Domestic Political Extremism in the U.S.: Situational Awareness for June 13, 2023

The long-term impact of the historically unprecedented arraignment today (Tuesday, June 13, 2023) of a former U.S. President is unknown.  What we are able to quantify so far:  37 counts on seven different charges (31 of which allege he willfully kept classified documents in his possession after leaving the White House) including willful retention of national defense information, withholding a record, false statements, and conspiracy to obstruct.  

We look at this event through the prism of the ongoing threat of domestic political extremism and violence in the U.S. In this epoch of poly-crisis – a cluster of interdependent global risks create a compounding effect, such that their overall impact exceeds the sum of their individual parts – the phrase “we are in unchartered territory” comes up frequently.

But today is historically, quantifiably just that – in the form of an arraignment proceeding based on a 49-page indictment of a former U.S. President. 

We have now reached a war phase.

Eye for an eye.

— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) June 9, 2023

President Trump said he has "been summoned to appear at the Federal Courthouse in Miami on Tuesday, at 3 PM."

This is a perimeter probe from the oppressors. Hold. rPOTUS has this.

Buckle up. 1/50K know your bridges. Rock steady calm. That is all.

— Rep. Clay Higgins (@RepClayHiggins) June 9, 2023

Realistically – stoically – with the not-so-thinly-coded rhetoric flying around as represented by the tweets above (what some would characterize as stochastic terrorism, by its very nature “statistically predictable but individually unpredictable“) – we maintain that the probability is not 0% that events occur today that catapult today, 6/13/23, into the historical lexicon along with 12/7/41, 6/6/44, 9/11/01 and 1/6/21.  But they are not 100%. Nor can one speculate realistically about 20%, 40% or 80% probability for acts of domestic domestic brought on by the arraignment hearing in Miami. 

What we do know today is based on the strings we have been pulling in our internal OODA Loop research and OODA Network conversations (links can be found at the end of this post).

We continue this with this research and dialogue in this post, in an effort to provide an assessment today of the situational awareness of domestic political extremism and violence in the U.S.   

Nation-wide situational awareness is provided by an audit, released days ago, of the “Department of Justice’s Strategy to Address the Domestic Violent Extremism Threat“, followed by data from The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project.   

Recent Washington Post reporting and a seminal report from 2011 by the Center on Extremism provides a window into conditions on the ground in Florida. 

Four Takeaways From the Department of Justice Audit on Countering Domestic Terrorism

as reported by by Allison Mollenkamp at Just Security: 

U.S. Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen spoke in Norway on Tuesday about the importance of fighting domestic terrorism, but a new report issued the same day says federal efforts are potentially hindered by lack of coordination and consistency — problems auditors say could be solved through an overarching strategy.

The U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released an audit addressing DOJ’s work to track, prosecute, and disrupt domestic violent extremism. The audit provides examples of divisions within the department not being on the same page, as well as recommendations for how the department could build a unified strategy to fight the rising threat of domestic terrorism.

The report and recommendations come two years after the White House National Security Council released the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. Also, in 2022, DOJ created a Domestic Terrorism Unit and updated the Justice Manual to provide guidance around domestic terrorism cases.

In his remarks earlier this week, Assistant Attorney General and head of the department’s National Security Division Matthew Olsen emphasized the complexity of the domestic violent extremism threat, saying, “In the United States, the most significant domestic terrorism threat is posed by lone actors or small cells, who are often motivated by a mix of socio-political, ideological, and personal grievances.”

Below are four takeaways from the OIG audit report, which you can read in full here:  Audit of the Department of Justice’s Strategy to Address the Domestic Violent Extremism Threat

1. DOJ struggles to track domestic violent extremism cases in a coordinated way:  The OIG report notes DOJ has identified domestic terrorism “as one of the most significant threats facing the country,” but that efforts to track the scale of the problem are piecemeal across the department.
2. Despite new guidance, there are still inconsistencies in how DOJ identifies domestic terrorism cases:  Countering domestic violent extremism is potentially made more complicated by the lack of a federal domestic terrorism statute. Of course, making it easier by passing such legislation may also raise concerns by civil libertarian groups and others. That said, currently cases must generally be prosecuted based on actions, rather than ideology (or terroristic purpose), and can fall under a variety of charges including firearms, drugs, and violent crimes.
3. DOJ needs a plan for protecting civil liberties while preventing domestic terrorism:  In addition to expressing concerns about the political perception of programs to combat domestic violent extremism, the OIG report examines DOJ’s ability to evaluate programs’ impact on civil liberties, particularly First Amendment protected speech.
4. White House guidance could be supplemented by a DOJ specific strategic framework: The 2021 national strategy guidance sought to broaden and strengthen the federal response to domestic violent extremism, but the audit points to areas within DOJ where additional guidance is needed and disparate parts of the department could be stronger working together.
   • Auditors say they spoke with DOJ officials who downplayed the role of the national strategy in their work, which came from the White House and they say “does not guide DOJ enforcement efforts and does not affect how DOJ investigates and prosecutes DVE threats.” In conversation with auditors, FBI officials apparently also de-emphasized the role of the 2021 guidance, saying that it was directed at prosecutors, not at the reporting role of the FBI.
   • The audit advises that DOJ come up with a department-wide strategy, which would also bring together separate efforts from across all sections of the department. (1)

The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project – “From the Capitol Riot to the Midterms: Shifts in American Far-Right Mobilization Between 2021 and 2022“

December 2022

After the attack on the Capitol in January 2021 and through the November 2022 midterm elections, far-right mobilization has only continued to evolve in the United States. Currently, far-right activity in 2022 is on track to exceed the level of activity reported in 2021, driven by a significant uptick in white nationalist, white supremacist, and anti-LGBT+ organizing around the country. This report analyzes shifts in the drivers of far-right mobilization over the course of the year, with a focus on how these drivers shaped the activities of armed militias and violent groups like the Proud Boys in states with contentious elections, as well as a look at trends to watch ahead of the 2024 campaign season.

Key Trends

Far-right militia and militant social movement activity in 2022 is on track to exceed the level of activity reported in 2021.

• Approximately 750 events — including demonstrations, acts of political violence, and training, recruitment, and propaganda activities — involving far-right groups have been recorded as of late November 2022, compared to nearly 780 events in all of 2021.
• Far-right groups are linked to high rates of protest violence: demonstrations involving far-right militias and militant social movements are nearly five times more likely to turn violent or destructive than other demonstrations.

Overall activity has risen even as the landscape of far-right actors has continued to become more defined, with fewer distinct groups active in 2022 than 2021.

• While the far right is not a monolith and many actors are highly competitive with one another, far-right activity is increasingly coalescing around specific groups and issues.
  • At least 56 distinct groups have been active this year, down from 83 last year and 159 in 2020.
• An exception to this trend is Arizona, where more far-right groups have been active this year than in 2021. Arizona is home to the most far-right activity of any state, driven by particularly high rates of recruitment and vigilantism.

White supremacy/white nationalism is the top driver of far-right protest activity this year.

• So far in 2022, 21% of demonstrations involving far-right groups have been driven by white supremacy/white nationalism, up from 15% last year.
  • White nationalist/white supremacist actors like Patriot Front and the Goyim Defense League are among the groups that have most substantially escalated their activities.

Anti-LGBT+ mobilization, the second most salient driver, has fueled the largest increase in far-right protest activity this year.

• So far in 2022, 14% of demonstrations involving far-right groups have been anti-LGBT+, up from less than 3% last year.
  • Though not limited to organized far-right actors, these groups have taken an increasingly large role in anti-LGBT+ mobilization around the country: far-right groups have engaged in over three times more anti-LGBT+ demonstrations than they did last year (55 events in 2022, up from 16 events in 2021), and in three times as many states (18  in 2022, up from six in 2021). 

Acts of political violence against the LGBT+ community have contributed to a wider surge in violence targeting civilians, with the number of incidents reported in 2022 already surpassing the total number recorded last year.

• At least 150 incidents of violence targeting civilians have been reported in the United States this year, with more than 20 specifically targeting the LGBT+ community. This is up from over 100 total events last year, with at least seven targeting the LGBT+ community.
• In states with increasing levels of non-violent anti-LGBT+ organizing, the rise in anti-LGBT+ protests and offline propaganda has correlated positively and strongly (r = 0.67) with an increase in political violence targeting members of the LGBT+ community. 

These drivers played a prominent role in shaping far-right activity in states with competitive races during the midterm elections, to varying degrees of electoral success. Where far-right candidates were defeated — often corresponding to places where mobilization strategies offered fewer opportunities for the far right to come together, network, and build alliances — drivers are likely to shift in the coming months ahead of the 2024 campaign season.

• Former President Donald Trump’s campaign announcement could reinvigorate certain sectors of the far right, such as groups like the Proud Boys. Over 100 pro-Trump demonstrations have already taken place around the country this year, even prior to his announcement, and approximately a quarter have involved far-right actors.

Source: From the Capitol Riot to the Midterms: Shifts in American Far-Right Mobilization Between 2021 and 2022

Conditions on the Ground as of June 11, 2023 at 7:04 p.m. EDT

“Law enforcement officials are monitoring online threats and potential gatherings of far-right extremists and marshaling more officers”

"January 6th is gonna look like a playground" – Trump supporter Pat speaks outside of Trump National Doral Miami where Former President expected to arrive for his second Indictment – "All we need is an order, we are ready" pic.twitter.com/IbKyMwnNbz

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) June 12, 2023

As reported by By Shayna Jacob, David Nakamura, Hannah Allam and Isaac Arnsdorf:

“Extremism in Florida: The Dark Side of the Sunshine State” from the Center on Extremism  

September 2012