According to 404 Media, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently removed a study from its website that documented how far-right and white supremacist violence has historically outpaced other forms of domestic terrorism in the United States. The study was produced by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and was publicly available online until at least September 12, 2025, when it was taken down.
The deleted study emphasized that right-wing extremist groups and individuals remain the most consistent domestic terrorism threat. It outlined patterns of violence, including racially motivated attacks and anti-government actions, which were identified as more prevalent compared to left-wing or other forms of extremist violence.
Researchers and journalists confirmed that the study existed on the DOJ’s website through archived versions (via the Wayback Machine). Its sudden disappearance was first noticed by Daniel Malmer, a PhD student at UNC-Chapel Hill who studies online extremism.
When users now attempt to access the study’s page, they are met with a message from the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP):
“The Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs is currently reviewing its websites and materials in accordance with recent Executive Orders and related guidance. During this review, some pages and publications will be unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.”
The timing of the removal coincides with the aftermath of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and statements from the Trump administration pledging to crack down on what it described as “radical left” domestic extremists. This juxtaposition has fueled speculation that the removal was politically motivated.
404 Media notes that this is not the first instance of research on domestic extremism being suppressed or politically sensitive material being withdrawn. Advocacy groups have voiced concern that removing such research undermines transparency, hampers academic and public policy work, and may distort the public’s understanding of real domestic security risks.
At present, it is unclear if the DOJ intends to permanently delete the study, revise it, or restore it later. The agency’s official statement frames the removal as part of a broader “review process,” though critics argue that the act aligns with a political narrative minimizing far-right extremism.
Main Points
-
- The Study: Conducted by NIJ, it found that far-right violence, particularly white supremacist and anti-government attacks, remains the dominant domestic terrorism threat.
-
- Removal: The report was removed from the DOJ website sometime after Sept. 12, 2025.
-
- Notice: DOJ states it is “reviewing materials in accordance with Executive Orders.”
-
- Researcher’s Role: UNC PhD student Daniel Malmer first spotted the deletion.
-
- Context: The removal followed the assassination of Charlie Kirk and renewed administration focus on left-wing extremism.
Projections
Potential Positive Outcomes (Pro):
-
- If the removal is part of a routine review, the study may be republished with updated data, ensuring consistency with current policy frameworks.
-
- Greater scrutiny might push agencies to release clearer, standardized reporting on domestic extremism, strengthening long-term transparency.
-
- Public attention to the deletion could spark renewed debate on how terrorism data should be tracked and published, potentially leading to stronger oversight.
Potential Negative Outcomes (Con):
-
- Suppressing or removing the study could distort public understanding of domestic terrorism threats, leaving communities and policymakers less informed.
-
- Perceptions of political interference in research may undermine trust in the DOJ and federal institutions more broadly.
-
- Researchers and advocacy groups may face challenges accessing reliable government data, limiting their ability to track extremism or propose effective policy responses.
Read The PDF Removed
Sources
-
- 404 Media — DOJ Deletes Study Showing Domestic Terrorists Are Most Often Right Wing404media.co
-
- National Institute of Justice (via Wayback Machine archives)
-
- Statement from DOJ Office of Justice Programs (cited in article)