individual rights. This inevitably leads to coercion and a loss of personal freedom.

Communists and Socialists oppose American free-market capitalism because Capitalism gives individuals the freedom to be independent of government control. Capitalism affords individuals the ability to be their own person, free from government control. And yes, Communism is all about control.

Control of its subjects is key to Communist leaders staying in power. Communism puts the government in charge, and you, the individual, had better do as you're told. The government, the state, is the master. That's what I was taught, and that's what I've seen. Communism is slavery. You, the individual, are a slave to the government.   

History has shown the world that when Marxist-Leninist practices are put into place, as with the former Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao, citizens become subjects forced into specific jobs by the state. They work with zero incentive, zero motivation, no drive, just an unenthusiastic worker who is threatened to work or be treated as a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment or death in gulags and labor camps. 

This is why Communism is slavery. Under Socialism and Communism, the individual becomes a "slave to the collective," with no freedom to choose their occupation or the ability to leave the system without facing severe consequences.

As for an individual owning property?  Central to the application of Communism and Socialism is the abolition of private property. The idea is simple: under Communism, the government is your master, and they own everything, including you and your future. 

By depriving people, their subjects, of owning property, Communist governments remove an individual's independent means of survival and self-expression, making them entirely dependent on the collective or the state that manages it. This dependence is viewed as a form of control that undermines personal autonomy.

Communist-style collectivism is authoritarian and forces the individual to bow. To enforce the collective will, individual dissent is suppressed. And yes, that's why Communist China has forced labor camps, and "reeducation camps," where political prisoners, intellectuals, and "counter-revolutionaries" are silenced, imprisoned, or killed. 

As once described to me, Communism is a system of government where one entity, the government, is in the role of the master, and controls its subjects, who are placed in the role of slaves because their lives are controlled by the government. Threats and coercion enforce the dependency of the slave on the will of the master. That's how slavery works.

The suppression of dissent, restrictions on movement, like building walls to keep people in, instead of building walls to keep invaders out, and severe punishments for non-compliance, resemble the lack of freedom in slavery. Communist countries are compared to systems of slavery because the state directs labor, takes the results, and provides basic necessities in return, with citizens often not permitted to leave. Yes, this includes the use of "working booklets" in the Soviet Union, in which employers recorded and retained an individual's employment history, making it difficult or impossible to find work after being dismissed. 

The former Soviet Union tried to make Communism work from the start of Communist rule in 1917 to its collapse in 1991. The Soviet Union functioned as a Communist state for approximately 74 years. And yes, they couldn't make Communism work. In fact, the Communists had convinced their people that the state would take care of them to such an extent that the government threatened their people with going to prison if they didn't work. In fact, because their people had no incentive to work or hold a job,  the government put their people in prison for being unemployed.  

In practice, Communist countries have the government as the sole employer. It dictates where and how people work, and Communist governments remove any sort of voluntary choice. That's a key difference from American capitalism, where citizens have the "Individual Freedom" to choose their employers, quit a job they don't like, start their own business, and do so without worrying about or needing the government's approval. 

If you think I'm exaggerating. I'm not. A master directing a slave's labor and the state directing workers' labor in a Communist system, with the state providing basic needs in return, is no different than anything that took place in the South's slave practices before 1865, when the Civil War ended. And yes,  back in the day when black slaves were owned by masters in the South, every slave understood one undeniable truth: The master that you rely on to give you what you need is also the master who has the power to starve you. 

When you rely on the government to feed you, you give the government the power to starve you. And that's why Socialism, and ultimately Communism, has never worked.  

Communism has always been what it still is today: An ideology of fear and suspicion, of authoritarian total control, micro-managing lives, a life living under a constant threat of government persecution, an ideology that suppresses any sort of personal freedom to remain in power. That's why Communism is fundamentally opposed to individual liberty. That's why Communism is slavery. Communists think they own their people.

Update:                                                           

What's amazing to me is how Democrats believe they can make Socialism and Communism work in America because of wealthy Americans who they can tax to fund their dream. They refuse to see that even an oil-rich nation like Venezuela didn't have enough money to make that failed Socialist economy work. 

Venezuela is just one more example of failed Socialism and a horribly corrupt Communist state. But Democrats here refuse to recognize that, and that Venezuela's liberation from Socialism has Venezuelans dancing in the streets. 

Democrats refuse to understand that Venezuelans feel liberated after living through Socialism's mass starvation and government oppression. They are dancing in the streets, waving American flags, because they have been a country enslaved that is now free. Now they have been liberated. And sadly, none of that is enough to convince Democrats that Socialism and Communism are slavery. 

Tom Correa

CSIS 2025 Report: Left-Wing Terrorism and Political Violence in the United States: What the Data Tells Us

Brief by Daniel Byman and Riley McCabe

Published September 25, 2025

The Issue

In recent years, the United States has seen an increase in the number of left-wing terrorism attacks and plots, although such violence has risen from very low levels and remains much lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers. So far, 2025 marks the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing terrorist attacks outnumber those from the violent far right. Despite its decline this year, right-wing terrorism could easily return to previous high levels. It is important to resource counterterrorism efforts against both right- and left-wing terrorism and work with communities to gain their support against extremists. Leaders across the political spectrum must condemn violent extremism of all kinds, denying it legitimacy and reducing its appeal.

Introduction

The tragic killing of political commentator and conservative activist Charlie Kirk has once again put the spotlight on political violence in the United States, with figures on both sides of the political aisle decrying extremism on the other. To understand the danger of political violence today and to find the best solutions for reducing it, it is important to understand the overall threat landscape and how both left- and right-wing violence have evolved and could change in the future.

Our analysis of terrorism trends in the United States shows that, indeed, left-wing violence has risen in the last 10 years, particularly since President Donald Trump’s rise to political prominence in 2016, although it has risen from very low levels and remains much lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers. More contentious politics in the United States and the expansion of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement appear to have reenergized violent left-wing extremists. The left-wing movement as a whole has not returned to its violent heights of the 1960s and 1970s, but the number of terrorist incidents involving left-wing extremists so far this year puts 2025 on pace to be the left’s most violent year in more than three decades. Moreover, 2025 marks the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing attacks outnumber those from the far right.

Indeed, the increase in left-wing attacks is particularly noticeable because attacks from right-wing perpetrators have sharply declined in 2025. This decline is striking, and explanations are speculative. One possibility is that many traditional grievances that violent right-wing extremists have espoused in the past—opposition to abortion, hostility to immigration, and suspicions of government agencies, among others—are now embraced by President Trump and his administration.

Similarly, jihadist attacks have declined in frequency since their peak in the 2010s, owing largely to the destruction of major groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State and the subsequent decline in the power of the jihadist ideology to inspire attackers.

Left-wing attacks are remarkably less lethal overall than jihadist or right-wing attacks. However, even incidents that do not result in mass casualties can still have a significant impact. Fortunately, many left-wing attackers (though not all) have demonstrated limited skill in carrying out violence, and the movement is disorganized, with little formal coordination.

The rise in left-wing attacks merits increased attention, but the fall in right-wing attacks is probably temporary, and it too requires a government response. In any case, many of the prescriptions for fighting terrorism effectively apply to violence from both the left and right. These include ensuring proper counterterrorism resourcing, avoiding overreactions, and having leadership unequivocally condemn such attacks.

The remainder of this brief is divided into six sections. First, terms such as “left-wing” and “terrorism” are defined. Second, trends in left-wing terrorism in the United States are analyzed, with an emphasis on the increase in the number of incidents since 2016. Third, the causes of the rise of left-wing incidents are assessed. Fourth, weaknesses that limit the impact of left-wing terrorism are examined. Fifth, possible reasons for the decline in right-wing and jihadist terrorism are discussed. The sixth and final section discusses several policy implications that can help combat violence from perpetrators across the political spectrum.

Definitions

This analysis defines terrorism as the deliberate use or threat of premeditated violence by nonstate actors with the intent to achieve political goals by creating a broad psychological impact. Using this definition, CSIS researchers compiled and analyzed a dataset of 750 terrorist attacks and plots in the United States between January 1, 1994, and July 4, 2025. The dataset includes information such as incident date, location, target and location type, weapon used, and victim fatalities, as well as perpetrator age, sex, ideology, group affiliation, and current or former affiliation with the military or law enforcement. A full methodology and codebook for the dataset is available at CSIS.org.

This brief defines left-wing terrorism as that which is motivated by an opposition to capitalism, imperialism, or colonialism; black nationalism; support for LGBTQ+ rights; support for environmental causes or animal rights; adherence to pro-communist, pro-socialist beliefs or “anti-fascist” rhetoric; opposition to government authority under the belief it is a tool of oppression responsible for social injustices; support for decentralized political and social systems, such as anarchism; or partisan extremism, where violence is justified against political opponents and parties perceived as advancing right-wing agendas.

Right-wing terrorism as used in this analysis includes incidents motivated by ideas of racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to government authority, believing it is tyrannical and illegitimate; misogyny, including incels; hatred based on sexuality or gender identity; belief in the QAnon conspiracy theory; opposition to abortion; or partisan extremism, where violence is justified against political opponents and parties perceived as advancing left-wing agendas.

Note that terms such as “left-wing terrorism” and “right-wing terrorism” as used in this brief do not correspond to mainstream political parties in the United States, such as the Democratic and Republican parties, nor do they correspond to the overwhelming majority of political liberals and conservatives in the United States.

In many cases, a clear ideological categorization of perpetrators is difficult. Former FBI Director Christopher Wray once referred to a “salad bar of ideologies,” where perpetrators of violence choose among an array of causes, many of which do not align with a traditional right-left dichotomy or other easy ideological classification. In other cases, perpetrators may not have political motives despite their targets. 

For example, Thomas Crooks, who tried to assassinate then-candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024, reportedly searched online before his attack for locations where both Trump and then-President Joe Biden would be publicly speaking. While it is possible Crooks had political motives, FBI reports, and journalist investigations suggest the explanation was more likely a mix of personal issues.

Left-Wing Terrorism Incidents Are on the Rise

The first half of 2025 was marked by an increase in left-wing terrorist attacks and plots in the United States, which continues a trend noticeable over the last decade. In absolute terms, left-wing incidents are on track in 2025 to reach historically high levels in the last 30 years.

From 1994 through 2000, there was an average of 0.6 left-wing incidents annually; in the following decade, that figure doubled to 1.3 a year. Numbers began to grow substantially, however, in 2016, and from 2016 to 2024, they averaged 4.0 a year. Through July 4, 2025 (thus excluding the Kirk attack), there were five left-wing attacks or plots, which sets a trajectory for a record-breaking year in the last 30 years.

This elevated number of left-wing incidents is even more striking when compared with the number of incidents classified under other ideological orientations. Left-wing terrorist attacks and plots as a percentage of all terrorist attacks and plots were at a record high in the first half 2025, although the decline of other forms of terrorism plays a significant role in this relative increase.

Indeed, a dramatic decline in right-wing incidents in 2025 has contributed significantly to the relative increase in left-wing incidents. So far, 2025 is the first year in the CSIS data where the number of left-wing incidents is greater than the number of right-wing ones.

Though the number of left-wing terrorist attacks and plots is experiencing a rise, the effectiveness of perpetrators typically remains limited. Although left-wing perpetrators often carry out their plans, they rarely do so with deadly effect. Two metrics illustrate this dynamic.

First, a large share of left-wing plots succeed in becoming actual attacks. In 2025, of the five left-wing incidents that occurred before July 4, four were attacks carried out, and only one was a disrupted plot. This continues a long-standing pattern. 

The number of left-wing attacks carried out is typically much greater than the number of plots disrupted. This trend is mirrored in right-wing and ethnonationalist incidents and is likely influenced by bias in data collection. That is, incomplete public information means disrupted plots are likely undercounted.

By contrast, jihadist incidents exhibit the opposite pattern. Disrupted plots are far more common than successful attacks, probably a reflection of decades of intense intelligence and law enforcement focus on jihadist activity after 9/11, as well as the far greater media publicity given to disrupted jihadist attacks, which enables greater data collection.

The fact that left-wing plots so often result in completed attacks elevates the significance of the recent rise in incidents because it indicates that the recent increase is likely to translate into realized violence.

Second, despite the rise in the number of left-wing incidents and the likelihood that such incidents involve realized violence, the lethality of left-wing attacks remains very low. Left-wing attacks are overwhelmingly non-lethal and far less lethal compared with other ideological orientations. 

Since 2020, only two fatalities have resulted from left-wing terrorist attacks in the United States: Luigi Mangione’s assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City in December 2024 and Michael Reinoehl’s fatal shooting of right-wing protester Aaron Danielson in Portland, Oregon, in August 2020 (if the Kirk killing is included, as seems likely, it would be a third fatality). Right-wing and jihadist attacks, by contrast, have caused far higher fatalities.

In the past decade, despite the increase in the number of left-wing incidents, left-wing attacks have killed 13 victims, compared with 112 and 82 victims for right-wing and jihadist attacks, respectively. Some of the key factors driving these dramatic discrepancies are explored in a later section of this brief.

What’s Causing the Rise in Left-Wing Incidents?

The increase in left-wing incidents in the past decade is driven by plots and attacks directed at government and law enforcement targets. Of the 41 left-wing incidents since 2016, anti-government extremism motivated 17 of them, and partisan extremism motivated another 11. 

All left-wing attacks through July 4, 2025, appeared to be motivated by one of these ideologies, and the Kirk killing fits this pattern, although details about Kirk’s alleged killer are still emerging.

The only significant break from this trend was a surge of six left-wing firebombings against pro-life targets (pregnancy crisis centers and the office of an anti-abortion group) in the summer of 2022 around the time of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. These attacks were intentionally perpetrated at night against unoccupied buildings to reduce (though not eliminate) the risk to people.

To understand rising left-wing violence, it is useful to distinguish between partisan extremism and anti-government extremism.

Partisan extremism includes attacks and plots against elected officials, political candidates, political party officials, and political staff and workers from terrorists with opposing political views. 

For example, on January 28, 2025, U.S. Capitol Police arrested Riley Jane English, a 24-year-old from Massachusetts, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., after she approached officers and revealed she was carrying a folding knife, two Molotov cocktails, and a lighter. 

According to prosecutors, English said she intended to kill senior U.S. officials, initially identifying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom she described as a “Nazi,” before shifting her focus to House Speaker Mike Johnson and then to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. She also expressed a desire to attack the conservative Heritage Foundation.

In a separate incident on March 30, 2025, an assailant set fire to the headquarters of the Republican Party of New Mexico in Albuquerque, igniting the entrance late at night. Graffiti reading “ICE = KKK” was spray-painted on a wall near the site.

Attacks such as English’s plot to assassinate senior officials and the arson of the Republican Party’s New Mexico headquarters reflects the most severe effects of polarization in the United States. A variety of survey data underscores that this issue is widespread and worsening. 

In 2016, fewer than half of Republicans or Democrats described the opposing side as immoral, dishonest, or unintelligent. By 2022, however, most Republicans described Democrats as immoral (72 percent), dishonest (63 percent), and unintelligent (70 percent), while most Democrats said the same of Republicans (64 percent, 61 percent, and 52 percent, respectively).

Similarly, while less than 4 percent of Americans express support for partisan violence such as assault, arson, or murder, both sides greatly overestimate their opponent’s willingness to endorse such actions, with Democrats believing 45.5 percent of Republicans support partisan murder, and Republicans believing that 42 percent of Democrats do.

Although the vast majority of Americans would never commit partisan violence and oppose it, widespread polarization and misperceptions that the other side is far more violent than it actually is creates a dangerous environment where extremists can more easily rationalize using violence. 

Growth in even a tiny minority who are willing to commit partisan violence has the potential for tremendous consequences considering the combustible political climate in the United States and the fact that symbolic and strategically important political leaders are among the potential targets.

In addition to partisan extremism, anti-government extremism has also become more pronounced as a motive for left-wing attacks in 2025, particularly around the issue of immigration.

In one incident on July 4, 2025, a group attacked the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas. According to federal prosecutors and law enforcement statements, approximately a dozen individuals dressed in black clothing and equipped with tactical gear initiated the attack by detonating fireworks and spray-painting anti-ICE graffiti on vehicles and structures outside the facility. 

When an Alvarado police officer responded to the scene, an assailant positioned in a nearby wooded area opened fire, wounding the officer in the neck. Meanwhile, another individual reportedly fired 20 to 30 live rounds at unarmed ICE correctional officers outside the facility. 

Law enforcement subsequently apprehended 14 suspects, who now face federal charges including attempted murder of federal officers and firearm-related offenses. Searches uncovered AR-style rifles, a pistol, body armor, two-way radios, spray paint, and flyers with anti-ICE slogans. One of the alleged attackers stored cellphones inside Faraday bags, which are used to block signals and indicate premeditated efforts to evade law enforcement tracking.

Traditionally, anti-government extremism refers to violence aimed at state institutions viewed as illegitimate or oppressive, whereas partisan extremism targets specific political figures or individuals based on party affiliation. 

As events such as the Prairieland ICE attack suggest, left-wing opposition to the Trump administration in 2025 often manifests as both: rejecting its political leadership and resisting its efforts to expand the authority of military and law enforcement institutions. Together, partisan and anti-government extremism help explain why 2025 has seen an escalation of left-wing violence, as opposition to the Trump administration fuels attacks against both its political leadership and the state institutions that carry out its agenda.

Left-Wing Weaknesses

Despite the rise in the number of left-wing terrorist incidents, there exist several characteristics and conditions that limit the scale and sophistication of attacks. The overall low lethality rates in left-wing attacks are probably attributable to several factors, including target selection, target scope, tactical methods employed, low levels of perpetrator skill, and counterterrorism measures.

First, left-wing perpetrators typically select targets that limit opportunities for mass killing. In the past decade, left-wing attacks most commonly occurred at government or law enforcement facilities. These locations are often protected by physical fortifications and security personnel, making it more difficult for perpetrators to kill targets during an attack. 

For example, in the July 2025 attack on ICE’s Prairieland Detention Facility, one police officer was wounded before additional law enforcement forced the attackers to flee. The attackers’ choice of a hardened federal compound with security personnel on site contributed to the attack’s failure to kill any victims. This contrasts with jihadist attacks, which most commonly target crowded public areas with limited or no security measures, such as the car ramming attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans on January 1, 2025, that killed 14 victims.

Second, left-wing violence is often narrowly directed at specific individuals rather than indiscriminate killings of civilians. Most notably, 10 of the 13 victim fatalities from left-wing attacks in the past decade have been police officers ambushed in public areas by attackers using firearms. This pattern underscores that even the deadliest left-wing attacks have tended to focus on targeted confrontations with law enforcement rather than mass-casualty events.

Third, left-wing perpetrators frequently employ tactical methods poorly suited to producing mass casualties. 

In the past decade, 20 of 35 left-wing attacks have involved the use of incendiaries or arson as the primary weapon. Incendiaries and acts of arson typically lack precision, resulting in damage that can be severe but not necessarily lethal. In some cases, the arson was done at night, which further reduced the likelihood of fatalities because the targets were often sites that were largely unoccupied.

Taken together, the typical target selection, scope, and weapon selection of left-wing attackers reflect an intent to signal opposition or cause disruption rather than inflict mass casualties.

Fourth, left-wing perpetrators frequently lack the weapons and tactical training to maximize their impact. 

For example, on February 14, 2022, Quintez Brown, a 21-year-old black nationalist, entered the Louisville campaign office of Democratic mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg with a 9mm pistol. Prosecutors argued that Brown saw himself as an “equalizer” striking at a symbol of gentrification and oppression. Despite firing multiple rounds at point-blank range, Brown missed his target, with one bullet only grazing Greenberg’s sweater.

Fifth, unlike many foreign terrorist organizations with centralized leadership, funding, and training infrastructures, left-wing terrorists, like most terrorist actors in the United States, operate as loosely affiliated networks or as lone individuals, limiting their ability to train and to plan and execute complex operations. 

Social and technological factors, including online radicalization, often result in isolated actors lacking the resources, expertise, or coordination needed for sophisticated attacks.

The lack of organization also creates a multiplicity of competing goals that hinders strategic effectiveness. Like their right-wing counterparts, left-wing terrorists are against many things, and there is no clear prioritization of targets within the movement. Similarly, they are unable to calibrate violence, making it more likely to backfire.

Sixth and finally, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have developed robust counterterrorism measures, particularly since 9/11, that disrupt plots and largely deter large-scale attack planning across all ideologies. Legal restrictions, such as controls on explosives and surveillance of known extremist networks, further constrain terrorist operational capacity. 

Social media, in addition to enabling radicalization, also hinders operational security, revealing intentions and possible actions of individuals who, in the past, might have remained undetected. Combined, these dynamics help ensure that, while the threat of terrorism remains, the capacity of all U.S.-based terrorist movements to execute attacks is significantly diminished.

Why Have Jihadists and Right-Wing Incidents Fallen?

Explaining non-events, such as why attacks from rival ideological groups and individuals have fallen, is always difficult, but there are several possible reasons for the decline in jihadist and right-wing terrorism.

For jihadists, the main foreign terrorist groups in recent years—al Qaeda and the Islamic State—are far weaker than they were at their peaks. The United States and its allies have killed group leaders, often leaving them in disarray. 

Al Qaeda, for example, still has not named a successor since the death of Ayman al-Zawahiri in 2022. The Islamic State likewise has lost numerous leaders, and it no longer has an above-ground caliphate where it can train people. 

In both cases, the losses have made the group less inspiring, although some bottom-up radicalization remains a concern. Finally, factors like aggressive law enforcement and a U.S. Muslim community that collaborates with law enforcement lead many would-be attackers to be caught in early stages of plotting.

The sudden decline in right-wing terrorism is both more striking and harder to explain. From 1994 through 2000, there was an average of 21 right-wing attacks or plots each year. In the following decade, right-wing incidents fell to an average of 7 annually. From 2011 through 2024, right-wing incidents climbed back up to an average of 20 a year. 

In the first half of 2025, however, there was only one right-wing terrorist incident in the United States—the killing of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband in June—a remarkable drop off.

Aggressive law enforcement efforts under former President Biden hurt the right-wing extremist movement, with the January 6 investigation in particular causing disarray. The U.S. government brought charges against over 1,000 individuals, including many leaders of groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. 

In addition, like left-wing terrorism, right-wing terrorism is highly decentralized, and the vast majority of the most lethal attacks in the last 10 years have been perpetrated by lone actors linked to various networks but not tied to any group.

Trump’s election, however, appears to have changed the threat. Although it is impossible to definitively prove the link between the policies of and positions championed in Trump’s second term and the decline in right-wing terrorism incidents in the United States, it is probable that at least some extremists do not feel the need to act violently if their concerns are being addressed.

Most notably, the administration has aggressively targeted immigrants, with high-profile efforts to identify, detain, and deport them. Anti-immigrant sentiment is one of the most important violent extremist motivations in recent years. The Trump administration has also warned of “deep state” abuses, criticized and abolished programs involving diversity, promoted some conspiracy theories, and hired individuals who openly embraced white supremacy. 

In addition, Trump’s victory temporarily ended many concerns about a Democrat-orchestrated “stolen election,” a leading conspiracy that motivated many extremists in the past. Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader and a convicted seditionist whom Trump pardoned, recently summed up the president’s potential psychological effect on the violent far right: “Honestly, what do we have to complain about these days?”

At the same time, it is important to stress that correlation does not mean direct causation. The administration’s rhetoric and policies may overlap with themes found in extremist discourse, but that does not necessarily imply intent to encourage violence. 

Rather, extremist actors may perceive mainstream political validation of their grievances as reducing the need for independent mobilization or, more concerningly, as tacit endorsement of their worldview in situations where the administration faces resistance or does go far enough in the eyes of an extremist.

What Is to Be Done?

The best responses to the Kirk killing and political violence from any source involve few theatrics but can be highly effective.

First, the government should avoid overreacting with crackdowns on peaceful organizations, which will serve to strengthen extremist views. Radicals will argue that peaceful politics will inevitably fail and that only violence will make a difference. In response to the Kirk killing, President Trump warned that a “radical left group of lunatics” are engaged in a campaign of violence. 

Other conservative voices, from members of Congress to online influencers, have similarly claimed that the left is engaged in “war.” Kirk’s shooter appears to have acted alone, but Trump has claimed that a network of political organizations fund and support violence, and must be neutralized—a threat that, if acted on, could lead to government action against an array of non-violent organizations whose political positions were anti-Kirk and are anti-Trump. These actions will be counterproductive for combatting terrorist threats.

Second, it is important to resource all dimensions of the terrorism threat. Left-wing terrorism is a Trump administration priority, but jihadist terrorism also remains a concern even though it has declined. Right-wing terrorism could come roaring back, especially if in 2028 there are complaints of a “stolen election” or similar incendiary claims. Developing the programs and expertise to suppress different forms of terrorism takes years, and ignoring a long-term threat to go after a more immediate one could be deadly over time.

Finally, although leaders are not responsible for extremists in their midst, they are responsible for how they behave toward extremists. U.S. political leaders and activists need to lead by condemning violence on their side and calling for calm when it involves violence on the other side. The American Muslim response to jihadist terrorism offers a useful model. Muslim leaders came together to repeatedly condemn jihadist violence, and this reduces the appeal of terrorism. 

When the mainstream condemns an attack, the individual is less likely to be seen, and see themselves, as a hero or successful agitator, and the community as a whole is more likely to work with law enforcement.

Many leading Democrats have vehemently condemned the Kirk shooting. For their part, many prominent Republicans also immediately condemned right-wing attacks in recent years, including the assassination of Hortman earlier this year and the attack on Paul Pelosi in 2022. But the track record is far from perfect. 

The celebrations among some on the left of Luigi Mangione is a failure to undermine support for left-wing violence. Similarly, the failure of some conservative leaders to condemn white supremacists and other violent extremists is a major problem, allowing these extremists to believe they are carrying out the will of a broader political movement.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox has served as a model in unequivocally denouncing extremists. Cox described Kirk’s killing as “an attack on all of us.” And he offered a simple exhortation that would benefit both sides, particularly in moments like these, when violence can spiral: “Disagree better.”

Daniel Byman is the director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. 

Riley McCabe is an associate fellow for the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at CSIS.

This report is made possible by general support to CSIS. No direct sponsorship contributed to this report.

CSIS Briefs are produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2025 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Appendix: What Is Excluded?

This analysis excludes a number of incidents that further contribute to the perception of an increase in left-wing violent activity in 2025. Different definitions and coding might legitimately include these, but the explanation below details why they are excluded from this dataset.

The definition of terrorism used here excludes the series of attacks against Tesla vehicles and facilities. There were more than 20 such incidents in the United States from January to April 2025. Attacks on Tesla in the United States were linked to individuals expressing opposition to CEO Elon Musk’s political affiliations, particularly his role and actions in the Trump administration. Although the CSIS study team determined these attacks were incidents of economic vandalism rather than terrorism, many involved substantial property destruction and drew sharp condemnation from the Trump administration and the Department of Justice. In some cases, prosecutors have even sought terrorism enhancements in charging decisions. Although excluded from this dataset, these highly publicized incidents attracted significant attention and reinforced the perception of escalating left-wing violence in 2025.

There were three high-profile terrorist attacks in the United States in the first half of 2025 motivated by the conflict between Israel and Palestine. These include the April arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s residence, a May shooting that killed two Israeli Embassy staff in Washington, D.C., and a June firebombing of a pro-Israel solidarity walk in Boulder that injured 15 demonstrators. In this dataset, these attacks are classified as ethnonationalist incidents, rather than left-wing ones. However, it is noteworthy that all three incidents involved attackers motivated by opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza or U.S. support for Israel—a political position traditionally (though not always) associated with left-wing politics in the United States.

Finally, political demonstrations against immigration and customs enforcement activity across the United States in 2025 also resulted in many violent encounters, namely between law enforcement and demonstrators. However, most of these incidents did not reach a level of violence that satisfied this study’s definition of terrorism, and they were not intended to cause a broad psychological effect. Nonetheless, they too contributed to the perception of growing left-wing violence.

-- end of 2025 Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) report on the rise of Left-Wing Terrorism and Political Violence in the United States: What the Data Tells Us

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is not a U.S. government agency. It is a private, non-profit, bipartisan think tank that provides independent policy research, though it receives funding from government (both U.S. and foreign), and works with policymakers, making it an influential voice in international security and public policy. CSIS acts as a strategic planning partner for the U.S. government by providing independent analysis, policy recommendations, and expert testimony to Congress and the executive branch. It advises the U.S. Congress, the President, and others and serves as a significant source of policy recommendations.

I know this is a long read. I also know this type of report is highly focused on intricate details. But, because I've seen the violence coming from the Left for years and haven't seen the violence from the Right that they always talk about, I figured I'd post what the experts are saying about the subject of political violence. And frankly, I hope you found it interesting to see how experts are debunking the Democrat Party's propaganda -- their lie trying to blame political violence in America on Conservative and specifically Trump Supporters like you and me. 

As usual, I'm posting this as it was published. It should be noted that this report included charts and graphs, which I'm unable to post here.

I know this isn't an Old West story or something dealing with horses, cattle, firearms, or the Cowboy life. But really, it has to do with our recognizing the truth of what has been taking place in America for a while now. 

Tom Correa

Say Merry Christmas - Vocal Carrie Rinderer and the American Christian L...

I love this video. It's a great message, perfectly appropriate for this time of year. Yes, especially because Democrats and Muslims want to say that the United States, which is the largest Christian nation in the World, is not a Christian nation.

The video addresses the persecution of Christians and the efforts made by Democrats, Liberals, and the Leftist Socialist Communists out there to dismiss the reason for the season. And really, there's no getting around it or denying it, Liberal Atheist Communists and Muslims are truly bothered that we Christians celebrate Christmas with the fanfare that we do.

Remember, during the Biden Administration, businesses such as Walmart openly threatened employees with termination for saying "Merry Christmas." Instead, they told their employees to say, "Happy Holidays" just so no one offends people who identify as Democrats, Socialists, Atheists, and Muslims.

Well, I will not give any store a dime's worth of my business if I find out they consider my saying "Merry Christmas" offensive. More importantly, because no employee should be threatened with disciplinary action for saying "Merry Christmas," I will either complain to their management or boycott that store if they take disciplinary action against an employee for wishing me a "Merry Christmas" in return.

I hope you enjoy the video and the message.

Say "Merry Christmas" -- the lyrics

If you don't see Merry Christmas in the window. 

Yes! You walk right by that door.

Oh, it's all about the little baby Jesus and my Savior's birth.

It's the one and only reason that we celebrate the season, 

Wishing love to all, and peace upon the earth.

If you don't hear "Merry Christmas" when they greet you 

When you're walking through the store

Simply turn and say, "It's very nice to meet you," 

As you walk right out that door.

Words are chosen every year to hide its Christmas, the reason for our holiday.

They're not happy with what we're singing, but they want their tills a-ringing.

Trying to sell my Christmas every other way, 

Come and stand out from the crowd, 

Say Merry Christmas, and be proud.

Christmas isn't just another holiday. 

What would be missing, now let's see, if not for the Christmas nativity?

No silent night or first noels, No Santa's sleigh,

No jingle bells, no star atop the Christmas tree, no special day for family

No bells that ring for angel's wings

No dolls and trains that Santa brings

No drummer boy or Tiny Tim

No, Mr. Scrooge, we all know him

No list of those who've been good or bad

Well, maybe that won't be too sad.

No candy canes or mistletoe

No Christmas lights out in the snow.

No stockings hung with so much care, hoping Santa finds them there.

And one more thing, there wouldn't be no partridge in a rum pum pum pum.

If you don't see Merry Christmas in the window,

No, you don't go in that store.

If you don't see Merry Christmas in the window. 

Yes! You walk right by that door.

If you don't believe the reasons for my Christmas, then it's sure okay with me.

Please don't tell me what to say, or what music I can play, 

After all, my Christmas is my special day.

Come and stand out from the crowd, 

Say "Merry Christmas," and be proud. 

Christmas isn't just another holiday.

-- end lyrics.

The song is performed by American Christian Life United (ACLU) Choir with the vocals by Carrie Rinderer.

If you agree with this song, then you're obviously tired of getting pushed around by Liberals, Atheists, Democrats, and Muslims who are trying to make America into something that we're not. After hearing the song and watching the video, join us in standing up to those who want us to bow to their wishes and downplay our love for Christmas. 

Let's remember that we are not a nation that bows to the demands of Political Correctness, Muslims, and those with authoritarian dreams of ruling us, those who want us to stop celebrating the birth of Christ as we do. Let's celebrate the wonder of Christmas. Let's keep saying "Merry Christmas." And yes, let's get others to keep the spirit of Christmas year-round with us. 

From my family to yours, Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you!

Tom Correa