By Alexander Ritzmann With contributions by Jean-Yves Camus, Joshua Fisher-Birch, Bulcsú Hunyadi, Jacek Purski and Jakub Woroncow  

• This report explores the role of antisemitism in mobilizing extremist and terrorist actors to violence, focusing on trends and patterns across France, Germany, Hungary, Poland and the United States. It discusses antisemitic narratives, key antisemitic actors, transnational connections, dissemination strategies, and provides policy recommendations. • Antisemitic narratives serve as tools to justify violence across ideological lines, framing Jewish communities and individuals as threats or scapegoats. Rightwing extremists propagate conspiracy theories like the “Great Replacement,” portraying Jews as orchestrating adverse societal change. Islamist extremists often conflate Jewish identity with global oppression, particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Left-wing extremists link Jews to capitalism or imperialism, using antizionism to mask antisemitism. These narratives are adapted to local and geopolitical contexts, reinforcing the targeting of Jewish communities and individuals. • The report documents a sharp increase in antisemitic incidents following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and ensuing war. Violent antisemitic rhetoric has spiked in demonstrations and online discourses. Islamist extremist networks, left-wing extremist actors and pro-Palestinian extremist groups have particularly amplified violent antisemitic sentiments under the guise of antizionist rhetoric, sometimes overlapping with traditional right-wing antisemitic themes. • Transnational networks facilitate the spread of antisemitic narratives. Right-wing extremist groups connect online and through events and annual marches, while Islamist extremist groups leverage shared ideological or religious frameworks to justify violence. Left-wing extremist and pro-Palestinian extremist groups maintain operations across Europe and in the U.S., amplifying violent antisemitic narratives. Shared slogans, symbols, and coordinated protests underline their interconnectedness. • In some countries, an increase in violent attacks against Jewish or Israeli targets has been documented. • The report emphasizes that the concept of combatting organized antisemitism should be added to strategies that aim at targeting violence-oriented antisemitic actors. Such professional organized antisemitic actors often operate in (transnational) networks, utilizing online platforms and offline activities to propagate hate and justify or conduct violence. • The report also calls attention to the role of states like the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation in fostering violent antisemitism through proxies and propaganda. • Policy recommendations include focusing on identifying and disrupting key antisemitic actors, enhancing data collection and analysis, and fostering international collaboration. The report also stresses the need for tailored preventative and educational initiatives and stricter online content regulation and enforcement to combat the spread of antisemitism and its violent manifestations. 

Counter Extremism Project, 2025. 153p.

By Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens, Bennett Clifford, Lorenzo Vidino

Executive Summary • Antisemitism is pervasive throughout several categories of American extremist movements, both violent and non-violent. American extremists incorporate antisemitic tropes and narratives in every level of their worldviews, using them to help construct “us/them” dichotomies and wide-sweeping conspiracies that are essential to their movements. • During the past several decades, the American extremist movements that have been among the most violent—specifically, far-right and jihadist groups—have used antisemitism to target Jewish people, Jewish houses of worship, Jewish community institutions, and Americans supporting the Jewish state of Israel. • Antisemitism, as a belief and world-structuring theory, can at times serve as a gateway issue for individuals into further radicalization to violent extremism. Nonviolent and violent iterations of the same extremist milieus often share antisemitic views as central elements of their belief system, and thus antisemitism constitutes a linkage between activist and violent extremist segments of the same movement. • Several case studies of violent American extremists, representing far-right and jihadist movements respectively, demonstrate that antisemitism can be an integral part of American extremists’ progression through the radicalization process and in justifying terrorist attacks. • Based on this report’s finding that antisemitism is foundational to multiple violent extremist movements in the United States, counter-extremism practitioners and scholars may consider incorporating antisemitism as a diagnostic factor for extremist radicalization. o While there is no single profile of an American extremist, antisemitism has long been widespread among American extremist movements of multiple persuasions, acting as a least common denominator between extremist groups. o Antisemitic beliefs often serve as a key entry point for individuals to radicalize, join extremist groups, and progress into violent mobilization. o By using promotion of antisemitism as a factor in identifying key influencers and ideologues in extremist movements, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programming can isolate key nodes in extremist groups and debunk the narratives they promote without engaging in theological debates. o Studying the role of antisemitism in extremist groups can assist scholars in identifying common themes between different types of extremism, as well as between non-violent and violent strands of the same extremist movements. This can improve analysis on the broader relationships between and within extremist groups.

Washington DC: Program on Extremism, George Washington University, 2020. 27p.

By Mohamed Bin Ali and Ahmad Saiful Rijal Bin Hassan

Far-right extremism based on racial and extremist ideologies is finding resonance among some Singaporean youth, posing a challenge to the country’s counterradicalisation strategies, which had been based on religiously motivated extremism. The Singapore authorities need to review their counter-radicalisation frameworks as they grapple with this emerging threat.

S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU 2025. 4p.

By Mathias Bak, Kristoffer Nilaus Tarp, and Christina Schori Liang

During the last few decades, the concept of violent extremism (VE) has played an increasingly prominent role in policies and development programming on a global level. Having gone through several incarnations, the current focus for most actors deals with preventing and countering violent extremism. This terminology was constructed in an effort to repackage the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in a manner that shifted the focus away from the over-militarised responses of the 90s and early 2000s, to methods linked to social support and prevention. Where counterterrorism focuses on countering terrorists through physical means, the Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (P/CVE) approach aims to prevent the rise of violent extremist organisations (VEOs) through less militarised methods. P/CVE programs therefore aim at developing resilience among communities that may be prone to violent extremism.

According to the 2015 UN Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, such interventions aim to address the root causes and drivers of violent extremism, which often include: socio-economic issues; discrimination; marginalization; poor governance; human rights violations; remnants of violent conflict; collective grievances; and other psychological factors. The concept of violent extremism has also become increasingly mainstream in the international community, with both the UN Security Council (UNSC 2014)2 and the UN General Assembly3 (UNGA 2015) calling for member states to address VE.

Geneva Paper 24/19, Geneva, SWIT: Geneva Centre for Security Policy, 2019. 40p.

By Zoe Marchment, Caitlin Clemmow, Paul Gill

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The EGM has three main objectives: (1) Identify the strength (in terms of evidence quality) and depth (in terms of volume of evidence) of evidence base on the efficacy of situational crime prevention measures in preventing terrorist attacks against soft targets and crowded places. (2) Identify the heterogeneity in the effects of situational crime prevention measures against terrorist attacks and link this to issues related to context and implementation. (3) Identify the mechanisms through which situational crime prevention measures have an effect on terrorist attacks. To achieve these objectives, an EGM will seek out reliable quantitative evidence on effect and qualitative evidence on mechanisms, moderators, implementation and economics. Resultingly, it will be possible to identify research gaps and evidence imbalances to facilitate research investment, identify gaps and topics for new research, and provide a foundation for systematic reviews by showing where sufficient evidence exists for aggregation. The underpinning programme of work will result in the presentation of rigorous empirical research on this topic to help researchers and decision-makers understand the available evidence.

Campbell Systematic Reviews, Volume21, Issue2, June 2025, 12p.

By Triana McNeil

  A hate crime occurs nearly every hour in the U.S., based on data reported to the FBI. Investigations of recent hate crimes have suggested that exposure to hate speech on the internet may have contributed to the attackers’ biases against their victims. In 2021, the FBI placed hate crimes at the same national threat priority level as preventing domestic violent extremism. GAO was asked to review information on hate crimes and hate speech on the internet. This report examines (1) the extent to which DOJ collects data on hate crimes that occur on the internet, (2) what company data indicate about steps selected companies have taken to remove hate speech and violent extremist speech from their internet platforms, and (3) what is known about users’ experience with, or expression of, hate speech on the internet, and its relationship to hate crimes and domestic violent extremism. GAO analyzed U.S. hate crime data and interviewed DOJ officials. GAO analyzed data and interviewed officials from six selected companies operating internet platforms with publicly available policies prohibiting hate and violent extremist speech. GAO assessed peer reviewed and nonprofit studies that described hate speech on the internet, hate crimes, and domestic violent extremist incidents. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that BJS explore options to measure bias-related criminal victimization that occurs on the internet through the National Crime Victimization Survey or in a supplemental survey, as appropriate. BJS agreed with this recommendation.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2024. 87p.

By Alex Goldenberg, Joel Finkelstein,

In the predawn hours of September 12, 2001, on board a helicopter heading from Liberty State Park to State Police Headquarters, I had my first opportunity since the terrorist attacks the previous morning to wonder, “how the hell did they pull this off?” It was inconceivable to me, with the trillions of dollars our nation had spent on a global early warning system to prevent another Pearl Harbor surprise attack, that we were unable to prevent the 9/11 attacks or, with the exception of the heroism of the passengers and crew of United 93, to stop them in progress. The question haunted me for the remainder of my term as New Jersey’s Attorney General and beyond until, as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, I was able to help piece together precisely how the terrorists managed to succeed. At every turn, they hid in plain sight. They traveled openly and freely among the Americans they despised, then disappeared when circumstances warranted. Specifically, on the day of 9/11 itself, the first thing the hijackers did once they secured the cockpits was to turn off the transponders that identified the aircraft to military and civilian controllers. This had the effect of making the planes’ radar signals disappear into the clutter of raw radar data, making it extremely difficult to track the planes. A lot has changed in the years since the 9/11 attacks happened and the 9/11 Commission Report was issued. There were no smart phones then, no Twitter or Instagram, no Google or Snapchat. The revolution in communication technology since has transformed both the way we live and the tactics employed by the extremists who want to kill us. What has remained constant, however, is the extremists’ strategy of using the instrumentalities of freedom recursively in order to destroy it, and the challenge to governments to anticipate the new generations of tactics in order to frustrate their employment. The Report you are about to read, “Cyber Swarming: Memetic Warfare and Viral Insurgency,” represents a breakthrough case study in the capacity to identify cyber swarms and viral insurgencies in nearly real time as they are developing in plain sight. The result of an analysis of over 100 million social media comments, the authors demonstrate how the “boogaloo meme,” “a joke for some, acts as a violent meme that circulates instructions for a violent, viral insurgency for others.” Using it, like turning off the transponders on 9/11, enables the extremists to hide in plain sight, disappearing into the clutter of innocent messages, other data points. It should be of particular concern, the authors note, for the military, for whom “the meme’s emphasis on military language and culture poses a special risk.” Because most of law enforcement and the military remain ignorant of “memetic warfare,” the authors demonstrate, extremists who employ it “possess a distinct advantage over government officials and law enforcement.” As with the 9/11 terrorists, “they already realize that they are at war. Public servants cannot afford to remain ignorant of this subject because as sites, followers, and activists grow in number, memes can reach a critical threshold and tipping point, beyond which they can suddenly saturate and mainstream across entire cultures.” This Report is at once an urgent call to recognize an emerging threat and a prescription for how to counter it. As such, it offers that rarest of opportunities: the chance to stop history from repeating itself.

The Network Contagion Research Institute , 2021. 11p.

Edited by Giray SADIK  

According to Strategic Concept 2022, terrorism, which poses the immediate asymmetric and transnational threat, is one of two main threats to NATO. Even though NATO’s focus is currently directed to the other main threat, Russia, particularly after its war against Ukraine, terrorism has remained a major threat across the NATO territory and periphery. Besides, the adaptations of terrorist organizations in response to current wars such as the one in Ukraine are likely to exacerbate terrorist threats for NATO Allies and partners. Therefore, there is an ongoing need for research and learning around global terrorism landscape and its implications for NATO. To this end, this research aims to identify the lessons learned for NATO from the RussiaUkraine war for countering terrorism effectively. Russia’s war on Ukraine since February 2022 has led to dramatic changes in global geopolitics and the all-encompassing domains of security, connectivity, and modern warfare. Although significant and widespread, the effects of this ongoing war on global terrorism have yet to be comprehensively analyzed. To address this gap in a timely manner, this project aims to examine the effects of the Russia-Ukraine war on terrorism through expert discussions on the contemporary trends and lessons learned for global counter-terrorism efforts, and NATO Allies and Partners. To this end, we organized a workshop in hybrid format (in-person and online) with the contributing authors of the edited book. Workshop participants include academics, practitioners, and subject matter experts from various NATO Allies and Partners.   

Ankara, Turkey: Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism (COE-DAT) , 2025.   138p.

By Shai Farber

  This systematic review unveils significant convergence between cybercriminals and terrorists over the past decade, characterized by substantial overlap in tactics, capabilities, and infrastructure exploitation. Key findings illuminate the adoption of cybercriminal methods by terrorist organizations, the engagement of cybercriminal groups in terrorist activities, the proliferation of enabling technologies such as cryptocurrencies and the dark web, and the role of social media in facilitating knowledge exchange between diverse threat actors. While direct terrorist involvement in proftdriven cybercrime appears limited, the escalating convergence underscores urgent imperatives for enhanced cooperation, legal refinement, the establishment of flexible counter-threat authorities, and collaboration with the private sector. Continuous monitoring of this rapidly evolving landscape is crucial to inform effective policies and interventions in an increasingly interconnected digital world.

Security Journal (2025), 23p.

By Nina Wilén and Kwesi Aning

Over the past decade, Western and multilateral security interventions in the Sahel have failed to stabilize the region, while national and local efforts, particularly in Mali and Burkina Faso, have remained largely militarized. These approaches have proven ineffective in addressing the underlying causes of instability, such as food insecurity, lack of basic services, and limited economic opportunities. The key lesson learned is that military action alone cannot resolve the Sahel’s security crisis—political engagement from local, national, and regional actors is crucial.

Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e. V. 2 COUNTER EXTREMISM PROJECT, 2025// 28p.

By Marzia Giambertoni

lthough U.S. policymakers face a variety of complex challenges in addressing transnational terrorism, one underappreciated aspect is Hezbollah's evolving presence in Latin America. Academic literature and government reports almost universally indicate that Hezbollah's activities in the region pose potential threats to U.S. national security. However, there is a significant knowledge gap in existing assessments. In this paper, the author offers an initial exploration of Hezbollah's operational footprint in Latin America, focusing on illicit funding mechanisms, violent operations, and key operational hubs — particularly in the Tri-Border Area and Venezuela. The analysis situates these activities within the broader context of Iran's regional diplomatic, economic, and cultural activities, which partially facilitate conditions amenable to Hezbollah's operations.

The author draws from a variety of open-source materials and reviews publicly available information to provide a foundation for understanding how Hezbollah's networks in Latin America are characterized and discussed publicly. By analyzing the group's operational strategies and historical precedents, the author's framing identifies actionable considerations for U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) leadership while raising awareness of the organization's presence among a broader community of stakeholders. These findings are significant for both DHS and DoD, given the former's counterterrorism mandate in Latin America and the latter's strategic interests in the region. Hezbollah's evolving presence warrants careful consideration from defense planners to effectively address potential challenges to U.S. interests and regional stability.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2025, 20p.

By Kateira Aryaeinejad and Thomas Leo Scherer

Over the years, the National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) funding for research has provided important opportunities to advance our understanding of topics related to crime and justice within the United States. Drawing from this portfolio, this synthesis paper compares and contrasts the data and findings from NIJ-sponsored research projects on violent extremism, mass shootings, and bias crimes. This comparison focuses both on the content of the data and on the creation and coverage of the data, examining findings from four research projects: ■ The Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS) database of 2,226 individuals who demonstrated at least 1 of 5 extremist or radicalized behaviors. ■ The Bias Incidents and Actors Study (BIAS) database of 966 adults arrested or indicted for bias crimes. ■ The National Hate Crime Investigation Study (NHCIS) database of 1,230 hate crime cases. ■ The Violence Project dataset of 172 mass shootings. This synthesis first reviews the creation of each dataset and the types of information that are collected to better understand their generalizability and the ability to make comparisons across separate datasets. There are significant differences in the size, time span, and information of the four datasets, which limits the comparisons that can be made between the individuals described in each dataset and necessitates caution in drawing strong conclusions from such comparisons. With that caution in mind, the datasets suggest some similarities in the individuals who commit bias crimes and mass shootings and display violent extremist behavior. These individuals are primarily males in their 20s and 30s and unmarried at the time of their offenses. They may exhibit higher rates of unemployment than the general population and often have prior criminal histories. However, that is not to say that these characteristics should be used as a profile to determine who is at risk of or more likely to commit any of these types of offenses or behaviors. Rather, it calls into question what other factors may be impacting individuals with these characteristics who go on to commit these types of offenses. The datasets also suggest some differences in the individuals who commit each type of offense or behavior. Individuals associated with violent extremism tend to be more educated than those who commit mass shootings or bias crimes. Individuals who commit mass shootings exhibit higher rates of mental health issues than those who commit bias crimes or participate in violent extremism offenses. The comparison of individuals across categories also highlighted differences among individuals who committed the same type of offense. Among individuals who supported violent extremism, for example, those acting in support of far-right ideologies were more likely to have military experience than those following other ideologies. Comparing these datasets highlights their potential and their limitations, suggesting paths forward for future research. The different collection methods show the importance of precisely describing the data collection method, discussing which behaviors are missed by that method, and triangulating among data with different methods to understand what is missing. The differences in the types of information that each dataset collects about each individual and action suggest that future collections could have greater overlap and comparability. The establishment of potential similarities in demographics and life experiences also allows for more targeted data collection focusing on why most individuals who fit that profile do not commit an offense, while others do. In this way, these projects not only contribute to our current understanding of these types of offenses and behaviors but also allow future research and programming to be conducted more effectively.

Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 2024. 43p.

By Noémie Bouhana | Caitlin Clemmow | With contributions from Philip Doherty

Post 9/11, research on radicalisation and involvement in terrorism and violent extremism (henceforth, ITVE) has focussed on the role of individual-level attributes, such as the psychological characteristics, socio-economic background, demographic features, experiences, beliefs, past behaviours and criminality, and the social embeddedness of radicalised individuals and people involved in acts of terrorism (Borum, 2011; Stern, 2016; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2017; Sageman, 2008; Wiktorowicz, 2005). Likewise, existing processes, methods and tools to identify and evaluate the risk of ITVE operate largely at the individual level. The Vulnerability Assessment Framework (VAF) used in the context of Channel is the best example of this. Comparatively less attention has been devoted to identifying and evaluating the characteristics of the socio-physical contexts which may contribute to the emergence of the risk of ITVE, or, conversely, to its suppression. Yet research on crime, arguably a closely related problem space, makes a strong case that many of the causes and enabling conditions of criminal development (of which ITVE is an instantiation) are found in the environment: crime and criminals concentrate in space and time. Modifying the environment in which crime occurs and the specific settings in which criminals develop and act has been shown at length to be an effective approach to crime prevention and disruption (Weisburd et al., 2012). In crime prevention, as in other areas of behavioural change, one size does not fit all: to design effective programs, the ability to tailor interventions to the socio-physical context is paramount, which means that the effect of key contextual features on the outcome of interest must be understood (Sampson et al., 2013); notably, the effect of exposing (susceptible) individuals with particular kinds of characteristics to (criminogenic) places with particular kinds of features. Situational Action Theory [SAT] is a theory of crime causation, which, as its name suggests, puts context at the centre of the explanation of crime (P.- O. H. Wikström et al., 2009). In 2010, ahead of the revision of the Prevent Strategy, the UK Home Office commissioned a Rapid Evidence Assessment of the cause of al-Qaeda-influenced radicalisation seen through the lens of SAT (Bouhana & Wikström, 2011), which identified the key levels of analysis in a causal model of radicalisation as relating to individual vulnerability to radicalising influence, exposure to radicalising settings, and the mechanisms of emergence of said settings. In the decade since, this theoretical model has been refined and now underpins a research programme concerned chiefly with going beyond "who" and "why" to the "where" of terrorism involvement. It has inspired, notably, the EU FP7-funded international PRIME project on lone actor terrorism, which, among other findings, has shown that individual-level risk indicators are multifinal (i.e., their meaning determined by the context in which they arise), and has provided support for a formulation of individual vulnerability which encompasses susceptibility to exposure to radicalising settings, as well as cognitive susceptibility to moral change with significant implications for prevention efforts (Corner et al., 2018). It has also produced evidence for distinct configurations of individual/ context interaction patterns leading to the emergence of lone actor risk, with further implications for risk assessment (Clemmow et al., 2019). To better support policy strategy and counter-terrorism practice, the theoretical SAT model of radicalisation was reformulated and expanded into a risk analysis framework for lone actor terrorism [PRIME RAF] (Bouhana et al., 2016, 2018) and a systemic inference framework to inform counter-extremism strategies [S5], commissioned by the UK Counter-Extremism Commission (Bouhana, 2019). Both of these integrate SAT with the broader behavioural and socio-cognitive knowledge-base to refine our understanding of personenvironment interaction. While the RAF is concerned specifically with the effect of situational interaction on the motivation and capability of lone actors to act (behaviour), S5 is more broadly focused on explaining the acquisition of extremist propensities (beliefs). Both frameworks are analytically related and can be logically integrated. However, these remain general frameworks. Inherent in their interactionist logic is the fact that, while environmental processes of risk can be set out in generic terms, specific risk (or protective) factors and – crucially – their observable indicators must be elicited with regards to a particular context. This is because indicators are subject to change over space and time (P. O. H. Wikström & Bouhana, 2017) and because risk assessment is most effective when calibrated to context (Hamilton et al., 2021). A recently completed, Home Office-funded project guided by S5 (State of the Union [SOTU]; Bouhana and Schumann, 2021), which aimed to assess the observability of key analytical concepts of mainstream models of terrorism involvement, demonstrated the difficulty, yet also the necessity of translating said concepts into observable indicators, inasmuch as any model is intended to guide risk assessment or intervention design and evaluation. It also suggested that environmental indicators may be more reliably observed than susceptibility-related indicators using commonly available sources of information, and it tentatively provided further support for the notion that susceptibility and exposure interact in specific ways, leading to the emergence of risk. This project investigated the feasibility of developing a framework to assess the risk of involvement in terrorism and violent extremism at the level of place, with a view towards – further down the line – designing an assessment tool along the lines of the Vulnerability Assessment Framework, intended to assess environments instead of individuals. As a first step towards establishing this feasibility, this project investigated whether the mechanisms articulated in the S5 framework could be operationalised; in other words, to what extent they could be associated with a set of observable indicators relevant to the UK ITVE context. Given the relative scarcity of empirical research into the characteristics of extremist social ecologies and settings in the UK (and largely elsewhere) – which would be prerequisite to the conduct of a systematic review – the researchers elected to carry out an e-Delphi exercise with U.K. Prevent practitioners, the results of which are presented at length in this report.

London: CREST - Centre for Research and Evidence in Security Threats (CREST), 2025. 50p.

By Noor Huda Ismail

Violent extremist groups exploit societal grievances, including climate-related disasters, to gain legitimacy and recruit members by positioning themselves as the true protectors of vulnerable communities. Strategic communication, including AI driven tools, is essential to counter extremist narratives and build resilience against manipulation. There is an urgent need for proactive, transmedia storytelling approaches to address both climate change and violent extremism, ultimately strengthening trust and promoting community unity.

S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU Singapore, 2025. 4p.

By Iftekharul Bashar

Hizb ut-Tahrir Bangladesh, an extremist organisation banned since 2009, is swiftly expanding by recruiting Bangladeshi youth through social media and educational institutions. The group’s recent rally in Dhaka, attended by over 2,000 supporters, underscores its resurgence and the growing challenge for the government. Bangladesh must recalibrate its response to this threat by strengthening law enforcement measures, enhancing counter-radicalisation programmes, and creating job and entrepreneurship opportunities for its youth.

S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU Singapore, 2025. 4p.

By Remadji Hoinathy, Malik Samuel and Akinola Olojo

  Some Lake Chad Basin countries (Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria) have been dealing with violent extremism for over a decade. Disarmament, demobilisation, repatriation, reintegration and resettlement processes in these countries may offer useful lessons for other West African contexts, including Mali and Burkina Faso, or more recently affected countries such as Benin, Côte d’Ivoire and Togo. Such lessons include incentivising defections, coordinating at national and regional levels, gender sensitivity, appropriate legal frameworks and community engagement.

Key findings Understanding the circumstances that lead people to join and leave violent extremist groups, and their experiences in those groups, is key to crafting incentives for disengagement. The willingness to leave violent extremist groups is often clouded by uncertainty, as well as long waiting periods between disengagement and enrolment in programmes for disarmament, demobilisation, repatriation, reintegration and resettlement (DDRRR). Waves of defection from Boko Haram caught Lake Chad Basin (LCB) states unprepared. DDRRR processes were thus implemented under pressure, hindering early coordination at a regional level. Women are treated mainly as victims, despite some voluntarily joining and playing active roles in Boko Haram, including volunteering as suicide bombers. DDRRR implementation in the LCB has revealed gaps in legal frameworks that require revisions. DDRRR lacks public support in some LCB countries, as many people view it as blanket amnesty for Boko Haram members. 

Recommendations Non-military means of countering violent extremism should incorporate incentives and opportunities for associates to leave these armed groups. By depleting these groups’ human resources, their fighting capacity is reduced. To encourage defection, clear processes for screening, prosecution and integration are needed. National ownership of these processes, inclusivity, adaptation to local context and adequate resourcing are key, from inception to implementation. National ownership should not lead to isolated approaches, but rather create bridges between countries to enable a cohesive regional approach. Organisations such as the Economic Community of West African States, the Liptako-Gourma States Integrated Development Authority, the G5 Sahel and the Accra Initiative could offer relevant regional frameworks for this. Authorities in charge of DDRRR programmes should consider the diverse needs and backgrounds of ex-associates. Distinguishing individuals according to why they joined and their roles within the groups is important for providing appropriate treatment. The specific needs of women and children should be taken into account. Affected West African countries should proactively formulate relevant legal and institutional frameworks. International and regional provisions and standards should be taken into account, including the need for transparent and predictable screening, prosecution and rehabilitation processes. Due to their position connecting the LCB and West Africa, Niger and Nigeria could play a key role in sharing lessons learned from DDRRR implementation. Community organisations, platforms, and media should be used by the DDRRR authorities to raise public awareness of the reintegration process. This would help prevent perceptions of general amnesty for Boko Haram members and preconceived ideas about the disengaged from undermining the process. 

Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2023. 12p.

By Andrew Gilligan and Paul Stott

  • The Government’s “Rapid Analytical Sprint” to determine its policy on extremism has been leaked to Policy Exchange. • It says the UK’s approach to extremism should no longer be based on “ideologies of concern” but on a very wide range of “behaviours,” including violence against women and girls, “spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories,” an interest in gore or extreme violence, misogyny, or involvement in “an online subculture called the manosphere.” It admits itself that many who display such behaviours are not extremist. • This approach could swamp already stretched counter-extremism staff and counter-terror police with thousands of new cases, increasing the risk that genuinely dangerous individuals are missed. It risks addressing symptoms, not causes. • The Sprint de-centres and downplays Islamism, by far the greatest threat to national security. It acknowledges “left-wing, anarchist and single issue (LASI) extremism,” “environmental extremism” and Hindu extremism as distinct phenomena that counter-extremist policy should tackle. The left may object to the first two; others will welcome it. • The Sprint will raise concerns over freedom of speech. It says claims of two-tier policing are a “right-wing extremist narrative.” It recommends the reversal of moves to cut police use of “non-crime hate incidents.” A new crime of making “harmful communications” online – rejected by the previous government on freedom of speech grounds - is floated. • The Sprint may have been influenced by the events of Southport. But as in the Prime Minister’s remarks after the killer’s guilty pleas last week, it risks confusing extreme violence with extremism, or extremism with any shocking crime, bad belief or nasty social phenomenon about which we are worried. • What happened in Southport was more an operational than a policy failing. The murderer had shown he was dangerous many times over several years before he killed anyone. In a more operationally effective policing and justice system, action would have been taken against him sooner, even without having to first label him an extremist. • There is a case, as the former counter-terror policing chief Neil Basu has said, for creating a “non-extremist” version of Prevent aiming to interdict people, such as the Southport killer, with an interest  in violence but no obvious ideological or political motivation. The recommendation by a previous reviewer of Prevent, William Shawcross, that the current programme is the wrong place for dealing with the psychologically unstable has been ignored, even repudiated, in the Sprint. It should be acted on. • There are several sensible proposals, including the creation of a new Ministerial Counter-Extremism Board to coordinate policy.   

London: Policy Exchange, 2025. 30p.

ByJoe Whittaker, Elizabeth Pearson, Ashley A Mattheis, Till Baaken, Sara Zeiger, Farangiz Atamuradova, Maura Conway

Drawing from interviews with 39 online extremism and terrorism researchers, this article provides an empirical analysis of these researchers’ experiences with institutional ethics processes. Discussed are the harms that these researchers face in the course of their work, including trolling, doxing, and mental and emotional trauma arising from exposure to terrorist content, which highlight the need for an emphasis on researcher welfare. We find that researcher welfare is a neglected aspect of ethics review processes however, with most interviewees not required to gain ethics approval for their research resulting in very little attention to researcher welfare issues. Interviewees were frustrated with ethics processes, indicating that committees oftentimes lacked the requisite knowledge to make informed ethical decisions. Highlighted by interviewees too was a concern that greater emphasis on researcher welfare could result in blockages to their ‘risky’ research, creating a ‘Catch 22’: interviewees would like more emphasis on their (and colleagues’) welfare and provision of concomitant supports, but feel that increased oversight would make gaining ethics approval for their research more difficult, or even impossible. We offer suggestions for breaking the impasse, including more interactions between ethics committees and researchers; development of tailored guidelines; and more case studies reflecting on ethics processes.

New Media & Society Online First, February 28, 2025

By Irfan Idris and Kusumasari Ayuningtyas

The ideological influence of Jemaah Islamiyah continues to be a threat to security even after its disbandment in June 2024. Some of its former members may align with other extremist groups, while others may seek to operate as lone-wolf terrorists. The possibility of JI’s former members transitioning into lone wolf actors stems from the enduring power of its ideology and indoctrination process.

S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU Singapore, 2025, 3p.

By Noor Huda Ismail

The concept of asabiyya – group solidarity – originally articulated by Ibn Khaldun, has been hijacked by extremist groups in Southeast Asia to create division and promote radical ideologies. Reclaiming asabiya is crucial, redefining it as a tool for social cohesion and unity by drawing on cultural values that foster mutual respect and collective responsibility. Regional cooperation and digital counter-narratives are essential in countering extremism and fostering long-term peace in the region.

S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU Singapore, 2025. 4p.