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) 118^th 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

Introduction

The 2024 U.S. presidential election will be held on Tuesday, 05 November 2024, amid myriad domestic issues and the most significant political polarization in decades. The worldwide great power competition, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and Chinese aggression towards Taiwan have escalated tension in ways that are reminiscent of the 1968 election cycle. Incumbent President Joe Biden (a Democrat) has decided to not seek reelection, leaving the Democrat nomination open for the time being, despite widespread endorsements for Vice President Kamala Harris. Former President Donald Trump (a Republican) has officially received his party’s nomination. The race also features at least three (3) notable third-party candidates who may influence the election outcome. This complex situation is likely conducive to a variety of threat actors, both foreign and domestic.

This white paper is the first in RMC’s 2024 Election Series that will examine potential threats associated with the current landscape. This paper will provide historical precedent and a top-level overview of the threats from foreign and domestic actors. Future papers will examine the involved parties and their activities in-depth, including coverage of follow-on events.

 The 1968 Presidential Election Cycle: Precedent for 2024

The term “unprecedented” has become common across media sources to describe the current political climate. However, the 1960s and 1970s were also time of great turmoil, with the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and worldwide nuclear proliferation. Concerns over communist influence and espionage were rampant. The country was also at the height of several protest movements for civil rights, withdrawal from Vietnam (and the end of the Selective Service draft), women’s rights, and environmentalism. There was also a growing sexual revolution and emergent drug culture. Crime was on the rise nationally.^[1],[2]

This tumultuous climate led to regular demonstrations, particularly on college campuses. Many turned violent, with injuries and property damage. Clashes between police and protesters were common. In November 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. In April 1968, civil rights pioneer Dr. Marting Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Memphis. In November of that same year, President Kennedy’s brother and likely presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy was also shot and killed in Los Angeles.^[1],[2]

During the 1968 presidential election, many voters were concerned for the nation’s future. War, inflation, unemployment, crime, and protest activity fostered a contentious environment that caused President Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat), amid primary challenges, to not seek reelection. Following the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphries to become the Democratic nominee. Richard Nixon returned from virtual political exile to become the Republican nominee, running on a platform of improving the economy, America’s inner cities, crime, education, healthcare, immigration, Middle East stability, and European security against the Soviet-Union. He also sought a progressive de-Americanization of the Vietnam War.^{[1],[2],[3],[4]}

Nixon would go on to win the election with a thin majority of the popular vote (0.7%). His election would not bring an end to the unrest. In 1970, National Guard troops opened fire at an anti-war protest at Kent State University, wounding nine (9) and killing (4). The Students for a Democratic Society, a college organization founded in 1962, lead to the radical offshoot the Weather Underground in 1969. The organization would go on to conduct bombings, murders and kidnapping, mostly against U.S. government targets and individuals deemed to be part of “the establishment.” Other groups such as the Black Liberation Army, Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional, New World Liberation Front, and Symbionese Liberation Army would also conduct violent political action on American soil.^[5],[6],[7]

Commonalities between the 1968 and 2024 election cycle include overseas wars, tensions in the Middle East, competition with China, inflation, economic issues, abortion, crime, immigration, and political violence, including the recent assassination attempt on former President (and now Candidate) Donald Trump. Understanding this historical context aids in predictive analysis of potential threats in relation to the 2024 election, which is the first step in mitigation.

2024 Presidential Election Outlook

The Department of Homeland Security’s 2024 Homeland Threat Assessment indicates that U.S. electoral processes remain an attractive target for adversaries, many of whom will likely seek to influence or interfere with the 2024 election. Some Domestic Violent Extremists (DVE) may attempt to disrupt civic and democratic processes, mobilized by their perceptions of the upcoming election cycle. Nation-state threat actors will likely use novel technologies and cyber tools to undermine national confidence in a free and fair election. Cyber actors likely will seek to exploit election-related systems, including state, local, and political parties’ networks, as well as election officials’ personal devices and e-mail accounts. DHS assesses that civil disturbances, targeted political violence, and foreign influence efforts are likely during the 2024 election cycle.^[8]

Domestic Threats

The 2020 Presidential Election was one of the most contested and disputed elections in history, which led to the riot at the U.S. Capitol on 06 January 2021. Misinformation and disinformation reached new heights as technology agitated online discourse, which manifested in the real world. The political divide of the 2020 election cycle remains unresolved and new issues have emerged. Some DVEs, particularly those motivated by conspiracy theories and anti-government or partisan grievances, may seek to disrupt electoral processes. Threats and violence could be directed at government officials, voters, and election infrastructure, including polling places, ballot drop box locations, voter registration sites, campaign events, political party offices, and vote counting sites.^[8]

Divisive issues that may incite protests and violence include:^[9],[10]

• American financial support to Ukraine and Israel, especially considering rising inflation and economic issues in the U.S.
• Protests against Israel’s war against Hamas, including the use of antisemitic rhetoric, which has resulted in counter protests.
• Foreign policy, particularly regarding China, Russia, Ukraine, NATO expansion and Israel.
• The U.S. Southern Border and illegal immigration, which have escalated concerns over the integrity of the 2024 election.
• Election integrity, including the security of voting machines and the use of mail-in ballots and drop boxes, along with potentially outdated voter rolls.
• Abortion, which was sent back to the states by the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
• National crime rates, with divides between those who believe in stricter enforcement and those who feel law enforcement unjustifiably targets marginalized socioeconomic groups.

Recent Domestic Developments

The recent assassination attempt on former President Trump highlights the potential for political violence in this election season. While the incident seems to have unified the right, bipartisan calls to deescalate rhetoric only lasted a few days. The investigation into the circumstances that permitted the attempt are ongoing.

On Sunday, 21 July, President Biden announced that he will not seek reelection. He is now endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris. President Biden’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention will ultimately decide the Democrat nominee based on party guidelines. While conventional wisdom suggests they will vote for Vice President Harris, they are not strictly bound by President Biden’s endorsement. However unlikely, if she does not win a majority of support from delegates there could be a contested Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The last time this happened in 1968, Chicago experienced violent protests that resulted in clashes with the police, later fueling complaints of brutality by law enforcement officers.

Foreign Threats

Russia, China, and Iran likely view the 2024 election cycle as an opportunity to conduct overt and covert influence campaigns aimed at shaping favorable US policy outcomes and undermining American stability. These adversarial states are likely to use artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies to improve the quality and reach of their influence operations, spreading misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation to undermine trust in institutions, social cohesion, and election integrity. These efforts will likely increase as November approaches.^[8],[11]

According to the 2024 Annual Threat Assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Russia has considered elections as opportunities to conduct influence operations for decades. In 2024, Russia’s primary concern is the effect U.S. election outcomes may have on their war in Ukraine and will likely attempt to influence them in support of its goals.^[11]

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the primary pacing threat to the U.S. While tensions over China’s intent for the reunification of Taiwan may be the PRC’s primary concern, their long-term goal is to replace the U.S. as the dominant world power. During the U.S. midterm elections in 2022, its propaganda targeted candidates from both political parties. PRC influence activities are increasing in sophistication, including with the use of generative AI. The PRC will also actively exploit societal divisions in the U.S. in a manner similar to previous Russian influence operations.^[11]

Iran has conducted malign influence operations across the Middle East, Israel, and the U.S., leveraging its growing technical expertise and an opportunistic approach to cyber operations. The ODNI assess that Iran is likely to attempt influence operations targeting the 2024 U.S. elections. Additionally, reports indicate that Iran is influencing and financing Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Hamas protests across the U.S., which could lead to civil disturbances and violence.^[11],[12]

Cyber actors, both government‑affiliated and cyber criminals, likely will remain opportunistic in their targeting of election-related networks and data, routinely attempting to exploit misconfigured or vulnerable public‑facing websites, webservers, and election‑related information technology systems. These actors are likely to engage in social engineering campaigns, including spearphishing and phishing/smishing government officials.^[11]

Conclusion

The threat landscape surrounding the 2024 presidential election is still developing, but there are historical precedents that inform some predictive analysis. While the outcome of the election is far from certain, it is safe to say that the political tensions in the U.S. will not be quelled by the election of either candidate. Protest activity, civil unrest, and even targeted political violence are likely. Foreign actors will attempt to use social engineering techniques, malicious cyber activity, and financial ties to influence elections and fan the flames of political and social tensions. While this paper provides a baseline overview of the threats associated with the 2024 election, RMC’s white paper series will continue to examine the threats posed by both foreign and domestic actors in greater detail both before and during the election. Post-election papers will also address significant follow-on threat activity and scenarios that may occur.

[1] (U) Nichter, L. (2023, 01 August). The Year that Broke Politics: Collusion and Chaos in the Presidential Election of 1968. Yale University Press.

[2] (U) Converse, P. et al. (2014, 01 August). Continuity and Change in American Politics: Parties and Issues in the 1968 Election. Cambridge University Press

[3] (U) Peters, G and Wooley, J. (1968, August 05). Republican Party Platform of 1968. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1968.

[4] (U) Humphrey, H. (1968) Hubert H. Humphries Papers: An Inventory of His 1968 Presidential Campaign Files. Minnesota Historical Society Manuscript Collections. Retrieved from http://www2.mnhs.org/library/findaids/00720/pdf/hhh41.pdf.

[5] (U) Wooley, J and Peters, G. (n.d.). 1968 Election Statistics. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/1968.

[6] (U) Chard, D. (2021, September). Nixon’s War at Home: The FBI, Leftist Guerrillas, and the Origins of Counterterrorism. The University of North Carolina Press.

[7] (U) Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). Weather Underground Bombings. FBI. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/weather-underground-bombings.

[8] (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.

[9] (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/.

[10] (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/.

[11] (U) Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (2024, February 5). Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community. ODNI. Retrieved from https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2024-Unclassified-Report.pdf.

[12] (U) Quinn, J. (2024, July 9). Iran Finances U.S. Campus Protests: Top Intel Official. National Review. Retrieved from https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/iran-finances-u-s-campus-protests-top-intel-official/.

Introduction

Over the past 20 years, the United States military has accumulated the most combat experience of any armed force in the world. Foreign powers in competition with the U.S. are aware of this operational advantage and actively seek to close the experience gap. Many Department of Defense (DoD) servicemembers who joined the military early in the Global War on Terror have either retired or will be retiring soon. They are being recruited by other nations and corporations with lucrative job offers that leverage their experience both on and off the battlefield. In many cases, the companies they are working for appear to be American or affiliated with countries allied with the U.S. However, veteran servicemembers may also be taking jobs with nation-state threat actors.

Historical Context

Historically, the U.S. has supported other nations prior to wars with diplomatic, economic, and military assistance. Active and veteran personnel have a history of supporting, advising, and training foreign militaries. For example, in 1914, before the U.S. entered World War I, Americans began crossing into Canada to receive military training and volunteer to fight for foreign militaries, including the French Foreign Legion. After Japan attacked China in 1937, Americans served as observers, advisors, and recruiters for foreign air forces. There were also DoD and Department of State civilian employees and contractors who assisted with logistics, policymaking, and training for the fledgling Republic of Vietnam before American involvement in the war.^[1],[2],[3]

The current wars in Ukraine and Israel have seen veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces traveling overseas to take part in these conflicts. American veterans have also supported foreign nations on their own through various non-governmental organizations (NGOs), volunteer efforts, initiatives aimed at humanitarian aid, community development, and educational programs.^{[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9]}

A Legal Perspective

Before a retired or veteran servicemember can begin working for a foreign government, they are required to receive approval from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. This is covered under the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and federal law. The Emoluments Clause states that, to preserve national security and prevent conflicts of interest, this approval is required before the servicemember takes a job with a foreign government. The filing and approval requirements must be followed closely, or the DoD may withhold benefits and retirement pay. Statutory enforcement is limited, and there is still a lack of internal policing on this matter. Individuals are expected to act in a manner that would not risk operational security, but they are not required to report their work after the initial background investigation. As a result, once former servicemembers acquire approval permitting them to work for foreign powers, the U.S. Government has no awareness of what may be shared. This creates an obvious and difficult-to-detect national security risk.^{[10],[11],[12]}

Often, former servicemembers work for U.S. companies that support foreign governments or corporations and educational institutions that are controlled, owned, or operated by a foreign government. This requires the same waiver process by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the servicemember’s military branch. In this manner, hundreds of retired servicemembers have received approval to work for foreign governments.^{[10],[11],[12]}

There are several other laws that apply to foreign military service. The Neutrality Act of 1794 prohibits persons within the jurisdiction of the U.S. from enlisting in foreign militaries. Violations of the Neutrality Act are punishable by fines, imprisonment of not more than three (3) years, or both. While the law applies to those within the U.S., it does not apply to those who enlist while they are in another country. Treason (18 U.S.C. 2381) would apply to a U.S. citizen who supports a foreign entity at war or in conflict with the U.S. American citizens can be expatriated for voluntarily committing acts designated by Congress. Voluntary service in the armed forces of a foreign state is an expatriating act, resulting in the loss of U.S. citizenship if those armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or the individual. serves as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer. Notably, these laws have rarely been enforced.^[10]

During the Global War on Terror, including the War in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the U.S. military became dependent on civilian contractors at levels never before seen. By October 2020, 43,800 contractors were serving in the CENTCOM area of operations, compared to 15,000 DoD personnel. Many contractors were prior servicemembers who had already deployed and who returned under lucrative contracts as instructors, security personnel, and technical support. However, some contractors have decided to work for other nations, not all of whom are allied with American interests.^[13],[14]

Virtually all retirees and most veterans have clearances prior to beginning work for a foreign entity. This creates an opportunity for unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Clearance holders are responsible for safeguarding classified information, including its transmittal, destruction, storage, distribution, handling, and accounting thereof. Once veterans are no longer associated with the department or agency that granted their clearance, there is no oversight or reporting process for the U.S. government to track mishandlings or unauthorized disclosures. Even if a robust system were in place, it would likely be reactive in nature as preventative measures would be difficult, if not impossible, to implement. Veterans also have broad experience and skillsets that may or may not be explicitly classified, but these tactics, techniques, and procedures can be leveraged by foreign nations and used against American interests.^[15]

Case Study: U.S. Veterans in Middle East

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has contracted many American veterans of the Global War on Terror to advise and train its personnel. Between 2015 and 2022, some 280 military retirees sought federal authorization to work there. At the time, requests to work for the UAE exceeded those for any other nation in the world. Many were retired General and Flag Officers. There were also an estimated hundreds more veterans already employed by the UAE and by state-owned companies. Most of these veterans did not serve until retirement and did not have to seek federal permission. They are often given double or triple what similar jobs would have earned in the U.S.^[16]

Improvements in the martial proficiency of the UAE’s military may have helped the country to send troops into civil wars in Yemen and Libya. These conflicts led to questions about human rights violations. The armed forces of the UAE have imprisoned journalists, human rights activists, and other critics in show trials widely condemned by the international community. At the same time, U.S. veterans were being authorized by the Department of State and DoD to work for the UAE, the Emiratis joined OPEC efforts to reduce global oil production, contrary to American interests. UAE has also been scrutinized by the Justice Department for allegedly interfering in U.S. elections and politics. In 2022, a U.S. intelligence report showed that the UAE made extensive efforts to influence U.S. politics via lobbying firms and to exploit lax and unenforced disclosure laws.^{[16],[17],[18]}

Case Study: China Seeks U.S. Military Experience.

China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) continues to aggressively recruit U.S. veterans. The PRC aims to recruit personnel to “train the trainer” and bolster its doctrinal shortcomings. China’s last major military campaign was approximately 45 years ago, during the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979, in which its air and naval forces played little to no role. Pending a possible major military conflict in Taiwan, China understands that its key military forces have not had any combat experience or any effective overhaul in doctrine and tactics in decades. Despite its buildup of forces and the looming possibility of an invasion of Taiwan, Beijing continues to struggle with air operations, pilot proficiency, and tactics that would help it to circumvent U.S. forces, should they directly support Taiwan. This makes the experience of veteran U.S. pilots a much-desired skillset that is essential to overcoming experience gaps.^{[19],[20],[21]}

In June 2024, the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing coalition released a joint threat bulletin highlighting the PLA’s recruitment of current and former military personnel from North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nations and other Western countries to help improve China’s military capabilities. Air operations personnel, flight engineers, and former military pilots are the most in-demand targets. According to the coalition of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the U.S., the PLA uses private firms or professional networking sites to conceal their relationship, paying exorbitant salaries, and offering recruits the opportunity to fly “exotic aircraft.” China also sends its servicemembers to private defense and aerospace companies worldwide. These entities, such as the Test Flying Academy of South Africa (TFASA), Beijing China Aviation Technology Co. (BCAT), Paramount Group, and Stratos, train in a multitude of disciplines in land, air, and sea operations.^[22],[23]

A recent extradition ruling in Australia involving a former U.S. Marine highlights China’s initiative to gain insight into American military tactics and deploy a more robust fleet of aircraft carriers amid increasing aggression toward Taiwan and tensions in the South China Sea. In May 2024, an Australian magistrate ruled that a former U.S. Marine, a naturalized Australian citizen, could be extradited to the U.S. to face charges related to training Chinese military pilots. In October 2022, the former servicemember was arrested by Australian federal police for training Chinese military pilots to land on aircraft carriers between November 2009 and November 2012. According to a 2017 indictment, he conspired with the TFASA to export defense services. Open-source reporting indicates that potential charges in the U.S. include money laundering and breaking arms control law.^{[19],[24],[25],[26]}

Outlook

Historical precedence for U.S. veterans supporting militaries and wartime efforts of other nations date back to the nation’s founding. The Global War on Terror saw a sharp rise in the widespread use of contractors, creating an environment where American veterans commanded high salaries in the U.S. and abroad. The terrorist groups in that conflict were not and are not near-peer competitors. There was less concerns of the illicit sharing of information and experience with other nations. However, this new era of great power competition has near-peer nation-state militaries seeking to challenge the U.S. as the last remaining superpower.

While technology, equipment and doctrine can all be developed, experience can only be earned. The U.S. military has paid the high price to earn the most combat experience in the world. Foreign actors will continue to aggressively seek out this knowledge and experience to close the gap with the U.S. military. The large amounts of money involved creates a potential conflict of interest, with American military experience being sold to the highest bidder. The legally and ethically gray area created by contractors over the last two (2) decades has fostered confusion about support for foreign governments. Greater oversight and enforcement of current laws can ensure that information is not being shared with foreign governments that are or may become competitors to the U.S. As a cleared contracting firm, RMC’s team is trained to meet and exceed the information and operational security requirements to protect the information of our government and commercial clients.  RMC’s Intelligence and Climate Analysis Division will continue to monitor relevant developments and the implications for U.S. national security.

[1] (U) The National World War I Museum. (n.d.) The Volunteers: Americans Join World War I, 1914-1919. Retrieved from https://www.theworldwar.org/exhibitions/volunteers-americans-join-world-war-i-1914-1919.

[2] (U) National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.) A Prelude to War: The Flying Tigers. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/a_people_at_war/prelude_to_war/flying_tigers.html.

[3] (U) Nelson, A. (2013, July). Just Good Advice: The American Advisors in the Vietnam War. The University of Southern Mississippi. Retrieved from https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=honors_theses.

[4] (U) Southards, C. (2023, November 29). Ukraine, Israel, Yemen…American Veterans Increasingly Serving in Overseas Conflicts. Department of California American Legion. Retrieved from https://calegion.org/ukraine-israel-yemenamerican-veterans-are-increasingly-serving-in-overseas-conflicts/.

[5] (U) Cook, E. (2024, February 22). Americans Can Now Join Ukraine’s National Guard Zelensky Says. Newsweek. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-war-americans-fighters-military-russia-zelensky-1872314.

[6] (U) Israeli Defense Forces. (n.d.) How to Join Us and Voluntary Programs. Retrieved from https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/how-to-join-us-and-voluntary-programs/how-to-join/.

[7] (U) Fautre, W. (2024, March 29). HRWF. Retrieved from https://hrwf.eu/world-the-role-of-ngos-to-protect-civilians-in-armed-conflicts/.

[8] (U) Stowe, C. (2022, July 11). U.S. – Vietnam Relations, the Legacy of War, and the Role of NGOs. GlobalWA. Retrieved from https://globalwa.org/2022/07/u-s-vietnam-relations-the-legacy-of-war-and-the-role-of-ngos/.

[9] (U) Team Rubicon. (2020, January 13). Veteran-Led Disaster Response and Humanitarian Group Team Rubicon Commemorates “A Decade of Service and Grit”. PR Newswire. Retrieved from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/veteran-led-disaster-response-and-humanitarian-group-team-rubicon-commemorates-a-decade-of-service-and-grit-300985302.html.

[10] (U) Congressional Research Service. (2022, March 28). U.S. Nationals and Foreign Military Service. CRS. Retrieved from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12068.

[11] (U) Mitchell, E. (2023, June 20). Senators Introduce Bill Restricting Retired Troops’ Work for Foreign Governments. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4059497-senators-introduce-bill-restricting-retired-troops-work-for-foreign-governments/.

[12] (U) Kness, R. (2017, June 30). Working for a Contractor or Foreign Government after Military Service. ClearanceJobs.com. Retrieved from https://news.clearancejobs.com/2017/06/30/working-contractor-foreign-government-military-service/.

[13] Cancian, M. (2021, August 30). In Afghanistan, Contractors were Unsung Heroes of US Efforts. Breaking Defense. Retrieved from https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/in-afghanistan-contractors-were-unsung-heroes-of-us-efforts/.

[14] (U) Mazzarino, A. (2023, May 16). The Unseen Soldiers of America’s Privatized Wars. The Nation Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/world/private-contract-soldiers/.

[15] (U) Congressional Research Service. (2023, February 2). The Protection of Classified Information: The Legal Framework. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS21900.

[16] (U) Whitlock, C and Jones, N. (2022, October 18). UAE Relied on Expertise of Retired U.S. Troops to Beef up its Military. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/uae-military-us-veterans/.

[17] (U) HRW. (2021, January 13). UAE: Reality of Abuses Contradicts Tolerance Rhetoric. HRW. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/01/13/uae-reality-abuses-contradicts-tolerance-rhetoric.

[18] (U) Middle East Eye. (2022, November 13). US intelligence report claims UAE ‘meddled in American politics’. MEE. Retrieved from https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uae-meddled-american-politics-us-intelligence-report-claims.

[19] Perez, Z. (2024, June 07). US, Allied Intel Agencies Warn Pilots to Avoid Chinese Recruitment. Military Times. Retrieved from https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2024/06/07/us-allied-intel-agencies-warn-pilots-to-avoid-chinese-recruitment/.

[20] Gin, C. M. (2016). How China Wins: A Case Study of the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. US Army Command and General Staff College Press. Retrieved from https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/how-china-wins.pdf.

[21] Lillis, K. B. (2024, June 05). US and Allies Warn China is Intensifying its Efforts to Recruit Western Military Pilots. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/politics/us-and-allies-warn-china-recruit-pilots/index.html.

[22] Novelly, T. (2024, June 06). China is ‘Aggressively Recruiting’ Pilots from the US and NATO Countries, Intelligence Agencies Warn. Military.com. Retrieved from https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/06/06/china-aggressively-recruiting-pilots-us-and-nato-countries-intelligence-agencies-warn.html.

[23] The National Counterintelligence and Security Center. (2024, June 5). Safeguarding Our Military Expertise: Foreign Companies Continue to Recruit Current and Former Western Service Members to Bolster the PRC’s Military. DNI. Retrieved from https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/products/Safeguarding_Our_Military_Expertise.pdf.

[24] Bennett, B. (2024, June 5). U.S. Cracks Down on Former ‘Top Gun’ Pilots Found to Be Training China’s Air Force. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/6985561/top-gun-pilots-china/.

[25] Whiteman, H. (2024, May 24). Ex-US Marines fighter pilot loses bid to block extradition to the United States over China training allegations. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/24/australia/daniel-duggan-us-extradition-hearing-intl-hnk/index.html.

[26] Needham, K. (2024, May 24). Former US Marine pilot can be extradited, Australian magistrate rules. Stars and Stripes. Retrieved from https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2024-05-24/former-marine-pilot-extradition-13960410.html.