Introduction
This white paper is the second of RMC’s 2024 Election Series focused on potential threats to this election cycle. This paper will provide detailed information on domestic threats to the 2024 elections. Threat actors from the extreme left- and right-wing of the American political spectrum are likely to protest, create civil disturbances, and commit acts of political violence as the November elections approach. Misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation on both sides serve to fuel the heated environment. This paper is not an all-inclusive assessment of potential threats but is intended to highlight the potential for election related protests, civil disturbances, domestic terrorism, and political violence.
Current Domestic Extremism Environment in the U.S.
The domestic extremism environment in the U.S. is marked by a range of ideologically-driven groups and individuals who pose various threat levels. These groups and individuals often have religious, racial, or ethnic causes that push them to acts of violence. Some actors use the Constitutional right to free speech, expression, and assembly to incite conflict and later justify their actions. Furthermore, since the incident at the U.S. Capitol Building on 06 January 2021, domestic extremists have evolved and adapted their strategies. Several groups have been trying to affect changes at the local level, including hosting conferences, and challenging local school district policies. They hope to embed their concerns into mainstream conservative discourse with minimal scrutiny. This has allowed them to initiate conflicts at the local level and made it more difficult for law enforcement to mitigate future potential incidents.[1],[2]
The Founding Fathers intended for the American system of government to be slow and deliberate, with checks and balances. However, society promotes an increasingly fast pace via technology and modern conveniences. This leads to an expectation that the federal government can operate at the same pace and immediately change with the times. This leads to frustration on both ends of the political spectrum. The ease of spreading extremist ideologies has intensified political and social divisions, making it more difficult for diverse groups to find common ground. This can lead to gridlock in political institutions and exacerbate conflicts over policy and governance.[1],[3],[4]
As the presidential election approaches, it is likely that the presence of violent extremists will increase, as evidenced by the 13 July 2024 assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally. Domestic extremist groups are relatively easy to monitor as they often publish their ideologies and recruit new members online. Lone actors are more difficult to identify and target because they often lack the interactions and indicators that law enforcement uses to investigate threat groups. Because they carry out attacks by themselves, it is much more difficult to disrupt their plans. The threats posed by groups and individuals on both sides of the political spectrum must be understood to properly defend against them while still protecting and upholding Constitutional rights.[1],[5]
Issues Driving Political Discourse in the 2024 Election
The issues deepening the political division between left- and right-wing groups are diverse. Abortion, crime, border security, foreign policy, and election integrity all have the potential to spark unrest and violence. Both sides have deep-seated beliefs and are unlikely to find middle ground on these issues.[6]
The Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade and sent the legality of abortion back to the states. Since then, conservative states have significantly limited access to the procedure, ranging from total bans, some of which include exclusions (for rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother), to bans after certain timeframes, usually between six (6) and 15 weeks of pregnancy. More liberal states still allow access to abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy while others allow abortions to take place until birth. These varied polices, while welcomed within their states, continue to drive a broader national argument.[7],[8],[9]
The debate surrounding border security includes questions about how to humanely treat migrants unlawfully entering the country. The political left generally believes that they should be welcomed and supported, including a path to citizenship and, in some jurisdictions, the right to vote. The right has raised concerns over the economic impact and the idea tacitly rewarding those who have broken the law. The idea of “America First” opposes taking care of non-citizens before fixing domestic issues like the national debt, education, veteran’s issues, and homelessness.[7],[8]
Closely related to the border security issues is crime. The political right points to rising crime rates, particularly in large cities, which it blames on liberal policies. This often includes emphasizing violence committed by illegal immigrants against American citizens. The political left claims that crime rates are not increasing and, therefore, wants to deemphasize the issue. In reality, crime reporting to the U.S. Department of Justice has been incomplete since 2020, with many jurisdictions choosing not to furnish yearly statistics. Both sides of the political aisle have been accused of selectively emphasizing data that supports their arguments.[7],[8]
Foreign policy, particularly support for the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, also creates division. The right, historically supportive of overseas military intervention, questions the cost and if American interests are truly at stake. The left, historically critical of such intervention, is now supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia, while remaining divided on Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza. The Jewish community in the U.S. has historically supported the Democratic party. However, left-wing protestors supporting Palestinian issues (and even outright championing Hamas) also generally align themselves with the Democratic party. This dichotomy in an election year complicates the issue on the left. The two (2) major political parties’ evolution here has both created internal division and enflamed tensions across the aisle.[7],[8]
Election integrity is another issue exacerbating the political divide in America. Lawsuits regarding election integrity have been filed nationwide by both sides of the political spectrum. Texas recently reported removing over one (1) million voters from their rolls in the last three (3) years. Most were deceased voters, and the rest were removed for not being current residents, including approximately 1,900 illegal immigrants. Michigan, on the other hand, recently passed a bill limiting the ability to contest election results and initiate recounts post-election. Multiple investigations and lawsuits regarding electronic voting machines, ballot harvesting, irregularities, and claims of election fraud during the 2020 election have produced mixed results. As a result of these issues, the political right tends to be highly suspicious of the different voting systems and laws that govern each states’ elections while the political left is tends to be supportive of current voting systems. The Constitution holds that each state has authority over election administration.[7],[8]
Left-Wing Threat Actors
The most significant left-wing threat actors in the U.S. include groups and movements motivated by anti-capitalist, anarchist, and communist or socialist ideologies. Among the most prominent in recent years is Antifa, a loosely organized movement that opposes what it deems to be fascism, white supremacy, and/or far-right ideologies, often using violence (“direct action”) to further its goals. Although not a centralized group, Antifa cells and their members have been involved in street-level confrontations, property damage, and counterprotests, particularly during periods of heightened political tension. Black Lives Matter (BLM) is primarily a social and political movement, with multiple national and local nonprofits adopting the moniker, along with unaffiliated supporters who identify with the movement online. BLM has been associated with a wide range of protest activities, some of which have been controversial. While many BLM-related actions are peaceful, there have been several instances where protests have escalated into violence and property damage.[10],[11]
The potential for unrest on the part of left-wing groups may be heightened depending upon several factors. Incidents involving law enforcement and those involving alleged “racial injustice” have historically triggered protests. Additionally, the outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election, particularly if former President Trump is reelected, may lead to widespread demonstrations. The involvement of more radical left-wing elements may result in confrontations, property damage, or other forms of civil disturbance. Law enforcement and security agencies typically prepare for such possibilities in the lead-up to major elections.[11]
Left-wing activists may mobilize if they believe that the election outcome threatens democratic principles, social justice, or civil rights. The potential for clashes with right-wing groups or for confrontations with law enforcement is high. The situation may be further exacerbated by misinformation, inflammatory rhetoric, and the mobilization of extremist elements. As such, authorities must continue to prepare for a range of scenarios to manage and mitigate potential post-election violence.[12]
Right-Wing Threat Actors
Right-wing extremist organizations continue to recruit, train and plan for actions before, during, and after the election. Actions prior to the election may include assassination threats against candidates and public officials, the targeting of large voter gatherings, and domestic disturbances at key dates associated with former President Trump’s ongoing legal cases. Actions during the election may include threats against polling offices, election workers, and collection points. The post-election phase may include attacks against government buildings, law enforcement, or directly against officials deemed responsible for real or perceived malfeasance and corruption.[13]
Organizations that may be significant sources for the right-wing extremism groups include the accelerationist Boogaloo movement, the neo-fascist skullmask movement, the Oath Keepers, and the Proud Boys. In 2019, a top Federal Bureau of Investigation official told Congress that the agency only devoted a small amount of resources to combat the domestic threat, at an estimated 20%. Members of several right-wing organizations have traveled to conflict zones, including the war in Ukraine, for training and to seek the mentorship of veteran fighters. Right-wing threat actors vary in ideology and are constantly evolving. Some are decentralized ideological networks rather than clear hierarchical organizations. They organize themselves into local groups or chapters ensuring there is no national organization to coordinate their activity. These right-wing threat actors will continue to demonstrate an ability and willingness to capitalize on socially divisive situations to advance their anti-government aims. The threat of violence is likely to increase during periods of political unrest as its members may attempt to hijack public demonstrations and social and/or racial justice rallies to sow chaos.[14],[15]
The threat of violence from far-right threat actors in the U.S. will remain high, marked by lone offenders or small group attacks that occur with little warning. These actors will continue to be inspired by a mix of conspiracy theories, personal grievances, and enduring racial, ethnic, religious, and anti-government ideologies. Since 2022, there have been three (3) fatal attacks in the U.S., resulting in 21 deaths. Multiple non-lethal attacks have been documented as well. Law enforcement has disrupted over a half-dozen plots during the same period targeting law enforcement, government institutions, faith-based organizations, retail locations, ethnic and religious minorities, healthcare infrastructure, transportation services, and the energy sector. While violent extremists will likely continue to use accessible, easy-to-use weapons for these attacks, they also will leverage social media and encrypted communications platforms to share novel tactics and techniques. Communication and planning online will likely grow as they continue to spread their views, recruit followers, and inspire future attacks. Some have improved the quality of their video and written content online, which may help them to recruit new followers and inspire attacks.[16]
Conclusion
Left- and right-wing extremist groups are as varied as the issues driving the political divide in the U.S. Finding middle ground is more difficult now than any other time in modern history. Extremist groups on both sides are using technology to spread their ideological views and propaganda to garner support for their causes. While political campaigns distance themselves from these groups, they still tread lightly for fear of losing their votes. Many, if not most, people involved in extremist movements are also highly motivated voters. These groups may even deescalate their rhetoric, protests (both nonviolent and otherwise), or other public activities leading up to the election to curry favor with moderate voters who may vote for the same candidate.
The U.S. has become increasingly polarized, with deep divisions across political, social, and cultural lines. If the election results are close, contested, or perceived as illegitimate by a significant portion of the population, the likelihood of unrest increases. Protests, demonstrations, and other forms of civil disturbance may arise, driven by both left-wing and right-wing groups. However, the groups at either end of the political spectrum continue to issue both real and implied threats, only time will tell if they intend to act on them.
[1] (U) National Security Council. (2021, June). National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. National Security Council. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/National-Strategy-for-Countering-Domestic-Terrorism.pdf.
[2] (U) Holt, J. (n.d.). How Domestic Extremism Adapted and Evolved After the January 6 US Capitol Attack. Atlantic Council. Retrieved from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/after-the-insurrection-how-domestic-extremists-adapted-and-evolved-after-the-january-6-us-capitol-attack/.
[3] (U) Kanno-Youngs, Z. (2021, June 15). White House Unveils Strategy to Combat Domestic Extremism. NY Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/us/politics/biden-domestic-terrorism-extremists.html.
[4] (U) Department of Treasury (n.d.). Domestic Violent Extremism. Department of Treasury. Retrieved from https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/terrorism-and-illicit-finance/domestic-violent-extremism.
[5] (U) Department of Homeland Security. (2022, March 11). DHS Releases Report on Internal Review of Domestic Violent Extremism. DHS. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/03/11/dhs-releases-report-internal-review-domestic-violent-extremism.
[6] (U) Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis. (2023, September). Homeland Threat Assessment. DHS. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/23_0913_ia_23-333-ia_u_homeland-threat-assessment-2024_508C_V6_13Sep23.pdf.
[7] (U) Pew Research Center. (2024, February 29). Americans’ Top Policy Priority for 2024: Strengthening the Economy. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/29/americans-top-policy-priority-for-2024-strengthening-the-economy/.
[8] (U) Pew Research Center. (2024, June 6). Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/06/cultural-issues-and-the-2024-election/.
[9] (U) Hensley, E and Washington, J. (2024, May 1) How Major Abortion Laws Compare, State by State. The Fuller Project. Retrieved from fullerproject.org/story/how-major-abortion-laws-compare-state-by-state-map/.
[10] (U)Goff, K and McCarthy, J. (2022, February 8) No, antifa didn’t ‘infiltrate’ Black Lives Matter during the 2020 protests. But did it increase violence? Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/08/antifa-blm-extremism-violence/.
[11] (U) 118th Congress. (2023, March 7). H.Res.202 – Deeming certain conduct of members of Antifa as domestic terrorism and designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. U.S. Congress. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/202/text.
[12] (U) Hoffman, B and Ware, J. (2024, June 28). How Bad Will Political Violence in the U.S. Get? Foreign Policy. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/06/28/civil-war-political-violence-u-s-2024-election/.
[13] (U) Council on Foreign Relations. (2024, April 23). There Is a Risk of Extremist Violence Around the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election. CFR. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/news-releases/there-risk-extremist-violence-around-2024-us-presidential-election-warns-new-cfr.
[14] (U) Rotella, S. (2021, January 22). Global Right-Wing Extremism Networks Are Growing. The U.S. is Just Now Catching Up. ProPublica. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/global-right-wing-extremism-networks-are-growing-the-u-s-is-just-now-catching-up.
[15] (U) George Washington University. (2024). Domestic Extremism. GW. Retrieved from https://extremism.gwu.edu/domestic-extremism
[16] (U) Homeland Security. (2024). Homeland Threat Assessment. DHS. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/23_0913_ia_23-333-ia_u_homeland-threat-assessment-2024_508C_V6_13Sep23.pdf
