By: Kavya Kartik
Domestic violent extremists are those who seek to advance political, social, or ideological objectives through unlawful acts of violence within the United States. These violent actors are on the rise in the United States, with the number of FBI domestic terrorism investigations having “more than doubled since 2020.” Among DVEs, the majority are racially or ethnically motivated (RMVEs), and others are anti-government motivated or homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) inspired by foreign terrorist organizations (Government Accountability Office, 2023). Because DVEs primarily act alone or in small cells and are increasingly motivated by competing ideologies, these attacks and their targets are often difficult to predict or prevent in advance. Therefore, while traditional terrorist organizations usually require formal structures or sufficient financing, the lack thereof within DVEs makes conventional counterterrorism much less effective, indicating just how critical this threat is to U.S. national security.
Domestic and international sociopolitical developments are a significant risk factor to radicalization, especially with the rise of politically associated domestic terrorism. Political polarization and perceived political grievances, along with the presence of an extremist enabler, allow individuals to frame violence as a legitimate pathway to retribution, especially among lone actors. This risk is especially heightened with the rise of violent rhetoric, misinformation, and fearmongering from partisan elites, which are all very prominent on social media. In recent years, instead of condemning the use of violence during political competition or unfavorable political outcomes, elites are explicitly calling for it or using it against their opposing candidates, therefore normalizing extremism. This pattern is increasingly common among the Make America Great Movement and its most influential political actors, such as President Donald Trump, his cabinet, and his allies. Most notably, the January 6th storming of the Capitol serves as an example of how enablement from partisan elites can cause tangible disruption to democracy, turning ideological rhetoric into violent action. As individuals become more accepting of the use violence as an outlet against government or civilian populations, there is a critical threat to national security.
Another potential risk factor to DVE radicalization is economic conditions, including unemployment, sporadic work history, lower levels of education, and socioeconomic status. Economic hardships are closely tied to broader sociopolitical grievances when individuals perceive their financial struggles to be the fault of institutions or particular political parties. In these situations, extremist groups may exploit economic insecurity by portraying immigrants or racial minorities as responsible for unemployment and declining economic opportunities, transforming personal financial grievances into broader ideological resentment and potentially motivating violence. Additionally, unstable economic conditions or prolonged unemployment are associated with a risk of becoming socially isolated, giving extremist networks an opportunity to appeal to vulnerable, resentful individuals. For example, the National Institute of Justice identifies unemployment and failure to achieve personal aspirations as potential risk factors associated with terrorist violence, demonstrating how economic instability can intersect with personal and political grievances to increase vulnerability to radicalization (Smith, 2018).
Online platforms amplify these factors as DVEs are increasingly using them to spread propaganda, conspiracies, or misinformation. Meanwhile, foreign adversaries like China or Russia can exploit social divisions through disinformation campaigns online designed to undermine trust in U.S. governance. Additionally, the rise of generative artificial intelligence increases the reach of these narratives and misleading content. This is a significant risk factor to radicalization as online communities are able to reinforce grievances and provide community to individuals experiencing political or economic grievances or loneliness. Combined with political polarization and economic hardships as risk factors, online radicalization poses a great threat to national security as individuals experiencing these issues are exposed to the normalization of extremist beliefs, politically motivated, or anti-government violence.
Social networks can play a critical role in identifying early warning signs of radicalization, so community-based prevention and intervention should be strengthened in counterterrorism strategies. Working with community organizations, local and state governments can establish reporting or referral methods through multidisciplinary threat assessment and intervention teams, where those in an individual’s online or in-person social circles can report behavior signaling a path to radicalization. There should be options for anonymous reporting as well as resources separate from law enforcement where individuals can be connected with supportive intervention services before extremist grievances turn into acts of violence. Strengthening trust between communities and law enforcement is also necessary, as local teams can then assess the credibility of such reports and refer them to the appropriate authorities when needed. One of the DOJ’s current counterterrorism priorities is strengthening federal, state, local, and international coordination, so this approach could work with the existing strategy while emphasizing deterrence before mobilization toward violence.
Because DVE radicalization and reinforcement often occurs online, technology companies should work with civil society organizations to implement digital media literacy initiatives targeted at identifying mis/disinformation, AI, conspiracy theories, and extremist narratives. This approach works better than attempting to remove or censor political posts, as that can be difficult due risks of suppressing legitimate free speech or political expression. Companies often hold significant influence over online discourse, therefore silencing powerful partisan leaders (as many companies have done with President Donald Trump) who espouse violent extremist rhetoric risks silencing people with fewer outlets. To support an initiative like this, technology companies can work with the Department of Education to advance much-needed research into how different online forums and types of narratives contribute and reinforce mobilization toward extremist ideology and eventually, violence.
Lastly, the FBI, DHS, and local and state law enforcement should work to improve their collaboration and intelligence sharing between federal and state areas. Although they already work to counter threats through Joint Terrorism Task Forces, the GAO identified that there is a need to clarify the division of responsibilities, optimize information sharing, develop performance measures, and identify the resources and investments needed to implement the DOJ’s counterterrorism strategy. The FBI and DHS should establish standardized protocols in the existing Joint Mission Center for information-sharing with Joint Terrorism Task Forces, state fusion centers, and local governments and law enforcement on emerging extremist threats. This would facilitate clarification of each agency’s responsibilities for collecting and analyzing threat intelligence and establish tangible goals to measure effectiveness and deterrence.
The growing threat of domestic violent extremism highlights the need for a more proactive and coordinated approach to U.S. national security. As political polarization, partisan enablement, economic grievances, and online-based misinformation and community building increasingly contribute to radicalization, traditional counterterrorism strategies must be reevaluated. Strengthening community-based prevention, promoting digital media literacy, and improving interagency intelligence sharing are critical to identifying and addressing extremist behavior before it escalates into violence. Ultimately, countering domestic violent extremism requires addressing the underlying drivers of radicalization while safeguarding democratic institutions and civil liberties.