Latest in Domestic Terrorism
The government’s requests are aggressive and, extrapolating from judges’ previous sentencing practices, unlikely to be accepted in full.
A former Select Committee investigative counsel explains how the extremist coalition that came together on January 6th began developing in the chaotic early months of 2020, long before Trump called on them to come to the Capitol.
A new report details how domestic violent extremist groups target members of the military and law enforcement.
Coverage of the incident seems to have downplayed the significance of a kidnapping attempt and possibly even an assassination attempt against the speaker of the House, the woman third in line to the presidency.
From additional granularity in the size and scope of the threat of domestic terrorism to a more forthcoming acknowledgement of its complexity, the new assessment represents a sea change in the U.S. counterterrorism appartus.
A summary of the GWU Program on Extremism report investigating critical infrastructure attacks from domestic violent extremists and homegrown violent extremists since 2016.
To answer the question of whether the United States needs a new domestic terrorism statute, we first have to explore how well, if at all, seditious conspiracy is already performing as a substitute.
There’s been an ongoing “sea change” in the U.S. government’s domestic counter-extremism policy, but also on domestic violent extremist actors, groups, and movements themselves.
In 1998, the IRS was prohibited from designating sovereign citizen nonfilers as “illegal tax protesters.” Two decades later, this provision may now be obscuring a plausible tool for identifying domestic extremists.
FBI Director Christopher Wray says that the bureau’s internal guidelines prevented it from looking at social media posts announcing the planned attack on the Capitol. But the guidelines say nothing of the sort.