In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Department of Homeland Security was created. One of its missions was to identify and counter terrorism in the US from both foreign and domestic sources. Despite the well established roots of the 9/11 attacks and the resulting pall that that event has cast on citizens of Middle Eastern countries in the minds of many Americans, it has been well known for decades that the threat to Americans from homegrown terrorists far outweighs the threat from foreign actors. The April 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was clearly an act of domestic terrorism. Many details of that event remain unknown, including its planning and execution and the identities of other possible participants.
Identifying and tracking domestic terrorists and their threat became the mission of the Extremism and Radicalization Branch within DHS. In April 2009, the branch prepared a detailed document titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” Preparation of the report was triggered by the widespread racial animus directed at our first African-American President. The report was intended as a guide for law enforcement to assess the likely threat of domestic terrorism nationwide.
In addition to racism, a number of issues that had become rallying cries for right-wing extremist causes were cited in the report, including concerns about restrictive gun laws, abortion rights, same-sex marriage, immigration, and even free-trade policies.
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
Bans on weapon purchase or ownership was identified as an especially motivating factor for the rise of right-wing extremism.
Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government.
Disgruntled military veterans were singled out as a potential recruiting pool, vulnerable because of possible antigovernmental attitudes and valuable because of their military training.
DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
So now imagine that in 2009 you belong to an American political party that has made opposition to restrictive gun laws, abortion, immigration, and free trade the centerpiece of its political platform. Imagine that antigovernmental military veterans make up a significant portion of your loyal base. And imagine that white supremacy and racism are unspoken dog-whistle issues that have been at the core of your party’s heritage since the Southern Strategy of the Nixon era. The Obama administration is attacking all the ideas that the upstanding members of your party stand for and that extremists are using to recruit violent new members. Think you might be a little pissed? (“Hey, who you calling a terrorist?!”) House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) certainly was.
Department [of Homeland Security] is using the same term [terrorist] to describe American citizens who disagree with the direction Washington Democrats are taking our nation. Everyone agrees that the Department should be focused on protecting America, but using such broad-based generalizations about the American people is simply outrageous.
Completely missing the point, the American Legion was critical of the report’s characterization of veterans as “disgruntled.”
The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation’s uniform during wartime. To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical “disgruntled military veteran” is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam.
The Obama administration overreacted to the Republican overreaction. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized for the report and rescinded it. The report was never published. The Extremism and Radicalization Branch within DHS was disbanded and its members were reassigned. Countering domestic terrorism was effectively neutralized within the DHS mission.
And so very predictably, the threat grew.
From 2009 through 2018, the far right has been responsible for 73% of domestic extremist-related fatalities, according to a 2019 study by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). And the toll is growing.
In 2017, the former head of the Extremism and Radicalization Branch published an op-ed titled “I warned of right-wing violence in 2009. Republicans objected. I was right.” And then January 6, 2021 happened. And the world was all “How could this have happened without our knowledge?” Well, duh!
So what can be done? Well, for a start, how about making domestic terrorism an actual crime? How about collecting data on hate crimes and their perps? How about restricting gun ownership for people convicted of hate crimes and acts of domestic terrorism? How about reinstating the Extremism and Radicalization Branch within DHS?
Joe and Kamala — are you listening?