By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the assassination of right-wing political commentator Charlie Kirk, the U.S. Department of Justice removed a study from its website concerning the frequency of “far-right attacks.” The study, which remains accessible through the Wayback Machine, concluded that far-right extremists have committed significantly more ideologically motivated homicides than those on the left. The study’s removal occurred after Kirk’s death on September 10, 2025, during a speaking event. Former President Donald Trump later commented on the situation, stating that the radicals on the left are the problem, and they are vicious and horrible.
Read the original article here
DOJ Quietly Deletes Study After Charlie Kirk’s Death That Says Right-Wing Extremists Engage in ‘Far More’ Political Violence is a pretty loaded topic, isn’t it? The whole situation is a bit of a tangled mess of accusations, counter-accusations, and, let’s be honest, a healthy dose of outrage. The central point is this: a study, supposedly conducted by the Department of Justice (DOJ), that pointed a finger at right-wing extremists for a disproportionate amount of political violence has been taken down from the internet, and this has caused a stir, especially since it happened around the time of Charlie Kirk’s death.
It seems like this removal wasn’t exactly a stealth operation, despite the “quietly” label. Social media lit up like a Christmas tree. The whole thing smells a bit like censorship, a “Ministry of Truth” kind of move. The core issue, according to some, is that the study directly contradicted a narrative some people are trying to push, and therefore had to go. The immediate reaction of many was, well, a big old “duh.” Some see it as an attempt to rewrite history, to create a false narrative by scrubbing away inconvenient truths.
The timing also seems to be significant. It happened following the death of Charlie Kirk, a prominent figure in conservative circles. Some are even speculating about his death, even insinuating potential foul play and linking it to his possible knowledge of the Epstein list. Of course, that’s a pretty wild claim, and we need to be careful about spreading rumors. The point here is that, his death adds another layer of complexity and suspicion to the removal of the study.
The crux of the issue seems to be around the nature of political violence. The debate is essentially: who is responsible, and by how much? It’s a clash of narratives, of competing interpretations of events. Some sources claim that recent political violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by the right, and they point to the numbers. This study, according to those sources, was the evidence.
Of course, the opposite side of the argument is equally passionate. They say the study was flawed, biased, or simply wrong. They say that the focus on right-wing extremism is a distraction from the true nature of the problem or an attempt to silence dissent.
The digital age, of course, is making things a lot harder for those who want to control the narrative. The internet archive has captured the study, so it’s not like it’s vanished completely. People are saving it, sharing it, and generally keeping it alive. This is the Streisand effect in action, where an attempt to suppress information only amplifies its spread.
There’s also a significant point about the motivations behind the study’s removal. Some people believe that it’s an attempt to create a narrative, to erase evidence and statistics that don’t align with a particular agenda. Others see it as an attempt to whitewash history, to obscure inconvenient truths about the nature of political violence. The first amendment gets tossed around too, as it should.
The language being used paints a pretty bleak picture, with words like “fascism” and comparisons to totalitarian regimes. This points to a fundamental disagreement about the nature of American democracy itself. It raises questions about the role of government, the freedoms of speech and press, and the importance of truth.
This all plays into a larger discussion about the rise of right-wing extremism in the United States. Some see the events of Charlottesville and January 6th as proof of the problem. They highlight the rhetoric of figures like Donald Trump, who they say encouraged right-wing violence and continues to protect rioters. Others see these events as isolated incidents, or as events that were blown out of proportion by the media.
The deletion of the study is, at a minimum, a bad look for the DOJ. It fuels the perception of a biased government, of an administration that’s willing to manipulate information to further its own agenda. It raises questions about the integrity of the government, and the public’s trust in it.
In the end, this whole situation boils down to a battle of narratives. What’s really happening is that this administration is attempting to control information to support their own version of events. It’s a reminder that in a world of competing ideologies, it’s important to be skeptical, to question authority, and to seek out multiple sources of information. And, most importantly, to be really, really sure that you have the facts straight.