In this excellent new research report, Kaitlyn Robinson, Iris Malone and Martha Crenshaw discuss the threat of far-right anti-government extremism in the United States. The January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol demonstrated the capacity of this movement to plan and mount violent attacks against government targets and democratic institutions. Researchers explore how the organisational and tactical characteristics of the far-right anti-government movement in the United States enable it to thrive despite the dangers it poses to the public.
The article argues that the deep-seated ideological roots, fluid organisational structure, and mix of violent and nonviolent tactics make the far-right anti-government movement difficult for federal and state authorities to proscribe, prosecute, and ultimately eliminate. The movement is comprised of several elements, including patriot/militia groups, Sovereign Citizens, online conspiracy theorists, and national organisations. Though organisationally diverse, these components of the movement are largely motivated by the same three ideological tenets: mistrust of federal authority, fear of foreign influence, and the need for paramilitary self-defence.
Anti-government extremists believe the government is actively seeking to undermine their constitutional rights, sometimes through a hidden network of “Deep State” actors. This mistrust of government has deep-seated roots, and followers believe that the US government stages “false flag” terrorist attacks to justify policies that restrict freedom of assembly or access to firearms.
The far-right anti-government movement has expanded significantly over the past thirty years. Local militias, such as the Michigan Militia and the Montana Militia, emerged in the aftermath of Ruby Ridge and Waco and were formed to prepare a collective defence for individuals fearful of violent government overreach. These local organisations integrated existing anti-government ideologies, such as the belief in “common law” propagated by the Sovereign Citizens movement.
The most fluid and transitory organisational structures are those comprised of self-identified followers of the anti-government movement. These individuals are typically self-radicalised and act independently without formal organisational memberships or structures. In recent years, individuals have increasingly used emerging information and communication technologies to learn about and participate in these movements online.
The US anti-government movement is challenging for law enforcement agencies to target due to its strong ideological resolve of resistance, a fluid organisational structure, and a set of provocative but legal tactics. The authors of the report argue that policymakers need to develop an informed response that accounts for the varied, fluid, decentralised, public, and sometimes nonviolent nature of anti-government extremism, as well as the deep-seated and pervasive distrust of federal authority on which it feeds. This approach will likely differ from the modern counter-terrorism tools that were initially designed to combat terrorist threats emanating from abroad, such as those posed by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
The researchers suggest that US officials should look to the experiences of other democratic states facing similar anti-government threats. In response to the proliferation of violent far-right groups, several democracies have begun developing tools to proscribe these organisations—a process that the United States currently lacks. However, the slow-moving process of proscription and banning neither keeps pace with group dynamics nor addresses the ideological roots of the threat.
The degree to which modern counter-terrorism tools, including proscribing domestic extremist groups, can undermine the growth, activity, and lethality of the anti-government far-right is an important question for both scholars and policy makers. In democratic states, governments that may wish to employ these methods must also balance their desire to uphold crucial freedoms of speech, assembly, and association.
The global reach of anti-government extremism creates promising opportunities for scholars to examine the effectiveness of state responses in historical and comparative contexts. Such an analysis could provide new insight into the unique challenges of combating homegrown extremism in a democratic context.