By Michael A. Jensen and Elena Akers

Recent mass casualty attacks in the United States have renewed a long-standing debate over the need for novel legislation to effectively prosecute domestic terrorism. Those who advocate for a new terrorism law argue that deficiencies in the US legal code present challenges to prosecuting domestic extremists, leading to unwarranted sentencing disparities in international and domestic terrorism cases. Critics of the proposal for a domestic terrorism law counter that the US legal code is sufficiently flexible for the courts to punish domestic extremists to the same extent as their international counterparts. Neither side, however, has produced an empirical assessment to support their claims. In this article, we address this research gap by analysing data on 344 US federal terrorism cases that were initiated between 2014 and 2019. We find that significant disparities are endemic to US federal terrorism prosecutions for three types of sentencing outcomes: length of incarceration; time spent on supervision upon release from prison; and the use of restrictive monitoring conditions. International terrorism defendants are more likely than domestic extremists to receive severe penalties for all three sentencing decisions even when controlling for criminal severity. Sentencing disparities in US federal terrorism cases are especially large when domestic extremists are prosecuted using common criminal charges, like weapons violations. We conclude with a discussion of what these findings mean for promoting judicial fairness in US terrorism prosecutions.

Perspectives on Terrorism Volume XVIII, Issue 1 March 2024

By The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation

From the document: "In 2013, the president signed into law the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, which led the FBI to examine active shooter incidents since 2000. The findings in this report are intended to provide an overview of active shooter incidents to help law enforcement, other first responders, and the public better understand the levels of threats associated with active shooter incidents. In 2022, the FBI designated 50 shootings as active shooter incidents. Although incidents decreased by 18% from 2021 (61 incidents), the number of active shooter incidents increased by 66.7% compared to 2018 (30 incidents). The 50 active shooter incidents in 2022 occurred in 25 states and the District of Columbia and represent seven location categories, including open spaces, commerce, residences, education, government, houses of worship, and a health care facility. [...] Data cited in this report for active shooter incidents that occurred in 2022 is valid as of February 10, 2023; however, incident data from prior published reports was not updated. If additional incidents meeting FBI criteria are identified after the publication of this document, every effort will be made to factor those incidents into future reporting."

Washington, DC: FBI, 2023. 33p.

By the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Office of Homeland Security

From the Executive Summary: "Preventing terrorist attacks remains a top priority for both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The threat posed by international and domestic threat actors has evolved significantly since 9/11. The greatest terrorism threat to the Homeland we face today is posed by lone offenders, often radicalized online, who look to attack soft targets with easily accessible weapons. Many of these violent extremists are motivated and inspired by a mix of socio-political goals and personal grievances against their targets. With this report, we are providing our strategic intelligence assessments on DT [domestic terrorism], a detailed discussion of our procedures and methods to address DT threats, as well as data on DT incidents and our investigations."

By Jian Wang

The thesis focuses on participants involved in the January 6 insurrection. The major aims of this thesis are to find out who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and to learn what major factors influenced them to engage in the insurrection that broke the tradition of peaceful transition of power for the first time since Lincoln’s Presidential election. It is also to study the current intertwined relationships between political elites, social media, technology, disinformation and mass audiences, and how they gathered together and organized the 'stop the steal' campaign, causing the violence on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. By studying this, we can learn how to prepare to face other looming and ongoing challenges that disinformation poses to democracy in the near future such as the mid-term election this November and the next Presidential Election in 2024, creating viable solutions. The thesis selected 124 subjects out of 691 on the Capitol Breach Cases' list across all regions of the U.S. It organized their data, including their names, and primary demographics such as gender, race, the geography of residence, and age, and reviewed and examined their attitudes towards the insurrection on January 6, 2021 in response to a belief that the 2020 election was fraudulent. The findings show that majority of participants are white male. 91.13% or 630 (0.9113 x 691 = 630) of whom are employed and 30% of or 207 (0.3 x 691) participants who are university or college educated. A number of defendants had associations with QAnon conspiracy theory and some known DVE (domestic violent extremist) groups such as Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters. The most striking finding is that veterans were highly over-represented in the mob (17% or 117), which exceeds the percentage of veterans in the U.S. population as a whole. The thesis suggests that four possible motivations for their participation: extremism in the military, nationalism and patriotism, a belief in Donald Trump's false claims, and social media. It also reveals that there is a strong positive connection between disinformation on social media and participants as they (96% of or 663 participants) were nearly all active on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Parler and Instagram, sharing and receiving misinformation about the election. More specifically, social media platforms should bear responsibility because social media technology employs popularity-based algorithms that tailor content to maximize user engagement, increasing the level of polarization, partisan animosity and political sectarianism

Cambridge, MA: Master's thesis, Harvard University Division of Continuing Education., 2022. 131p.

By Eric B. Hodges

Ten percent of the Americans arrested for storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, are military veterans. These veterans have been charged with federal crimes ranging from Obstruction of an Official Proceeding to Assaulting Capitol Police Officers. This paper seeks to answer three questions related to those veterans’ participation in the Capitol Riots. Were their actions patriotic? What were their motivations? And was there anything about their military experience that made these veterans more likely to riot than non-veterans? A content analysis of 71 remarks made by 40 of the veterans arrested, both before and after the riots, was used to ascertain the motivations of those individuals. Analysis of the veterans’ comments revealed that they believed they were acting patriotically; however, closer examination shows that their motivations were more consistent with nationalism than patriotism. Additionally, the military training and combat exposure of the veterans, along with the “Stop the Steal” rhetoric, particularly comments made by former President Donald Trump, also played an integral role in influencing the veterans. The analysis also indicated that the Capitol Riots should be classified as a form of proto-sectarian violence and should serve as a cautionary tale against the growing divisiveness that sparked this incident.

Journal of Veteran Studies, 2021.

By Daniel Milton and Andrew Mines

The issue of extremism in the military community has posed challenges for a long time. From the role of combat veterans in driving the rise of the militia movement after Vietnam and beyond, the U.S. military has contended with all manner of extremist movements and ideologies. Historically, extremist activities manifested in a number of ways, including attacks andor hate crimes against fellow service members and civilians, theft of military equipment, security breaches, and broader harm to morale, unit cohesion, personnel retention, recruiting efforts, and mission success. Although the vast majority of U.S. Department of Defense DoD personnel 5and veterans uphold our nations highest values during and well after their service, the worlds largest employer has struggled at times to confront a problem that affects all corners of American society. In the past decade, various organizations have raised serious red flags to both the DoD and Congressional oversight bodies regarding this looming threat. More recent reporting has pointed to growing evidence of white supremacy and racist ideologies in the military these last few years. Additionally, the siege on the U.S. Capitol and the surrounding focus on the involvement of individuals with military experience has highlighted the pressing need to take meaningful steps to understand and confront the problem at hand. To be clear, the Capitol Hill siege does not provide an all-encompassing view of modern day extremism in the military. However, an examination of the individuals charged in connection with that event can offer some perspective as to the diversity and scale of the connection between extremism and those with military experience.

Washington DC: Program on Extremism, George Washington University, West Point, NY: Combating Terrorism Center, West Point, New York: 2021. 44p.

By Piotr Bąkowski

n recent years, the United States (US) has witnessed a growing number of terrorist attacks by domestic violent extremists. Many incidents at large-scale demonstrations across the country have increased the visibility of the problem and provoked strong reactions among civilians, law enforcement and policy-makers alike. When on 6 January 2021 a crowd of supporters of the then US President, Donald Trump, broke into the US Capitol while Congress was certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election, the issue of domestic violent extremism was thrust beyond US borders and into the international spotlight. Various US government agencies have consistently assessed domestic violent extremism as a significant threat. Although for counter-terrorism purposes extremists fall under a number of categories of a general nature, the threat they pose has become more decentralised and diverse over time. That said, racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists have been responsible for the most lethal acts of violence. After 11 September 2001, the focus of US counter-terrorism efforts shifted to international from domestic terrorism. US law does define domestic terrorism but does not qualify it as a criminal offence entailing indictment. Domestic extremist groups cannot be designated as terrorist organisations, and getting clearance to conduct investigations against them is more complicated than for their foreign counterparts. The assault on the Capitol led to a significant shift in counter-terrorism priorities, however, triggering the largest-scale investigation in US law enforcement history thus far, but also a comprehensive overhaul of government policies. Consequently, 2021 saw the adoption of the first national strategy specifically dedicated to domestic terrorism. The mutual commitment of the US and the European Union (EU) to combating violent extremism has resulted in fruitful exchanges among policy-makers, researchers and frontline practitioners. Nonetheless, efforts to establish a unified regulatory framework for addressing online extremist content have faced challenges due to differing perspectives on key issues such as the limits of free speech and government intervention.

Brussels, Belgium: EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, 2023. 12p.

By The Digital Citizens Alliance

Digital platforms enabled the disturbing rise of domestic extremism, culminating with the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Militia groups use social media networks to plan operations, recruit new members and spread anti-democracy propaganda, a new Digital Citizens Alliance (Digital Citizens) and Coalition for a Safer Web (CSW) investigation has found.

Taking a page from Jihadists, these extremist groups operate along the fringes of where platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram will let them. Federal prosecutors investigating the Capitol riot revealed how militia groups used social media platforms to coordinate and prepare for possible conflict with Antifa. But the joint Digital Citizens / CSW investigation found the use of platforms goes well beyond tactical planning. Militias rely on the platforms to share their beliefs and ideology and recruit new members. The militias get a boost from their ideological simpatico with mis/disinformation groups like QAnon, which provides oxygen that militias use to fan the flames.

The anti-government militia movement first emerged after the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff, the 1993 Waco siege, and the Oklahoma City Bombing on April 19, 1995. After Oklahoma City, U.S. law enforcement cracked down on domestic terrorism and the militia movement. In 1996, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported 858 militia groups with up to 50,000 active members. The 9/11 terrorist attacks shifted focus to global threats and led to a dormant period for militias. But domestic extremists such as the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Bois, the Three Percenters, and the Oath Keepers have reinvigorated the movement – aided in large part by digital platforms. In 2020, according to research by The Washington Post, the number of domestic terrorism incidents in the United States had doubled from what it was in 1995. But the joint Digital Citizens / CSW investigation found the use of platforms goes well beyond tactical planning. Militias rely on the platforms to share their beliefs and ideology and recruit new members. The militias get a boost from their ideological simpatico with mis/disinformation groups like QAnon, which provides oxygen that militias use to fan the flames.

The anti-government militia movement first emerged after the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff, the 1993 Waco siege, and the Oklahoma City Bombing on April 19, 1995. After Oklahoma City, U.S. law enforcement cracked down on domestic terrorism and the militia movement. In 1996, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported 858 militia groups with up to 50,000 active members. The 9/11 terrorist attacks shifted focus to global threats and led to a dormant period for militias. But domestic extremists such as the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Bois, the Three Percenters, and the Oath Keepers have reinvigorated the movement – aided in large part by digital platforms. In 2020, according to research by The Washington Post, the number of domestic terrorism incidents in the United States had doubled from what it was in 1995.

Washington, DC: Digital Citizens Alliance, 2021. 56p.

By Kathryn M. Roberts

Countering the radical Islamist narrative remains a high-profile priority of the United States in its ongoing efforts to counter domestic violent extremism. Since mid-2014, government officials have condemned the United States as unable to muster a satisfactory counter-narrative, and emphasize the potentially devastating consequences of failure. Experts inside and outside the government describe the Islamic State as masters of the internet capable of reaching into the United States and turning its people into hate-filled, violently inspired terrorists at will. The idea that the United States must aggressively work to counter these messages domestically remains a given but should it The focus of this thesis is to examine current U.S. efforts in counter-messaging to determine why the United States believes it is failing, and what, if any, evidence supports the idea that a counter-narrative or counter-messaging should be part of domestic countering violent extremism CVE programs. Review of official documents found little basis to assess U.S. programs, as no meaningful published strategy, objectives, or performance data exist for current efforts. Moreover, the foundational assumptions underlying current programs suggest malalignment between what U.S. officials desire a counter-messaging effort to accomplish and what is realistically achievable. Based on these findings, it is recommended that domestic CVE programs eliminate counter-messaging from their portfolio.

Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, 2020. 119p,

By United States. Federal Bureau Of Investigation; United States. Office Of Homeland Security

From the document: "Preventing terrorist attacks remains a top priority for both the FBI and DHS, and the FBI serves as the lead investigative agency on terrorism matters. The threat posed by international and domestic threat actors has evolved significantly since 9/11. One of the most significant terrorism threats to the United States we face today is posed by lone actors 3 and small groups of individuals who commit acts of violence motivated by a range of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances. Of these actors, domestic violent extremists represent one of the most persistent threats to the United States today. These individuals are often radicalized online and look to conduct attacks with easily accessible weapons. Many of these violent extremists are motivated and inspired by a mix of ideological, socio-political, and personal grievances against their targets. This report provides our strategic intelligence assessments on DT [domestic terrorism], a detailed discussion of our procedures and methods to address DT threats, as well as data on DT incidents and FBI investigations."

United States. Federal Bureau Of Investigation; United States. Office Of Homeland Security . 2023. 46p.

United States. Department Of Justice. Office Of The Inspector General

From the document: "The objectives of this audit were to: (1) evaluate the Department of Justice's (DOJ or Department) efforts to develop a comprehensive strategy to address domestic violent extremism (DVE) in the United States, and (2) determine if the Department is effectively coordinating among Department stakeholders on the implementation of its strategy. Our audit scope covered the period of fiscal year (FY) 2017 to FY 2022. [...] DOJ has identified DVE, which it refers to interchangeably as domestic terrorism, as one of the most significant threats facing the country. DOJ has characterized its efforts to counter DVE as a whole-of-Department commitment that requires sustained attention and resources. Nonetheless, DOJ has not formalized a DVE strategy. DOJ has focused attention on investigating, prosecuting, and preventing acts of DVE, but it also has experienced challenges in ensuring that its various efforts are cohesive and used in a strategic way to better identify lessons learned and spread awareness of available resources. Moreover, although DOJ has issued some internal guidance relating to DVE investigations, additional clearer guidance across all law enforcement and litigating components could assist in promoting greater consistency about what qualifies as a DVE case and better coordination in the handling of cases with a DVE nexus. DOJ should also consider formalizing mechanisms to routinely evaluate the efficacy and impact of its DVE efforts and to maintain the continuous protection of civil liberties. Finally, DOJ should improve its coordination on data-driven efforts to consistently track DVE-related cases across the Department. [...] Our report contains seven recommendations to assist the Department in its efforts to have a cohesive and sustained approach to addressing the DVE threat."

United States. Department Of Justice. Office Of The Inspector General . 2023. 43p.

Edited by Rafael Reuveny and William R. Thompson

Terrorism is imprinted on Western society's consciousness. Nearly every week a terrorist attack occurs in the world. The academic world, in attempting to understand terrorism, has often been limited to descriptive work rather than analysis, and has produced surprisingly few mainstream collections on the subject. Coping with Terrorism offers a collection of essays that ask: who are terrorists, what are their goals, who supports them, and how can we combat their tactics? The essays are scholarly, rather than journalistic or ideological, in their approach. As such, they scrutinize a much-discussed and prevalent subject and bring it into the mainstream for international relations.

Albany: State University of New York Press, 2010. 418p.

By The United States. Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General

The objectives of this audit were to: (1) evaluate the Department of Justice’s (DOJ or Department) efforts to develop a comprehensive strategy to address domestic violent extremism (DVE) in the United States, and (2) determine if the Department is effectively coordinating among Department stakeholders on the implementation of its strategy. Our audit scope covered the period of fiscal year (FY) 2017 to FY 2022. Results in Brief DOJ has identified DVE, which it refers to interchangeably as domestic terrorism, as one of the most significant threats facing the country. DOJ has characterized its efforts to counter DVE as a whole-of-Department commitment that requires sustained attention and resources. Nonetheless, DOJ has not formalized a DVE strategy. DOJ has focused attention on investigating, prosecuting, and preventing acts of DVE, but it also has experienced challenges in ensuring that its various efforts are cohesive and used in a strategic way to better identify lessons learned and spread awareness of available resources. Moreover, although DOJ has issued some internal guidance relating to DVE investigations, additional clearer guidance across all law enforcement and litigating components could assist in promoting greater consistency about what qualifies as a DVE case and better coordination in the handling of cases with a DVE nexus. DOJ should also consider formalizing mechanisms to routinely evaluate the efficacy and impact of its DVE efforts and to maintain the continuous protection of civil liberties. Finally, DOJ should improve its coordination on data-driven efforts to consistently track DVE-related cases across the Department 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2023. 43p.

By Alex Schmid

From the introduction: The need for a Handbook of Terrorism Prevention and Preparedness needs little explanation in the light of the fact that the dominant approach of counterterrorism, based largely on heavy-handed military action, has been such a failure - especially in the Middle East. The traditional military instrument of deterrence has not worked against enemies who have, in most cases, no fixed territorial basis while claiming to love death more than life. The decapitation of terrorist organizations by killing their leaders in drone strikes has created martyrs rather than broken their organization’s will to fight. The collateral damage of military strikes has often turned family members, friends and other witnesses near and far into avengers. For many societies, the “cure” of militarized counterterrorism has been worse than the “disease” of terrorism.

Netherlands. The Hauge.ICCT Press. 2021.

By Alex P. Schmid

From the Introduction: While “terrorism” is one of the most widely used terms in adversarial political discourse, there is still no international consensus about its exact meaning.1 The discussion about the definition of terrorism has been going on for more than half a century and has led to a large number of publications (see bibliography at the end). The purpose of this article is to revisit and review some conceptual approaches in academia, government and international organisations to enable the reader to familiarise her-/himself with the current state of affairs, building on, and expanding, some of the author’s previous conceptual work.

Netherlands. The Hague. ICCT. March 2023. 50p.

By United States. Government Accountability Office

From the document: "Prior to and during the events of January 6, 2021, federal, state, and local entities were responsible for identifying and sharing information on potential threats to inform security measures and ensure the safety of the U.S. Capitol. GAO [Government Accountability Office] was asked to review the January 6, 2021 attack. This is the seventh in a series of reports and addresses (1) how federal agencies identified threats related to the events of January 6, 2021; (2) the extent to which federal agencies took steps to process and share threat information prior to the events of January 6, 2021; and (3) how federal agencies identified threat information for the events of January 6, 2021 compared to other large demonstrations in Washington, D.C. [...] In the January 2023 report, GAO made 10 recommendations to five agencies to, for example, assess internal control deficiencies related to processing or sharing information. The agencies concurred with the recommendations."

Washington DC. nited States. Government Accountability Office. 2023. 122p.

By United States. Government Accountability Office

From the document: "Domestic terrorism investigations have more than doubled since 2020, according to the FBI. FBI and DHS are the main federal entities charged with preventing terrorist attacks in the U.S. FBI has lead responsibility for federal domestic terrorism investigations and domestic intelligence efforts. DHS is responsible for producing terrorist threat information in coordination with federal, state and local government agencies, and private entities. GAO [Government Accountability Office] was asked to review domestic terrorism threats, incidents, and related federal cases and charges. This report addresses, among other objectives, the extent to which the FBI and DHS I&A [Office of Intelligence and Analysis] (1) track domestic terrorism investigations and incidents, and (2) followed leading collaboration practices in their efforts to counter domestic terrorism threats."

United States. Government Accountability Office. Report Number .GAO-23-104720. 2023.

By U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

From the Executive Summary: "Over the past two decades, acts of domestic terrorism have dramatically increased. National security agencies now identify domestic terrorism as the most persistent and lethal terrorist threat to the homeland. This increase in domestic terror attacks has been predominantly perpetrated by white supremacist and anti-government extremist individuals and groups. It is clear that the federal government is not adequately addressing this growing threat, but without better data, it is difficult to evaluate whether federal agencies are appropriately allocating resources and setting priorities. [...] This report is a culmination of three years of investigation by the Majority Committee staff for U.S. Senator Gary Peters, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) into domestic terrorism and the federal response. This report focuses on the rise in domestic terrorism, the federal response, the allocation of federal resources to addressing domestic terrorism, and the role of social media companies in the proliferation of extremist content."

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 2022. 129p.

By Institute for Economics & Peace

From the Executive Summary: "This is the third edition of the Ecological Threat Report (ETR), which analyses ecological threats in 228 independent states and territories. Produced by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP), the report covers over 3,638 sub-national administrative districts, or 99.99 per cent of the world's population, assessing threats relating to 'food risk, water risk, rapid population growth and natural disasters'. Many ecological threats exist independently of climate change. However, climate change will have an amplifying effect, causing further ecological degradation. The research takes a multi-faceted, multidimensional approach by analysing risk at the national, administrative district and city level, while also assessing these entities by ecological threats, societal resilience and levels of peace. Additionally, the research provides projections to 2050. To assist the international community in prioritising its focus, IEP has identified the countries, administrative districts and cities most at risk."

Institute for Economics & Peace. 2022. 81p.

By: Goodman, Ryan, Kim, Sang-Min; Steinman, Jon; Ford, William

"For the first time in American history, a sitting president of the United States sought to overturn the results of a presidential election and block the peaceful transfer of power to his rightful successor. Former President Donald Trump waged this campaign for months, spreading baseless claims about widespread election fraud and pursuing an array of schemes at the local, state, and federal levels in an effort to reverse the 2020 electoral outcome. This multifaceted campaign--which culminated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol--has chipped away at many Americans' faith in our democratic processes, emboldened extremists who threaten violence to secure their political preferences, and left a blueprint for future efforts to subvert elections. This crisis is made worse by shortcomings in an array of federal laws, which leave key government institutions vulnerable, and provide legal loopholes that can be exploited by actors looking to subvert the will of the American people. In June 2021, the House of Representatives created the January 6 Select Committee to investigate the events surrounding the attack on the Capitol including their causes. This Guide presents an overview of the Select Committee's findings to date, revealed to the public in a series of hearings that allege President Trump and his associates engaged in a seven-part conspiracy to hold onto power. This Guide covers the numerous threats to American democracy that have emerged, responsive reforms under consideration by policymakers, and how Americans can learn more about these events and possible paths forward toward a more resilient democracy in the future."

Just Security. September 2022. 43p.