The 2024 Presidential election season is now underway and as campaign rhetoric heats up, so do the passions of many citizens across the political spectrum. While this time is an exercise in the fundamental values and institutions of democracy, as two seasoned analysts of American domestic violent extremism, we are also aware it is a period when the risk of political violence is elevated.
While much of this attention is understandably and rightfully directed toward the threat posed by far-right actors—which, in our assessment remains the biggest domestic threat to the U.S. homeland—it is important to not lose sight of potentially dangerous actors on the far-left, either. Their intent and capacity for violence, including lethal attacks, cannot be overlooked, or overestimated.
Who Are Violent Far-Left Extremists?
Before describing our assessment, first, a word about who violent far-leftists are. When speaking of the “far-left,” we’re referring to actors who hold beliefs that favor social egalitarianism but are otherwise hostile to the procedural and behavioral norms of liberal democracy, namely manifesting ideas and behaviors that are illiberal and/or authoritarian. Our research suggests there are four main sub-ideological types of U.S. violent far-leftists:
- Extremist strands of left-wing Black nationalists
- Left-wing Anarchist extremists
- Anti-fascist extremists (aka “antifa”)
- Ecological extremists
We discuss the specifics who these actors are and what they believe in our recent publication on domestic violent far-leftist extremism. What’s important to note here is that while sometimes overlapping with each other in terms movement supporters and beliefs, they nevertheless represent distinct sub-currents within a wider far-left milieu. In other words, violent far-leftists are not a monolithic and cannot be reduced to a single belief like antifa.
Background and Drivers of Mobilization
Violent far-leftists were extremely active during the Cold War, constituting the pre-dominant terrorist threat during the 1970s. After the dissolution of the USSR, violent far-leftist attacks were overtaken in terms of casualty counts by violent far-right and violent Islamist actors in the 1990s to the mid 2010s. For a short period of time between the late 1990s and early 2000s, violent ecological extremists, in the form of animal rights and environmental extremists, constituted the primary threat. By the early to mid-2000s this activity sharply declined due to a combination of societal backlash and law enforcement responses.
Since the mid-2010s, there has been a resurgence of far-leftist armed mobilization. They have been energized by a variety of issues such as minority rights, growing negative impacts of climate change, economic inequality, threats to democratic norms and institutions, a desire to counter-mobilize against a resurgent far-right movement, and most recently, violence in Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
Modus Operandi
As we pointed out earlier, violent far-leftists manifest sub-ideological diversity. This is important to note because their underlying belief sets largely inform targeting behaviors. For example, eco-extremists will be primarily focused on specific issues and events related to climate change and environmental damage, whereas left-wing Black nationalists are largely mobilized by events related to police brutality and overreach.
With that in mind, however, violent far-leftists often cooperate across sub-ideological lines where they perceive intersectional struggles (where issue interests overlap). The intense high-profile opposition to the planned “Cop City” facility in Atlanta is illustrative in this regard. Local reporting suggests the opposition group called the Forest Defenders is an ad hoc coalition of actors expressing Marxist, left-wing anarchist, and anti-fascist beliefs, driven by a combination of ecological, anti-police, and racial justice views. While most of their activities have been non-violent, some group supporters have used violence to advance their cause.
The general trend of violent far-leftist targeting has been directed at property. Far-leftists tend to favor a variety of physical “direct action” behaviors that, according to one online guide to direct action written by anonymous movement insiders, “can take many different forms, from occupying buildings or blocking roads, to more disruptive actions such as property damage or violence.” The more unlawful and physically destructive behaviors include acts of harassment, vandalism, sabotage, arson, and assault using melee weapons or no weapons. In more extreme cases, detailed in our publication, this can include stabbings, shootings, vehicular assault, kidnappings, and explosions.
To the extent that far-left violence is directed at people, it is mostly and intentionally non-fatal. This is due to operational and ideological preferences that favor inflicting economic damage (e.g., ending capitalism) and bringing attention to specific issues rather than harming civilians (though an exception to this trend is fatal attacks targeting police officers). Yet, we have noted in previous assessments, there are also signs of possible growing intent to kill non-police civilians, suggesting internal constraints against generating fatalities are eroding.
This erosion has to do largely with societal factors (e.g. counter-mobilization against armed far-rightists) but is also enabled by far-leftists’ ideologically and operationally motivated eschewal of formal organizational structures. In addition to mitigating the risk of law enforcement infiltration, due to a belief in radical egalitarianism, many violent far-leftists reject the idea of hierarchical groups altogether. The lack of command-and-control structures that can constrain the impulses and behaviors of otherwise fringe individuals, enables them to slide into violence easier.
Forecast
We assess a substantially increased risk of social turmoil and political violence by violent far-left extremists for at least the next 12 months as the United States enters its national election season. Political tensions arising from many of the issues driving far-left mobilization are intensifying and exacerbated by the likely presidential candidacy of incendiary former President Donald Trump. Beyond the effects of former President Trump, the United States has been confronted a deeper and longstanding socio-political polarization. Coupled with growing multi-faceted domestic and international issues and conflicts, this will continue to fuel rallies and civil disturbances by both the far left and far right. Such gatherings could lead to another round of violent outbreaks between competing protest groups, or worse. Competing armed political assemblies held near each other are at an especially elevated risk of becoming violent.
Finally, in terms of operational practices, there is nothing to suggest that violent far-leftists will change their general organizational approach; decentralized and leaderless structures are used to avoid law enforcement scrutiny. Violent far-right extremists who fuel counter-mobilization from violent far-left extremists will be especially energized in 2024.
