The government of the United States is engaged in a regrettable standoff concerning how to respond to a series of deadly white supremacist attacks against innocent citizens. Sadly, no one, to include politicians, talking-heads, the media, and even among pro and anti-gun activists, has addressed a pivotal question: will the administration of President Donald Trump create a national counterterrorism strategy to deal with the evolving threat of domestic terrorism?
This blog post examines the definition of domestic terrorism. Second, the post provides a short history of some of the previous domestic terrorist threats. Third, the post explores white supremacy as a movement. Fourth, the post explores some of the early counterterrorism tactics and then explores why no national counterterrorism strategy is in place to deal with the threat posed by white supremacy, currently the deadliest or most violent form of domestic terrorism in the United States.
Background
Domestic terrorism is not a new phenomenon in the United States.[1] In fact, domestic terrorism has existed for over a century and has taken on many forms. Before addressing the types/forms of domestic terrorism, it is important to define the term.
As a concept, domestic terrorism is “perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”[2] Another important definition is enshrined in the USA Patriot Act. As contained in the Act, domestic terrorism is defined as “activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population [and] (2) to influence the policy of a government.”[3]
After the Al Qaeda 9/11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) counterterrorism efforts have focused on three types of domestic terrorism. The first type involved the use and practice that requires the involvement of the internet. A second type makes extensive use of the social media. The third type involves the recruitment and deployment of homegrown domestic extremists.
The history of domestic terrorism in the United States centers on discrimination and violence towards people of color, most notably African Americans. For example, during the period of Reconstruction, The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) engaged in brutal “lynchings and other murders”[1] against African Americans. The murders themselves are problematic, but what makes this era of terrorism that much more horrific is that members of the KKK often were officials that served in local and state governments, and even the federal government. The presence “of state actors” regardless of the level of government, increased the length of terrorism during that era, the modes of terrorism, impact on society, our democracy, and significantly delayed the federal government’s willingness and ability to confront and defeat the threat.
In the absence of space, it should be stated that there are several types of what I refer to as Homegrown Extremist Threats (HETs) in the United States.[4] The HET’s consist of six diverse groups: (1) Animal Rights Extremists and Environmental Extremists, (2) Anarchist Extremists, (3) White Supremacist Extremists (4) Anti-Government Extremists, (5) Black Separatist Extremists, and (6) Abortion Extremists.[5]
During the twentieth century, and most specifically during the 1960s and 1970s, and well into 1980s, domestic terrorism was prevalent across the United States. Some examples of the domestic terrorist groups include The Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN), a Puerto Rican nationalist group, Jewish Defense League, The Mountaineer Militia, Weather Underground, Arizona State Militia, and the White Militia represent some of the domestic terrorist groups that operated in the homeland.
White Supremacists
White supremacist attacks have been committed by individuals associated with white supremacist extremism (WSE). Groups associated with WSE are by no means a new phenomenon and neither is the rhetoric associated with the groups in this category of terrorism. During the per of Reconstruction, prior to and in the wake of World War I, white supremacist literature (also referred to as right-wing literature today) represented a negative cottage industry that existed across the United States. The prevalence and the availability of social media allowed the ideology to assist in the expansion and the sustainability of the movement.
Peter Bergen, vice president at the New America Foundation, noted “Right-wing terrorism has been around in the United States for a long time, but what’s a little bit different in the last couple of years is that we have seen more mass casualty attacks like we saw in El Paso and Pittsburgh.”[6]
In May 2017, the FBI and DHS released a joint intelligence bulletin that provided this significant statement: white supremacists “were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 … more than any other domestic extremist movement.”[7]
Many experts assert that the focus of the white supremacists and their ideology is based on “Fourteen Words” that were introduced by David Lane, a member of the group The Order, who argued, “We must secure the existence of our race and a future for white children.”[8] Since the 1980s, these words have become the slogan of many of participants in the “movement.”
Equally important, as contained in a report released by The Syracuse Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism, white supremacist rhetoric, threats, right-wing violence, and mobilization are critical to comprehending the increasing activity and attacks associated with the movement.[9] The white supremacist groups target Blacks, Jews, new immigrant groups, and other minorities deemed to be threats to a small segment of the American population.
The report refocused attention and pointed that “terrorist groups are first and foremost movements with political claims and can be analyzed as such.” In addition, terrorists and social movements contain four interlocking variables, to include “(1) discontent with the status quo; (2) grievances, supported by the organization’s ideology; (3) the ability to organize and mobilize; and (4) political opportunities to advance their aims.”[10] That said, unlike other social movements, white supremacist extremist organizations operate in a highly decentralized organizational structure[11] which assists in their survivability.
The government of the United States, and the efforts by state and local law enforcement, to include the joint federal and state counterterrorism activities (such as The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)) have to recognize it will take time, manpower, and money to take down white supremacist extremism.
Another dilemma is the issue of focus. That is, the government of the United States, covering George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and the Trump administration have focused significant and understandable attention and national resources to confront radical Islamic extremism. Given the ever-increasing specter of white supremacist extremism, it is time to direct more attention to this threat.
To do so will require new priorities—attention directed to radical Islamic extremism and a higher priority given to white supremacist extremism among competing federal agencies and departments. If this shift occurs, it will require presidential attention and focus. If Trump is successful over the final year-plus of his presidency, he could begin a process to reverse decades of failure of law enforcement and the national government to confront white supremacist extremism.[12]
The Trump Administration And Domestic Terrorism
What is the essence of the Trump administration’s approach to counterterrorism? The administration’s approach is found in the president’s October 2018 National Counterterrorism Strategy document.[13] The central argument comes in the form of a warning: “The United States faces a threat from individuals motivated by types of violent extremism other than radical Islam.”[14] The statement in the document is more detailed and asserts, “racially motivated extremism, animal rights extremism, environmental extremism, sovereign citizen extremism, and militia extremism”[15] collectively represent conspicuous threats to the homeland.
Still, there are those that argue the Trump administration’s response to the threat of white supremacist domestic terrorism has been tepid. There are several decisions and actions by the administration that provide evidence to validate this statement. In a major decision, the administration rebuffed DHS’s efforts to create a national counterterrorism strategy to deal with white supremacy. In spite of the initial failed effort, and in recognition of the increasing threat posed by white supremacist attacks, DHS continued to press the Trump White House to permit the department to create a national counterterrorism strategy.
In response to mounting criticism, the administration, through a statement by a senior official argued, “This issue [white supremacy] continues to be a priority for this administration, and the National Security Council has launched an interagency process focused on combating domestic terrorism in support of the President’s counterterrorism strategy.”[16]
The second decision provides a window into the Trump administration’s approach to counterterrorism. The decision to cut the budget of the DHS in 2019, particularly in the area of domestic terrorism, raised alarm bells inside and outside the administration.
What were the specific cuts? The Trump administration cut the DHS budget for domestic terrorism prevention from $21 million to $2.7” and “disbanded the only government-wide terrorism prevention office, and assigned its experts to other duties, all while cutting off funding for effective deradicalization programs aimed at white nationalists.”[17]
To place these cuts in context, it should be noted the mission of the DHS “is to coordinate and share information about threats posed to the United States among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.”[18] If critical offices are disbanded and expert personnel are resigned, one must ask a rudimentary set of queries: How have these cuts impacted DHS’s counterterrorism capabilities? Second, did the cuts prevent the opportunity to preclude any of the recent attacks by individuals that support the movement?
Third, there is “backstory” that must be considered that may assist in exposing a potential “political dimension” associated with the DHS cuts. One must return to circa 1995 and the explosive aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. There are those inside the FBI and elsewhere that were concerned about the potential of some returning veterans that could use their military expertise in support of “right-wing or fringe movements” in the United States.
A DHS intelligence report generated in the Obama administration expanded on the concern. The intelligence report noted “The economic downturn and the election of the first African-American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment, the 2009 report concluded. Military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular, would be attractive targets for recruitment.”[19]
Another more explosive section of the report argued: “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 … 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.”[20]
As to be anticipated, supporters of Veterans and in those in the Republican Party denounced the report. A letter of protest was submitted to then Secretary of DHS Janet Napolitano. Additionally, the report did not lead to a national counterterrorism strategy to deal with the challenge of domestic extremism in the Obama administration. The fallout from the report was predictable: “The small team of domestic terrorism analysts who had produced the report was disbanded, and analysts were reassigned to study Muslim extremism.”[21]
In an interview with The Guardian, Daryl Johnson, a career intelligence analyst, and a member of the team that created the intelligence report in the Obama administration, issued this statement: “If the message I sent out had been heeded, and people took it seriously, we would have had more resources. That could have tempered the growth of what we have seen over the past 10 years. There would be fewer extremists, and fewer attacks, because by now, 10 years removed from the warning, we would have mature programs. But the political fiasco surrounding the report created a chilling effect in the law enforcement and intelligence community. It indicated that this topic is radioactive, and you better stay away from it.”[22]
An important question needs be addressed: Did concern about the fallout from within his own party and a potential negative response from his base impact the Trump White House decision to prevent the creation of a national counterterrorism strategy that would be created by DHS (the same organization that created the explosive intelligence report in the Obama administration)?
Effective Counterterrorism Against White-Nationalist Terrorism
There are multiple counterterrorism initiatives underway. There is a problem. There is an absence of unifying national strategy to the deal with the threat. Currently, law enforcement at the local, state, and federal levels work independently and often there is little coordination between the three levels of law enforcement which often undermines their efforts to confront the threat.
Overall, the response to white supremacist extremism has been largely inadequate. There are several reasons to validate the point. Law enforcement, at all levels, much like the governments (local, state, and federal), continue to focus on the transnational threats to the homeland. Second, as a result of this focus, resources (money and personnel) is appropriated to the homegrown terror threats connected to transnational entities such as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Third, in the absence of federal guidance (this issue represents a historical dilemma and one that predates the Obama and Trump administrations) the counterterrorism response has been underwhelming.
The explosion of the white supremacist violence and the horrific loss of innocent life in the United States during the Obama and Trump administrations, the federal government has been slow to adapt to and employ a meaningful counterterrorism response to deal with the threat.
There is a novel statement of what constitutes effective counterterrorism against white supremacist violence. That statement asserts, “In many respects, a counterterrorism policy addressing this specific threat would look like any other effective counterterrorism approach, relying on good police work built on investigation; infiltration; intelligence sharing; tracking of recruitment and radicalization; and targeted arrests.”[23]
Analysis
This post does not suggest counterterrorism to confront domestic terrorism (particularly in response to white supremacists) does not exist in the Trump administration. Rather, I argue more should be done.
I previously called for a national strategy to combat Islamic radicalism in the homeland. Thus far, the administration, has implemented a half-hearted effort to address Islamic radicalism and the continuing threat it is poses to the homeland.
It is certainly time that the Trump administration develop a national counterterrorism strategy to defeat white supremacy. It is often dismissed that the white supremacist movement represents a small threat. This view is wrong. First, white supremacy is sadly imbedded in the body-politic of the United States. It is found among those that unleashed slavery, those that participated in the Ku Klux Klan, supporters of Jim Crow, and those that in the contemporary period embody those seeking a return to such abhorrent values and white hegemony.
Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, then candidate Trump spoke about the need to callout and end the threat posed by radical Islamic extremism in the homeland. That campaign statement translated into a highly successful anti-Islamic State strategy that resulted in the dissipation of the ISIS caliphate. Will Trump utter the words WHITE RADICAL EXTREMISM? Is President Trump prepared to implement a strategy that could set the stage for the defeat of a historic threat to homeland? Answers to these twin questions will provide a window into one aspect of President Trump’s counterterrorism legacy.
Endnotes
[1] For a great read on domestic terrorism in the United States, see Harvey K. Kushner, Terrorism in America: A Structured Approach to Understanding the Terrorist Threat (Charles T. Publishers, LTD., Springfield, Illinois, 1998).
[2] “Terrorism,” https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism.
[3] Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 or Pub. L. 107-56. https://www.gov info.gov/link/plaw/107/public/56?link-type=pdf.
[4] In the literature, the more common term is Homegrown Violent Extremism (HVT). Terrorists, domestic or foreign, by the design are violent. Thus, it appears redundant to employ “violent” when characterizing groups that engage in the practice of terrorism. By definition terrorist groups are violent. Based on this reasoning, I have preferred the term/phrase Homegrown Extremist Threats (HTEs).
[5] For more on the domestic terrorist groups and the violence associated with them, please see Jerome P. Bjelopera, “Domestic Terrorism: An Overview,” Congressional Research Service (CRS), August 21, 2017. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R44921.pdf.
[6] Sirwan Kajjo, “Shooting Attacks Renew Debate Over Domestic Terrorism in U.S.,” New York Times, August 5, 2019. https://www.nytimes .com/2019/08/05/us/politics/domestic-terrorism-shootings.html.
[7] Bjelopera, “Domestic Terrorism: An Overview.”
[8] Ibid.
[9] Jason Blessing and Elise Roberts, “The Rhetoric of White Supremacist Terror: Assessing the Attribution of Threat,” Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism Syracuse University, July 2018. Blessing_Roberts_Berlin-Report-mwedit070618.pdf.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Janet Reitman, “U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism. Now They Don’t Know How to Stop It,” New York Times Magazine, November 3, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/ magazine/FBI-charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html.
[13] National Strategy for Counterterrorism United States of America. The White House, October 2018. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/NSCT.pdf.
[14] Seth Jones, “The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States,” Center for Strategic and International Studies Brief, November 7, 2018. https://www.csis .org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states.
[15] National Strategy for Counterterrorism United States of America.
[16] Zack Budryk, “White House Dismissed Homeland Security Push to Focus More on Domestic Terrorism: Report,” The Hill, August 7, 2019. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/456617-white-house-dismissed-homeland-security-push-to-focus-more-on.
[17] Simon Clark, “Combating the White-Nationalist Terrorist Threat,” Center for American Promise, August 7, 2019. https://www.american progress.org/issues/security/news/2019/08/07/473372/combating-white-nationalist-terrorist-threat/.
[18] Laura Strickler, Julia Ainsley, Ken Dilanian, “We Have A Problem: Federal Agencies Scramble to Fight Domestic Terrorism Limited Resources,” NBCnews.com, August 5, 2019. https://www. nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/we-have-problem-federal-agencies-scramble-fight-domestic-terror-limited-n1039441.
[19] Ewen MacAskill, “U.S. Police Warn That Threat of Rightwing Extremism on Rise Amid Recession,” The Guardian, April 15, 2009. https://www.thegua rdian.com/world/2009/apr/16/obama-rightwing-extremism-threat.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Lois Beckett, “‘Blood on Their Hands’: The Intelligence Officer Whose Warning Over White Supremacy Was Ignored,” The Guardian, August 8, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/07/white-supremacist -terrorism-intelligence-analyst.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Simon Clark, “Combating the White-Nationalist Terrorist Threat,” Center for American Promise, August 7, 2019. https://www. americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2019/08/07/47 3372/ combating-white-nationalist-terrorist-threat/.
