People on the left are much likelier to defend and celebrate political violence.

Multiple authoritative studies and data sources indicate that political violence in the United States is primarily committed by right-wing extremist groups rather than left-wing ones. For example, comprehensive research from the University of Maryland and published analyses in PNAS find that right-wing extremists are more frequently involved in violent attacks compared to left-wing extremists. The Journal of Democracy also confirms that while incidents from the left have risen recently, the overwhelming majority of political violence still originates from the right. At the same time, some sources note an increase in far-left militancy and political violence, especially in response to specific political events such as the Trump presidency. Commentary Magazine and Washington Stand present opinionated perspectives suggesting that some on the left may excuse or legitimize political violence, but these are more interpretive commentaries rather than empirical evidence of widespread defense or celebration.start.umd.edustart.umd.eduA Comparison of Political Violence by Left-wing, Right-wing and Islamist...ccjs.umd.educcjs.umd.eduUMD-Led Study Shows Disparities in Violence Among Extremist Groups+6 more

Other analyses emphasize that politically motivated violence is rare overall in the U.S.cato.orgcato.orgPolitically Motivated Violence Is Rare in the United States, and psychological factors driving aggression do not align neatly with a single ideology.greatergood.berkeley.edugreatergood.berkeley.eduWhat’s Driving Political Violence in America? Thus, while left-wing political violence exists and has been increasing in certain contexts, the claim that people on the left are much likelier to defend and celebrate political violence is not strongly supported by broad empirical data. Instead, political violence is a complex phenomenon with significant activity on both ends of the spectrum but quantitatively dominated by right-wing actors.

In summary, the claim oversimplifies a nuanced reality and leans toward a partisan interpretation rather than a balanced evidence-based conclusion.