By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has removed a study detailing that white supremacist and far-right violence remains the most prevalent form of terrorism and domestic violent extremism in the United States. The study, conducted by the National Institute of Justice, was hosted on a DOJ website until at least September 12, 2025, according to archived records. A message now appears on the webpage where the study was hosted, indicating a review of websites and materials is underway, citing recent Executive Orders and related guidance. During this review, some content may be unavailable.
Read the original article here
DOJ Deletes Study Showing Domestic Terrorists Are Most Often Right Wing. This is a story that’s raising eyebrows, and for good reason. It seems the Department of Justice (DOJ) has removed a study from its website – a study that, according to reports, linked right-wing ideologies to a significant number of domestic terrorism incidents. The timing is certainly interesting, and the implications are worth unpacking.
The fact that the study has been scrubbed from the DOJ’s online presence is itself a major point of concern. The official explanation offered by the Department is vague, citing a review of its websites and materials related to recent Executive Orders. But the circumstances surrounding the removal, particularly in light of the study’s content, raise questions about transparency and the dissemination of information. The study, as described, appeared to provide data-driven insights into the motivations and ideological underpinnings of domestic terrorism, an issue of paramount importance in understanding and combating such threats.
The core of the controversy lies in the apparent findings of the study. It reportedly highlighted a strong correlation between right-wing beliefs and acts of domestic terrorism. The research, which is described as having a substantial number of references, presumably included analyses of incidents, ideologies, and the people behind them. Such data, if accurate and objectively presented, could be crucial for law enforcement, policymakers, and the public in addressing the root causes of political violence. Its disappearance naturally prompts concerns about political interference in the pursuit of truth.
The removal of the study also brings to mind the potential for a chilling effect on future research. When potentially sensitive findings are removed from the public eye, it can make researchers and institutions hesitant to explore similar topics. A healthy democracy relies on the free flow of information and the ability to critically examine complex issues, even when the findings are uncomfortable or politically inconvenient.
The internet, however, is a tricky place for those attempting to control information. Fortunately, it appears that the study has been preserved in the digital ether, thanks to the Wayback Machine and other archiving services. This means that the information, while suppressed by the DOJ, is still available for those who seek it out. The existence of these archives underscores the power of citizen action and the persistent nature of information in the digital age. It seems that deleting information is not as effective as it once was.
The reaction to the DOJ’s actions, based on the reactions of many, has been one of suspicion and even outrage. The core sentiment is that the government is attempting to hide inconvenient truths, possibly in service of a political agenda. The fact that this is happening in the wake of specific events, such as the alleged Charlie Kirk assassination (though the accuracy of this association is not verified in the input), only serves to heighten the sense of urgency. People are concerned about the direction of their country and what is happening to basic facts.
The comments and discussions surrounding this event also highlight the broader concerns about the rise of extremism and political violence. Many have voiced the opinion that the right is the most likely origin of violent extremism. There is a deep concern that the government’s actions are only serving to exacerbate these problems.
The narrative is becoming increasingly clear. The act of removing data, especially when the data is inconvenient to powerful people or political parties, looks like an act of censorship. Those in the know, understand this well. It feels as though the truth is being actively hidden, and it is this action that stokes distrust and cynicism within the public.