HLSS523Wk1
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Jerome P. Bjelopera
Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism
August 21, 2017
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44921
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service
Summary The emphasis of counterterrorism policy in the United States since Al Qaeda’s attacks of
September 11, 2001 (9/11) has been on jihadist terrorism. However, in the last decade, domestic
terrorists—people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based
extremist ideologies and movements—have killed American citizens and damaged property across
the country. Not all of these criminals have been prosecuted under federal terrorism statutes,
which does not imply that domestic terrorists are taken any less seriously than other terrorists.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) do not officially
designate domestic terrorist organizations, but they have openly delineated domestic terrorist
“threats.” These include individuals who commit crimes in the name of ideologies supporting
animal rights, environmental rights, anarchism, white supremacy, anti-government ideals, black
separatism, and beliefs about abortion.
The boundary between constitutionally protected legitimate protest and domestic terrorist activity
has received public attention. This boundary is highlighted by a number of criminal cases
involving supporters of animal rights—one area in which specific legislation related to domestic
terrorism has been crafted. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374) expands the
federal government’s legal authority to combat animal rights extremists who engage in criminal
activity. Signed into law in November 2006, it amended the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of
1992 (P.L. 102-346).
This report is intended as a primer on the issue, and four discussion topics in it may help explain
domestic terrorism’s relevance for policymakers:
Level of Activity. Domestic terrorists have been responsible for orchestrating
numerous incidents since 9/11.
Use of Nontraditional Tactics. A large number of domestic terrorists do not
necessarily use tactics such as suicide bombings or airplane hijackings. They
have been known to engage in activities such as vandalism, trespassing, and tax
fraud, for example.
Exploitation of the Internet. Domestic terrorists—much like their jihadist
analogues—are often Internet and social-media savvy and use such platforms to
share ideas and as resources for their operations.
Decentralized Nature of the Threat. Many domestic terrorists rely on the
concept of leaderless resistance. This involves two levels of activity. On an
operational level, militant, underground, ideologically motivated cells or
individuals engage in illegal activity without any participation in or direction
from an organization that maintains traditional leadership positions and
membership rosters. On another level, the above-ground public face (the
“political wing”) of a domestic terrorist movement may focus on propaganda and
the dissemination of ideology—engaging in protected speech.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Domestic Terrorism Defined ........................................................................................................... 2
What Is Domestic Terrorism?.................................................................................................... 3 Toward a Narrower Definition ............................................................................................ 4 Ambiguity Regarding “U.S.-Based Extremist Ideologies” ................................................. 4
Factors Complicating the Descriptions of the Domestic Terrorism Threat ............................... 5 Counting Terrorism Cases ................................................................................................... 5 Sifting Domestic Terrorism from Other Illegal Activity ..................................................... 6 Extremism vs. Terrorism ..................................................................................................... 8 The Lack of an Official Public List .................................................................................... 9
Toward a Practical Definition: Threats Not Groups ................................................................ 10 Animal Rights Extremists and Environmental Extremists................................................. 11 Anarchist Extremists ......................................................................................................... 13 White Supremacist Extremists .......................................................................................... 16 Anti-Government Extremists ............................................................................................ 23 Black Separatist Extremists .............................................................................................. 32 Abortion Extremists .......................................................................................................... 33
Protected Activities vs. Terrorism—Divergent Perceptions of the ALF ................................. 35 A Serious Domestic Concern or “Green Scare?” .............................................................. 35
Assessing Domestic Terrorism’s Significance ............................................................................... 39
Counting Incidents .................................................................................................................. 40 “Nonviolent” Strategies .......................................................................................................... 41
Direct Action ..................................................................................................................... 41 The ALF: “Live Liberations” and “Economic Sabotage” ................................................. 42 The ELF: “Monkeywrenching” ........................................................................................ 42 “Paper Terrorism”: Liens, Frivolous Lawsuits, and Tax Schemes .................................... 46
The Internet and Domestic Terrorists ...................................................................................... 48 A Decentralized Threat ............................................................................................................ 50
Leaderless Resistance ....................................................................................................... 50 Lone Wolves ..................................................................................................................... 53
Scoping the Threat Remains Difficult for Policymakers ............................................................... 57
Terminology ............................................................................................................................ 57 Designating Domestic Terrorist Groups .................................................................................. 57 A Public Accounting of Plots and Incidents ............................................................................ 58 Better Sense of Scope May Assist Policymakers .................................................................... 59
Figures
Figure 1. ALF and ELF Guidelines ............................................................................................... 45
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 59
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 1
Introduction Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), domestic terrorists—people who commit
crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and
movements1—have not received as much attention from federal law enforcement as their violent
jihadist counterparts. This was not necessarily always the case. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) reported in 1999 that “[d]uring the past 30 years, the vast majority—but not
all—of the deadly terrorist attacks occurring in the United States have been perpetrated by
domestic extremists.”2
The U.S. government reacted to 9/11 by greatly enhancing its counterterrorism efforts. This report
discusses how domestic terrorists broadly fit into the counterterrorism landscape, a terrain that
since 9/11 has been largely shaped in response to terrorists inspired by foreign ideologies. This
report focuses especially on how domestic terrorism is conceptualized by the federal government
and issues involved in assessing this threat’s significance. Today (perhaps in part because of the
government’s focus on international terrorist ideologies), it is difficult to evaluate the scope of
domestic terrorist activity. For example, federal agencies employ varying terminology and
definitions to describe it.
Possibly contributing to domestic terrorism’s secondary status as a threat at the federal level, a
large number of those labeled as domestic terrorists do not necessarily use traditional terrorist
tactics such as bombings or airplane hijackings. Additionally, many domestic terrorists do not
intend to physically harm people but rather rely on alternative tactics such as theft, trespassing,
destruction of property, and burdening U.S. courts with retaliatory legal filings.
While plots and attacks by foreign-inspired homegrown violent jihadists have earned more media
attention, domestic terrorists have been busy as well. It is worth noting that in terms of casualties
on U.S. soil, an act of domestic terrorism is second only to the events of 9/11. Timothy McVeigh’s
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, claimed
168 lives and injured more than 500 others. Some estimates suggest that domestic terrorists are
responsible for carrying out dozens of incidents since 9/11.3 Much like their jihadist counterparts,
domestic terrorists are often Internet savvy and use the medium as a resource for their operations.
Terrorists are typically driven by particular ideologies. In this respect, domestic terrorists are a
widely divergent lot, drawing from a broad array of philosophies and worldviews. These
individuals can be motivated to commit crimes in the name of ideas such as animal rights, white
supremacy, and abortion, for example. However, the expression of these worldviews (minus the
commission of crimes) involves constitutionally protected activity.
1 This conceptualization of the term “domestic terrorism” is derived from a number of U.S. government sources
detailed in this report. This report will not focus on homegrown violent jihadists. However, when referring to such
actors, for this report, “homegrown” describes terrorist activity or plots perpetrated within the United States or abroad
by American citizens, permanent legal residents, or visitors radicalized largely within the United States. “Jihadist”
describes radicalized Muslims using Islam as an ideological and/or religious justification for belief in the establishment
of a global caliphate—a jurisdiction governed by a Muslim civil and religious leader known as a caliph—via violent
means. Jihadists largely adhere to a variant of Salafi Islam—the fundamentalist belief that society should be governed
by Islamic law based on the Quran and follow the model of the immediate followers and companions of the Prophet
Muhammad. 2 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorism in the United States: 30 Years of Terrorism—A Special Retrospective
Edition, (2000) p. 16. 3 New America Foundation, Terrorism in America After 9/11: Part IV, What is the Threat to the United States Today?
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 2
Aware of the lines between constitutionally protected speech and criminality, domestic terrorists
often rope themselves off from ideological (above-ground) elements that openly and often legally
espouse similar beliefs. In essence, the practitioners who commit violent acts are distinct from the
propagandists who theorize and craft worldviews that could be interpreted to support these acts.
Thus, in decentralized fashion, terrorist lone actors (lone wolves) or isolated small groups (cells)
generally operate autonomously and in secret, all the while drawing ideological sustenance—not
direction—from propagandists operating in the free market of ideas.
Domestic terrorists may not be the top federal counterterrorism priority, but they feature
prominently among the concerns of some law enforcement officers. For example, in 2011, Los
Angeles Deputy Police Chief Michael P. Downing included “black separatists, white
supremacist/sovereign citizen extremists, and animal rights terrorists” among his chief
counterterrorism concerns.4 A 2014 national survey of state and local law enforcement officers
found that sovereign citizens were “the top concern” among terrorist threats.5
The violence related to protests in Charlottesville, VA, on August 12, 2017, also has raised the
issue of domestic terrorism, particularly related to public discussions regarding a widely reported
incident involving James Alex Fields, who according to witnesses drove his car into a group of
people protesting a rally featuring white supremacists in Charlottesville on August 12.6 Fields
allegedly killed one person and injured 19 others in the incident. The Department of Justice
(DOJ) has opened a civil rights investigation into the incident, presumably pursuing possible hate
crime charges.7 Additionally, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has publicly stated that terrorism
investigators are involved in investigating the incident, ostensibly exploring the possibility of
characterizing it as an act of domestic terrorism rather than a hate crime.8
This report provides background regarding domestic terrorists—detailing what constitutes the
domestic terrorism threat as suggested by publicly available U.S. government sources.9 It
illustrates some of the key factors involved in assessing this threat. This report does not discuss in
detail either violent jihadist-inspired terrorism or the federal government’s role in
counterterrorism investigations.
Domestic Terrorism Defined Two basic questions are key to understanding domestic terrorism. First, what exactly constitutes
“domestic terrorism?” Answering this question is more complicated than it may appear. Some
4 Bill Gertz, “L.A. Police Use Intel Networks against Terror,” Washington Times, April 11, 2011. See also Joshua D.
Freilich, Steven M. Chermak & Joseph Simone Jr. “Surveying American State Police Agencies About Terrorism
Threats, Terrorism Sources, and Terrorism Definitions,” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 21, no. 3 (2009) pp.
450-475. Freilich, Chermak, and Simone found that domestic terrorist groups featured prominently among the concerns
of U.S. state police officials. 5 Jessica Rivinius, “Sovereign Citizen Movement Perceived as Top Terrorist Threat,” National Consortium for the
Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, July 30, 2014. For the report, see Carter, David, et al., “Understanding
Law Enforcement Intelligence Processes,” National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to
Terrorism, 2014. 6 T. Rees Shapiro et al., “Alleged Driver of Car that Plowed into Charlottesville Crowd Was a Nazi Sympathizer,
Former Teacher Says,” Washington Post, August 13, 2017. 7 Department of Justice, “Joint Statement from United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia,
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Civil Rights Division,” press release, August, 13, 2017. 8 Michael Edison Hayden, “Sessions Defends Trump’s Comments on Charlottesville, Says Car Ramming Fits
Definition of Domestic Terror,” ABC News, August 14, 2017. 9 This report does not presume the guilt of indicted individuals in pending criminal cases.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 3
consider all terrorist plots occurring within the homeland as acts of domestic terrorism. According
to this perspective, a bombing plot involving U.S. citizens motivated by a foreign terrorist group
such as Al Qaeda or the Islamic State constitutes domestic terrorism. While this conceptualization
may be true at some level, a practical definition of domestic terrorism distilled from federal
sources is much narrower. It suggests that domestic terrorists are Americans who commit
ideologically driven crimes in the United States but lack foreign direction or influence—whether
tactical or philosophical. This conceptualization excludes homegrown individuals directed or
motivated by groups such as Al Qaeda or the Islamic State. Second, what particular groups are
considered domestic terrorist organizations? The U.S. government does not provide a precise,
comprehensive, and public answer to this question. Rather, in broad terms, DOJ has identified a
number of general threats that embody this issue. The ideological concepts that underpin such
threats may inspire criminal activity, such as hate crimes, that do not rise to the level of terrorism.
This further complicates defining “domestic terrorism.”
What Is Domestic Terrorism?
In the most general statutory terms, a domestic terrorist engages in terrorist activity that occurs in
the homeland. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, the Bureau) has lead responsibility for
terrorism investigations at the federal level.10
The FBI generally relies on two fundamental sources to define domestic terrorism. First, the Code
of Federal Regulations characterizes “terrorism” as including “the unlawful use of force and
violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population,
or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”11 Second, 18 U.S.C.
Section 2331(5) more narrowly defines “domestic terrorism” and differentiates it from
international terrorism and other criminal activity.12 This definition comes from Section 802 of
the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56). According to 18 U.S.C. Section 2331(5), domestic
terrorism occurs primarily within U.S. territorial jurisdiction, and involves
(A) ... acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or
kidnapping.... 13
10 28 C.F.R. §0.85. 11 Ibid. 12 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Responses of John E. Lewis [then Deputy
Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation] to Additional Questions from Senator Obama,” Eco-Terrorism
Specifically Examining the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 18,
2005, S. Hrg. 109-947 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 41. Hereinafter: Responses of John E. Lewis. 13 18 U.S.C. §2331(5).
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 4
Enforcement—Joint Terrorism Task Forces
Aside from the FBI, other federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) play a role in enforcement efforts to counter domestic terrorism. These
agencies—as well as state and local law enforcement representatives—typically cooperate within the framework of
Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), multi-agency investigative units led by DOJ and the FBI across the country.14
JTTFs are teams of police officers, federal agents, analysts, linguists, SWAT experts, and other specialists who
investigate terrorism and terrorism-related crimes. Seventy-one of the more than 100 JTTFs operated by DOJ and
the FBI were created since 9/11. About 4,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and agents—more
than four times the pre-9/11 total—work in them. These officers and agents come from more than 500 state and
local agencies and 50 federal agencies.15
The FBI considers JTTFs “the nation’s front line on terrorism.”16 They “investigate acts of terrorism that affect the
U.S., its interests, property and citizens, including those employed by the U.S. and military personnel overseas.”17 As
this suggests, their operations are highly tactical and can involve developing human sources (informants) as well as
gathering intelligence to thwart terrorist plots. JTTFs also offer an important conduit for the sharing of intelligence
developed from FBI-led counterterrorism investigations with outside agencies and state and local law enforcement.18
Toward a Narrower Definition
The definitions cited above are too broad to capture what the FBI specifically investigates as
“domestic terrorism.” Besides the statutory definitions regarding the crime of domestic terrorism,
the FBI has historically emphasized particular qualities inherent to the actors who engage in
domestic terrorism. According to the Bureau, domestic terrorists do not simply operate in the
homeland, but they also lack foreign direction.19 In fact, the Bureau’s practical, shorthand
definition of domestic terrorism is “Americans attacking Americans based on U.S.-based
extremist ideologies.”20 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) follows this construction.21
Ambiguity Regarding “U.S.-Based Extremist Ideologies”
On the surface, the FBI’s shorthand definition for domestic terrorism appears straightforward.
However, there is inherent ambiguity to it. Namely, some of the “U.S.-based extremist
ideologies” driving what the Bureau views as domestic terrorism have international roots and
active followings abroad. The ideologies supporting eco-extremism and animal rights extremism
(discussed below) readily come to mind, and people have long committed crimes in their names
outside the United States.22 At least in part, their origins lay in the United Kingdom. Nazism—
14 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Joint Terrorism Task Forces.” 15 Ibid. 16 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Protecting America against Terrorist Attack: A Closer Look at Our Joint Terrorism
Task Forces,” May 2009. 17 Brig Barker and Steve Fowler, “The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Officer,” The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
vol. 77, no. 11 (November 2008), p. 13. 18 Kevin Johnson, “FBI Issues More Top Secret Clearance for Terrorism Cases,” USA Today, August 12, 2010;
STRATFOR, A Decade of Evolution in U.S. Counterterrorism Operations, Special Report, December 2009. 19 James F. Jarboe, [then Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division] Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Testimony Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
February 12, 2002. Hereinafter: Jarboe, Testimony. 20 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism in the Post-9/11 Era,” September 7, 2009. Hereinafter: Federal
Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism.” 21 See Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon,”
November 10, 2011. Hereinafter: Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown.” 22 See Gary A. Ackerman, “Beyond Arson? A Threat Assessment of the Earth Liberation Front,” Terrorism and
(continued...)
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 5
with its German origins and foreign believers—is an element within domestic white supremacist
extremism. Anarchism, the philosophy followed by anarchist extremists, also has long-standing
European roots. The racist skinhead movement traces its origins abroad—to the United
Kingdom—as well. These examples illustrate the FBI’s challenge when it emphasizes U.S.-based
ideologies in its framing of domestic terrorism.
Factors Complicating the Descriptions of the Domestic
Terrorism Threat
A few more issues make it hard to grasp the breadth of domestic terrorist activity in the United
States. First, counting the number of terrorist prosecutions or plots in general has been difficult in
the post-9/11 period. Second, there may be some ambiguity in the investigative process regarding
exactly when criminal activity becomes domestic terrorism. Third, the federal government
appears to use the terms “terrorist” and “extremist” interchangeably when referring to domestic
terrorism. It is unclear why this is the case. Finally, and most importantly, which specific groups
are and should be considered domestic terrorist organizations? The U.S. government does not
provide a public answer to this question. Rather, the federal government defines the issue in terms
of “threats,” not groups.
Counting Terrorism Cases
While statutory and practical federal definitions exist for “domestic terrorism,” there is little clear
sense of the scope of the domestic terrorist threat based on publicly available U.S. government
information. Most broadly, it has been said that in much of the post-9/11 period, the federal courts
and DOJ may have applied different parameters when sorting, counting, and categorizing all
types of terrorist prosecutions—let alone domestic terrorism cases.23 A 2009 study (critiqued by
DOJ) found that the U.S. federal district courts, DOJ’s National Security Division, and federal
prosecutors rely on different criteria to determine whether or not specific cases involve terrorism
at all.24
A bit more narrowly, in many instances, individuals considered to be domestic terrorists by
federal law enforcement may be charged under non-terrorism statutes, making it difficult to grasp
from the public record exactly how extensive this threat is. Regarding the prosecution of domestic
terrorism cases, no separate federal crime of “domestic terrorism” exists.25 Also, DOJ has noted
that, “[a]lthough we do have at least one specialized [federal] statute aimed at animal enterprise
terrorism,26 domestic terrorism cases often involve firearms, arson or explosive offenses; crimes
relating to fraud; and threats and hoaxes.”27 In some instances, the crimes committed by people
(...continued)
Political Violence, vol. 15, no. 4 (2003), pp. 155-156. Hereinafter: Ackerman, “Beyond Arson?” 23 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Who Is a Terrorist? Government Failure to Define Terrorism
Undermines Enforcement, Puts Civil Liberties at Risk, September 8, 2009, http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/215/.
DOJ issued a press release that broadly challenged these findings and suggested that TRAC may have omitted certain
statistics in its study. TRAC refuted these claims. For the interchange between DOJ and TRAC, see http://trac.syr.edu/
tracreports/terrorism/219/. 24 Ibid. 25 Greg Myre, “Why the Government Can’t Bring Terrorism Charges in Charlottesville,” NPR, August 14, 2017. 26 This likely refers to the Animal Enterprise Protection Act from 1992. In late 2006 shortly after the white paper’s
publication, this act was amended by the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. 27 Department of Justice, Counterterrorism White Paper, June 22, 2006, p. 59. Hereinafter: Department of Justice,
(continued...)
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 6
the FBI describes as domestic terrorism suspects do not violate federal law. When this occurs, the
Bureau, “support[s] [its local] partners any way [it] can—sharing intelligence, offering forensic
assistance, conducting behavioral analysis, etc.”28 Thus, individuals considered domestic
terrorists by federal law enforcement may not necessarily be federally charged as terrorists.
Sifting Domestic Terrorism from Other Illegal Activity
It may not be possible for investigators to describe the criminal activity involved early in an
investigation as domestic terrorism. In these instances, investigators can work toward clarifying
the motives of the suspects involved.29 Domestic terrorism cases differ from ordinary criminal
activity in key ways. Most importantly, unlike ordinary criminals—who are often driven by self-
centered motives such as profit and tend to opportunistically seek easy prey—domestic terrorists
are driven by a cause or ideology.30 If the motives involved align with the definition laid out in 18
U.S.C. Section 2331(5), presumably the case becomes a domestic terrorist investigation. In some
instances, ideologically motivated actors can also collaborate with profit-driven individuals to
commit crimes.
To further cloud matters, another category of criminal activity, hate crime, may appear to involve
ideological issues. However, as described by one federal official, a “hate crime” “generally
involve[s] acts of personal malice directed at individuals” and is missing the broader motivations
driving acts of domestic terrorism.31 For investigators, distinguishing between “personal malice”
and ideologically motivated actions may be difficult in specific cases. This suggests that sorting
domestic terrorism from hate crimes depends on the degree of a suspect’s intent. Did the suspect
articulate an ideology belonging to an extremist movement? The grey area between domestic
terrorism and hate crime hints that in some instances, suspects with links to domestic terrorist
movements or ideologies supporting domestic terrorism may be charged with hate crimes.32 It is
unclear to what extent this influences how the government understands the threat posed by
extremist movements that hold racist beliefs. If some individuals of this ilk commit crimes
against police or judges, for example, is the government more apt to label this activity as
terrorism while individuals sharing these same racist motivations but targeting ordinary citizens
based on race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation are charged with hate
crimes?
(...continued)
White Paper. 28 See CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1858, Charlottesville Car Crash Attack: Possibility of Federal Criminal Prosecution,
by Charles Doyle. See also Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism.” 29 Responses of John E. Lewis, pp. 41, 42. 30 In some instances such as those involving white-supremacist prison gangs who espouse extremist beliefs, the profit
motive may be paramount in their criminal activity. See Joshua D. Freilich, Steven M. Chermak, and David Caspi,
“Critical Events in the Life Trajectories of Domestic Extremist White Supremacist Groups,” Criminology and Public
Policy, vol. 8, no. 3 (August 2009), p. 508. Hereinafter: Freilich, Chermak, and Caspi, “Critical Events.” 31 Responses of John E. Lewis, p. 41. 32 While this discussion focuses on intent, domestic terrorists can exhibit additional traits that distinguish them from
other offenders. For example, as part of their involvement in ideological movements, domestic terrorists often are
exposed to more tactical training—in weapons, explosives, arson, reconnaissance, paramilitary discipline—than many
more ordinary criminals. See Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook on Extremism for Law Enforcement, (2007), p. 9.
Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 7
33 Investigating an individual as a terrorist may confer more resources to an investigation and may offer more
investigative options. Regarding the latter, see American Civil Liberties Union, “How the USA PATRIOT Act
Redefines ‘Domestic Terrorism,’” https://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism. 34 Greg Myre, “Why the Government Can’t Bring Terrorism Charges in Charlottesville,” NPR, August 14, 2017. 35 For a discussion of federal hate crimes, see Department of Justice, “Hate Crime Laws,” https://www.justice.gov/crt/
hate-crime-laws. 36 Department of Justice, “Attorney General Lynch Statement Following the Federal Grand Jury Indictment Against
Dylann Storm Roof,” press release, July 22, 2015. DOJ also sought the death penalty. Department of Justice, “Attorney
General Loretta E. Lynch Statement on the Case of Dylann Roof,” press release, May 24, 2016. 37 Department of Justice, “Federal Jury Sentences Dylann Storm Roof to Death,” press release, January 10, 2017. 38 United States v. Dylann Storm Roof, indictment, U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, June 20, 2015. 39 Christina Maza, “Why is Dylann Roof Not Facing Charges of Terrorism?” Christian Science Monitor, July 24, 2015. 40 Department of Justice, “Attempted Bomber Arrested,” press release, March 9, 2011. 41 Mark F. Giuliano, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, prepared remarks
delivered at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence,
Washington, DC, April 14, 2011, http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-post-9-11-fbi-the-bureaus-response-to-
evolving-threats. 42 Department of Justice, “Attempted Bomber Pleads Guilty to Federal Hate Crime and Weapons Charge,” press
release, September 7, 2011. 43 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “MLK Parade Bomber,” January 13, 2012; Department of Justice, press release,
“Colville, Wash., Man Indicted for Federal Hate Crime in Attempted Bombing of the MLK Unity March,” press
release, April 21, 2011.
Two Cases Demonstrating Blurred Lines Between
Hate Crime and Domestic Terrorism
When it comes to characterizing ideologically inspired criminal actors for investigative purposes, the FBI occasionally
confronts suspects who can be viewed either as terrorists or as perpetrators of hate crimes. Precisely
understanding suspect’s motives (among other things) can be useful in categorizing his or her case as either a
domestic terrorism or hate crime investigation.33 However, when it comes to prosecution, one can say that such
considerations are somewhat more limited, namely because no separate federal crime of “domestic terrorism”
exists.34 Federal prosecutors can pursue hate crimes charges or other criminal offenses that fit the crime.35 While
pursing such non-terrorism charges, prosecutors may avoid publicly describing suspects as domestic terrorists.
Dylann Roof
On June 17, 2015, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine African Americans in the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal
Church in Charleston, SC. Three churchgoers survived. DOJ pursued a case involving federal hate crimes and
firearms charges.36 Roof was sentenced to death by a federal jury.37 According to DOJ, before the shooting incident,
Roof had posted on a website a manuscript and photos “expressing his racist beliefs.” Additionally, DOJ argued that
he “wanted to increase racial tensions across the Nation, and sought retribution for perceived wrongs he believed
African-Americans had committed against white people.”38 Although it seems that Roof’s alleged motives had
ideological underpinnings in white supremacy, then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch noted in 2015 that DOJ
pursued federal hate crimes charges because “[w]e think that this is exactly the type of case that the federal hate
crimes statutes were, in fact, conceived to cover.”39
Kevin Harpham
The FBI’s public description of the case of confessed would-be bomber Kevin Harpham is an example of how
difficult it may be to characterize acts as domestic terrorism. Initially, the FBI viewed the case as domestic terrorism.
In 2011, Harpham, motivated by white supremacist ideology, left a bomb—which never detonated—along the route
of a parade in Spokane, WA, honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The FBI’s Northwest Joint Terrorism Task Force
led the investigation.40 In prepared public remarks framing the “current state of the terrorism threat” from April
2011, the then-FBI Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism Division noted that Harpham’s case was one of
“several recent domestic terrorism incidents [that] demonstrate the scope of the threat.”41 Harpham eventually
pled guilty to committing a federal hate crime and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.42 Thereafter, the
Bureau described the case as the successful prevention of a “horrific hate crime.”43
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 8
Extremism vs. Terrorism
Another concept that muddies discussion of domestic terrorism is “extremism.” The latter term is
commonly applied to homegrown actors, whether they be domestic terrorists or adherents of
ideologies forwarded by foreign groups such as Al Qaeda. National security expert Jonathan
Masters has suggested that many law enforcement officials likely view “extremism” as largely
synonymous with “terrorism.”44 Masters has also found that there is a “lack of uniformity in the
way domestic terrorist activities are prosecuted” in the United States.45 Presumably, using the
term “extremist” allows prosecutors, policymakers, and investigators the flexibility to discuss
terrorist-like activity without actually labeling it as “terrorism” and then having to prosecute it as
such. This flexibility is certainly an asset to prosecutors. They can charge subjects of FBI
domestic terrorism investigations under a wider array of statutes without having to convince a
jury that the accused were terrorists. However, for policymakers this flexibility makes it hard to
determine the scope of the domestic terrorist threat. One cannot get a clear sense of scope if some
individuals are charged and publicly described as terrorists, others are discussed as extremists,
and still others enter the public record only as criminals implicated in crimes not necessarily
associated with terrorism, such as trespassing, arson, and tax fraud.
What Is Extremism?
The FBI’s public formulation of “extremism” suggests two components. First, extremism
involves hewing to particular ideologies. Second, it also includes criminal activity to advance
these ideologies.46 Thus, according to this construction, an anarchist believes in a particular
ideology—anarchism. An “anarchist extremist” is an anarchist who adopts criminal tactics.47
One scholar has indicated a similar bifurcation: First, extremism refers to an ideology outside a
society’s key values, and for liberal democracies, such ideologies “support racial or religious
supremacy and/or oppose the core principles of democracy and human rights.” Second,
extremism can refer to the use of tactics that ignore the rights of others to achieve an
ideological goal.48
44 Jonathan Masters, Militant Extremists in the United States, Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, February
7, 2011. 45 Ibid. 46 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: Anarchist Extremism, A Primer,” December 16, 2010. The
focus of this piece, as the title suggests, is anarchist extremism, not necessarily defining the term “extremism.”
Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Anarchist Extremism.” This type of formulation—extremism consists of
adherence to ideologies and criminal activity committed in the name of these ideologies—is replicated in the
definitions provided within Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown.” 47 Making things more complex, the broader concept of “violent extremism” was used by the Obama Administration.
According to the Administration, “violent extremists” are “individuals who support or commit ideologically-motivated
violence to further political goals.” See Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States,
August 2011, p. 1. 48 Peter R. Neumann, Prisons and Terrorism: Radicalisation and De-Radicalisation in 15 Countries, International
Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, London, 2010, p. 12. In its Guidebook on Extremism for
Law Enforcement, Hereinafter: Neumann, Prisons and Terrorism. The Anti-Defamation League has defined extremists
as: “people who subscribe to extreme ideologies.” The group goes on to say, “extreme ideologies are those that promote
world views so radical that most other people will not agree with them.” See Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook, p.
3.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 9
“Homegrown Violent Extremists” Are Not Domestic Terrorists
The FBI and DHS have popularized the phrase “homegrown violent extremist” (HVE). It
separates domestic terrorists from U.S.-based terrorists motivated by the ideologies of foreign
terrorist organizations. According to DHS and the FBI, a HVE is “a person of any citizenship
who has lived and/or operated primarily in the United States or its territories who advocates, is
engaged in, or is preparing to engage in ideologically-motivated terrorist activities (including
providing support to terrorism) in furtherance of political or social objectives promoted by a
foreign terrorist organization, but is acting independently of direction by a foreign terrorist
organization.”49 According to the FBI and DHS, an HVE is not a domestic terrorist—they are two
distinct categories of terrorist actors.50
The Lack of an Official Public List
The federal government does not generate an official and public list of domestic terrorist
organizations or individuals.51 The development of such a list may be precluded by civil liberties
concerns (i.e., inclusion in a publicly available list may impinge on a group’s exercise of free
speech or its other constitutionally protected activities). However, a lack of official lists or
processes to designate groups or individuals as domestic terrorists makes it difficult to assess
domestic terrorism trends and evaluate federal efforts to counter such threats. In 2011, an
unnamed DHS official cited in a news report stated that “unlike international terrorism, there are
no designated domestic terrorist groups. Subsequently, all the legal actions of an identified
extremist group leading up to an act of violence are constitutionally protected and not reported on
by DHS.”52 Constitutionality aside, the lack of a list may also contribute to a certain vagueness in
the public realm about which groups the federal government considers domestic terrorist
organizations. While the government does not provide an official and public list of domestic
terrorist organizations, it does include domestic terrorists (along with international terrorists) in
its Terrorist Screening Database, commonly known as the “Terrorist Watchlist.”53
The government is much less vague regarding foreign terrorist organizations. They are officially
designated as such according to a well-established legally and procedurally proscribed regimen.
According to the Department of State’s Bureau of Counterterrorism, as of August 16, 2017, the
49 This definition appears to differ from the conceptualization of “homegrown jihadists” used in this report by (1) only
including individuals not directed by a foreign organization and by (2) including all sorts of terrorists motivated by
foreign ideologies, not just violent jihadists. See Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Joint Intelligence Bulletin, “Use of Small Arms: Examining Lone Shooters and Small-Unit Tactics,”
August 16, 2011, p. 3. 50 Ibid. 51 See Christopher Bellavita, “Does the U.S. Have Any Domestic Terrorist Groups?” Homeland Security Watch, June
29, 2010. Hereinafter: Bellavita, “Domestic Terrorist Groups.” See also R. Jeffrey Smith, “Homeland Security
Department Curtails Home-Grown Terror Analysis,” Washington Post, June 7, 2011. Hereinafter: Smith, “Homeland
Security.” David E. Heller, “Designating Domestic Terrorist Individuals or Groups,” (Master’s Thesis, Naval
Postgraduate School, 2010). Hereinafter: Heller, “Designating Domestic.” 52 Smith, “Homeland Security.” 53 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorist Screening Center, “Frequently Asked Questions.” See also Timothy J.
Healy, Director, Terrorist Screening Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Statement before the House Judiciary
Committee, Washington, DC, March 24, 2010; Bellavita, “Domestic Terrorist Groups.” For more information on the
Terrorist Screening Database, see CRS Report R44678, The Terrorist Screening Database and Preventing Terrorist
Travel, by Jerome P. Bjelopera, Bart Elias, and Alison Siskin.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 10
Secretary of State had designated 61 foreign terrorist organizations according to Section 219 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.54
Toward a Practical Definition: Threats Not Groups
As discussed above, DOJ and the FBI do not list domestic terrorist organizations publicly and
officially. This may complicate the understanding that federal policymakers have of what exactly
the government considers “domestic terrorism.” While not naming specific groups, DOJ and the
FBI have openly delineated domestic terrorist threats. DOJ has identified domestic terrorism
threats to include criminal activity by animal rights extremists, ecoterrorists, anarchists, anti-
government extremists such as ‘sovereign citizens’ and unauthorized militias, black separatists,
white supremacists, and abortion extremists.55
The actors who constitute each of the domestic terrorist “threats” outlined by DOJ draw upon
ideologies whose expression largely involves constitutionally protected activity. The FBI
safeguards against cases focused solely on constitutionally protected activities. All FBI
investigations have to be conducted for an authorized national security, criminal, or foreign
intelligence collection purpose.56 The purpose of an investigation may not be to solely monitor
First Amendment rights.57
However, it is unclear how DOJ or the FBI arrive at their list of domestic terrorism threats. This
poses at least two fundamental questions:
How does a particular brand of dissent become ripe for description by DOJ and
the FBI as driving a “domestic terrorism” threat?
What criteria are involved in such a process?
How many crimes or plots attributed to a specific ideology have to occur to stimulate
the identification of a new extremist threat? Is the severity of the crimes linked to an
ideology taken into consideration?
54 For the legal criteria used to designate a foreign terrorist organization, the legal ramifications of designation, and
ancillary effects of designation see Department of State, “Foreign Terrorist Organizations,” https://www.state.gov/j/ct/
rls/other/des/123085.htm. 55 Department of Justice, White Paper, p. 59. See also Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism.” In recent
years, the FBI has switched from “anti-abortion” to abortion extremism, thus including individuals who may commit
crimes to protect abortion rights. The FBI’s domestic terrorism investigations likely cover these categories as well as
lone wolves (lone offenders): extremists who commit crimes without the support of a formal organization or network.
Some lone wolves are motivated by the ideologies behind the threats outlined by DOJ, but they can fashion their own
ideologies as well. In the past, in the area of domestic terrorism, the FBI has distinguished between “special interest
terrorism” and “traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism: “Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-
wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect
widespread political change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to
force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their
causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other
movements.” It is unclear whether the FBI still uses the categories of “special interest,” “left-wing,” and “right-wing”
terrorism. See Jarboe, Testimony. See also Federal Bureau of Investigation, “What are Known Violent Extremist
Groups?” https://www.fbi.gov/cve508/teen-website/what-are-known-violent-extremist-groups. This is from a website
designed by the FBI to counter violent extremism. The website, titled “Don’t Be a Puppet,” addresses teenagers.
Regardless, it is one of the few publicly-available sources where the Bureau succinctly describes numerous violent
extremist groups or ideologies. 56 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, redacted, October 15, 2011, p. 4-1
through p. 4-2. 57 Ibid.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 11
At what point do ideologically driven domestic terrorism threats cease to exist?
Should there be a means for public petitioning of the government to eliminate
various threats as investigative priorities?
The below discussion of domestic terrorism threats does not necessarily presume the priority of
one over the other.58 It is also important to note that instances of animal rights extremism and
ecoterrorism within the last fifteen years are more readily available in the public record than
cases involving other types of domestic terrorism.59 The extensive use of such examples in this
report does not imply the prominence of animal rights extremism or ecoterrorism over other
domestic terrorist threats.
Animal Rights Extremists and Environmental Extremists
The term “animal rights extremism” covers criminal acts committed in the name of animal
rights.60 Environmental extremism—most often referred to as “ecoterrorism”—includes criminal
acts committed in the name of the environment.61 These terms are not applied to groups or
individuals involved with environmental movements or animal welfare protection/rights activism
within the “confines of civil society and the rule of law.”62
Many of the crimes committed by both animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists are perpetrated
by independent small cells or individuals who harass and intimidate their victims.63 These cells or
lone actors engage in crimes such as vandalism, theft, the destruction of property, and arson. Most
animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists also eschew physical violence directly targeting people
or animals. Regardless, crimes committed by ecoterrorists and animal rights extremists have
caused millions of dollars in property damage, and some have involved the intimidation and
harassment of victims.64 These two types of extremism are often discussed together, because the
two broader radical movements from which they draw their philosophical underpinnings have
similar beliefs and overlapping membership.
The two movements—the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)—
have the greatest reach among animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists. The ALF and the ELF
are too diffuse to be called groups. Neither the ALF nor the ELF maintains formal rosters or
leadership structures, for example.65 However, each communicates a sense of shared identity and
attracts people who commit crimes in its name. They achieve this via “above-ground” wings.
58 The discussion lists the threats in the same order as found in Department of Justice, White Paper. 59 People the FBI or DOJ may characterize as animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists have tended to publicize their
activities online. 60 Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown.” 61 For the purposes of this report, “ecoterrorists,” “eco-extremists,” and “environmental extremists” are synonymous.
These terms and “animal rights extremism” describe individuals engaged in criminal activity in the name of radical
environmental ideologies or animal rights. It is unclear why environmental extremists are frequently dubbed
“ecoterrorists” while animal rights extremists do not have a similar commonplace usage applied to them. 62 See Kevin R. Grubbs, “Saving Lives or Spreading Fear: The Terroristic Nature of Eco-Extremism,” Animal Law, vol.
16, no. 2 (2010), p. 353-57. Hereinafter: Grubbs, “Saving Lives.” 63 See Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Putting Intel to Work against ELF and ALF Terrorists,” June 30, 2008.
Hereinafter: FBI, “Putting Intel.” 64 Ibid. 65 Both the ALF and the ELF focus on criminal activity as central tenets of their philosophies or operational guidelines,
and the FBI emphasizes that criminal activity is a key element in the identities of these movements. See FBI, “Putting
Intel.”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 12
Largely using websites, ALF and ELF supporters publish literature highlighting movement
philosophies, tactics, and accounts (press releases) of recent movement-related criminal activity.
Much of this involves protected speech and occurs in the public realm. Press releases allow
“underground” extremists to publicly claim responsibility for criminal activity in the name of
either movement while maintaining secrecy regarding the details of their operations. The ALF
and the ELF do not work alone. Members of other entities such as Stop Huntingdon Animal
Cruelty (SHAC) have committed crimes in the name of animal rights, for example.
Additional factors tangle our understanding of the ALF and the ELF. People can simultaneously
participate in both. This may partly be true because the movements are so amorphous. The two
movements also share similar agendas, and in 1993 they declared solidarity.66 All of this can play
out confusingly in the real world. For example, an individual can commit a crime and claim
responsibility for it online in the name of both the ALF and the ELF. One case especially
highlights intersections between the ALF and the ELF.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the FBI uncovered a network that, according to DOJ,
committed violent acts in the name of both the ALF and the ELF. The group included about 20
individuals and called itself “the Family.” It was reportedly responsible for at least 25 criminal
incidents totaling approximately $48 million in damages and disbanded at some point in 2001,
due to law enforcement pressure on the group. The Family was responsible for an arson attack in
1998 at the Vail Ski Resort. Eight simultaneous fires damaged radio towers, ski lift towers,
restaurants, and the ski patrol office at the Colorado site and totaled over $24 million in losses.67
Philosophical Underpinnings
Both the ALF and the ELF rely on and borrow from a number of philosophical underpinnings to
rationalize their beliefs and actions. These help forge a common identity among individuals in
each movement. These ideas are also key principles professed by more mainstream animal rights
or environmental activists engaged in legal protest.
The ALF: Animal Rights and Speciesism. The ALF’s moral code includes the belief that
animals possess basic inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and this
suggests that animals cannot be owned. According to the ALF, the U.S. legal system—which
describes animals as property—is corrupt, and there exists a “higher law than that created by and
for the corporate-state complex, a moral law that transcends the corrupt and biased statutes of the
US political system.”68 Simply put, the rights of one species do not trump the rights of others. To
suggest otherwise is to be prejudiced, according to animal rights adherents.
For the ALF and other animal rights supporters, the favoring of one species, particularly humans,
over others has a name: speciesism. For the ALF, speciesism is a “discriminatory belief system as
66 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Statement of Carson Carroll, Deputy
Assistant Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,” Eco-Terrorism Specifically Examining the
Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 2005, S. Hrg. 109-947
(Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 43. Hereinafter: Statement of Carson Carroll. 67 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Operation Backfire: Help Find Four Eco-Terrorists,” November 19, 2008;
Department of Justice, “Eleven Defendants Indicted on Domestic Terrorism Charges,” press release, January 20, 2006.
Hereinafter: Department of Justice, “Eleven Defendants.” See also United States v. Joseph Dibee et al, Sentencing
Memorandum, CR 06-60069-AA, CR 06-60070-AA, CR 06-60071-AA, CR 06-60078-AA, CR 06-60079-AA, CR 06-
60080-AA, CR 06-60120-AA, CR-06-60122-AA, CR-06-60123-AA, CR-06-60124-AA, CR-06-60125-AA, CR-
60126-AA, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, May 4, 2007, pp. 6, 8, 19, 20-21. Hereinafter: U.S. v. Dibee et al. 68 North American Animal Liberation Press Office, “History of the Animal Liberation Movement.” Hereinafter:
NAALPO, “History.”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 13
ethically flawed and philosophically unfounded as sexism or racism, but far more murderous and
consequential in its implications.”69 Thus, the movement couches the theft or illegal release of
animals used in research or for economic gain as “liberation.” The ALF views the destruction of
laboratory infrastructure or tools as the elimination of items used to enslave species who have the
same rights as humans. Intimidation of scientists and employees of businesses tied to animal
research or testing is rationalized as confrontation with “oppressors” or those who, in the eyes of
movement adherents, abuse and murder animals.70
The ELF: An Ideological Mélange. Ecoterrorists are motivated by a mélange of environmental
philosophies. There is no single formula for what constitutes the ideological makeup of an ELF
follower, but several concepts likely play key roles in the movement. These are biocentrism, deep
ecology, social ecology, and green anarchism. Biocentrism argues for the equality of all
organisms.71 Deep ecology suggests that all species are part of “the larger super-organism that is
nature.”72 It criticizes industrialization and views modern human impact on the earth as negative
and hearkens back to small communities centered on subsistence agriculture.73 Social ecology
suggests that hierarchical human society leads to social inequalities and environmental harm.
Green anarchism ascribes environmental harm to civilization and domestication and embraces the
notion of “rewilding,” or rejecting civilization and returning to a hunter-gatherer state to preserve
one’s natural surroundings.74
Anarchist Extremists
According to the FBI, anarchist extremists commit crimes in the name of anarchist ideals.75 These
ideals include belief that
individual autonomy and collective equality are fundamental and necessary for a
functional, civilized society. [Anarchism] resists the existing hierarchical structure of
society that gives some people authority and control over others. [According to
anarchists] authority imbues power, and power always is used in illegitimate and self-
serving ways by those who have it.76
Anarchist extremists as well as anarchists engaging in constitutionally protected activity can
oppose government, business, or social interests that they view as dangerous. As this suggests,
anarchists advocate some form of revolution that realigns authority in the societies they desire to
69 Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II, “Behind the Mask: Uncovering the Animal Liberation Front,” in Terrorists
or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, ed. Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II (New York:
Lantern Books, 2004), p. 24. Hereinafter: Best and Nocella, “Behind the Mask.” Best reportedly advises NAALPO, see
http://naalpo.posterous.com/our-task-new-essay-by-press-office-advisor-st. P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker, The
Animal Research War (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. xix. Hereinafter: Conn and Parker, The Animal. See
also NAALPO, “History” which excerpts Best and Nocella’s work. 70 NAALPO, “History.” 71 Stefan H. Leader and Peter Probst, “The Earth Liberation Front and Environmental Terrorism,” Terrorism and
Political Violence, vol. 15, no. 4 (Spring/Summer 2005), pp. 39-40. Hereinafter: Leader and Probst, “The Earth
Liberation Front.” 72 Conn and Parker, The Animal, xx. 73 Leader and Probst, “The Earth Liberation Front,” pp. 39-40. 74 Sean Parson, “Understanding the Ideology of the Earth Liberation Front,” Green Theory and Praxis: The Journal of
Ecopedagogy, vol. 4, no. 2 (2008), pp. 54-58. 75 Ibid. 76 Randy Borum and Chuck Tilby, “Anarchist Direct Actions: A Challenge for Law Enforcement,” Studies in Conflict
and Terrorism, vol. 28, no. 3, (2005), p. 202. Hereinafter: Borum and Tilby, “Anarchist Direct Action.”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 14
transform. However, adherents cannot agree to a single means for attaining revolutionary
change.77
As one may assume, anarchist activity is decentralized. In fact, a basic, temporary organizational
structure—the affinity group—likely plays a larger role in shaping the work of U.S. anarchists
than any formal long-lasting entities or networks.78 Affinity groups are “autonomous militant
unit[s] generally made up of between five-to-twenty individuals who share a sense of the causes
worth defending and the types of actions they prefer to engage in. The decision-making process is
anarchist, that is to say, egalitarian, participatory, deliberative, and consensual.”79 An affinity
group often consists of a circle of friends. The friends coalesce around a specific objective and
break apart when they achieve their desired ends. Individual groups can band together in
“clusters” and clusters can coordinate their efforts, if need be.80 The efforts can be legal or illegal,
violent or nonviolent, covert or open. These structures have a long history among anarchists, but
other movements use them as well.81 Also, anarchists can engage in what they call “black bloc”
tactics. These involve secretive planning for public—often criminal—activity in which
participants, typically dressed in black, act en-masse.82 Adding to the sprawling nature of the
anarchist movement, some adherents also participate in the ALF and the ELF. These three
movements share general philosophical tenets such as opposition to globalization and
capitalism.83
“Antifa”
In the aftermath of the violence related to protests in Charlottesville, VA, on August 12, 2017, there has been media
attention devoted to the confrontational tactics of antifascist protesters known as “Antifa.” Antifa beliefs can dovetail
with the broad anti-government and anti-capitalist views that are part of anarchism.84 One observer has described
Antifa as, “a radical pan-leftist politics of social revolution applied to fighting the far right. Its adherents are
predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists who reject turning to the police or the state to halt the advance
of white supremacy.”85 Antifa beliefs appear to inspire autonomous groups to track the activities of neo-Nazis, and
most “anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent.”86 However, some Antifa protesters are willing to violently clash with
people publicly advocating what Antifa protesters would see as fascist views, particularly white supremacists.87 Antifa
protesters characterize such violence targeting people as defensive.88
77 Ibid., p. 203. 78 Borum and Tilby, “Anarchist Direct Action,” p. 207. 79 Francis Dupuis-Déri, “Anarchism and the Politics of Affinity Groups,” Anarchist Studies, vol. 18, no. 1 (2010),
p. 41. Hereinafter: Dupuis-Déri, “Anarchism.” 80 CrimethInc. Workers’ Collective, Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook, (Olympia, WA: CrimethInc.
Workers’ Collective, 2004), pp. 28-34. Hereinafter: Anarchist Cookbook. 81 Dupuis-Déri, “Anarchism,” p. 43. 82 Anarchist Cookbook, pp. 127-130. 83 Borum and Tilby, “Anarchist Direct Action,” p. 208. 84 “Anarchist Extremists: Antifa,” State of New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, June 12, 2017.
Hereinafter: “Anarchist Extremists: Antifa.” Breanna Cammeron, “Antifa: Left-Wing Militants on the Rise,” BBC
News, August 14, 2017. 85 Mark Bray, “Who Are the Antifa?” Washington Post, August 16, 2017. 86 Ibid. 87 See “Anarchist Extremists: Antifa.” 88 Sara Ganim and Chris Welch, “Unmasking the Leftist Antifa Movement,” CNN, August 20, 2017. They have also
engaged in property destruction.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 15
The FBI has described anarchist extremists as typically being “event driven,” meaning
they show up at political conventions, economic and financial summits, environmental
meetings, and the like. They usually target symbols of Western civilization that they
perceive to be the root causes of all societal ills—i.e., financial corporations, government
institutions, multinational companies, and law enforcement agencies. They damage and
vandalize property, riot, set fires, and perpetrate small-scale bombings. Law enforcement
is also concerned about anarchist extremists who may be willing to use improvised
explosives devices or improvised incendiary devices.89
Anarchist extremists in the United States have been involved in illegal activity during mass
protests surrounding events such as the 1999 World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference in
Seattle, WA.
Anarchist extremists reportedly committed crimes during the 2008 Republican National
Convention in St. Paul, MN.90 To coordinate their protests during the convention, some anarchists
formed what they called the “RNC Welcoming Committee” (RNCWC).91 In September 2007, the
RNCWC developed a plan to broadly organize the activities of affinity groups intending to
disrupt the convention. Law enforcement infiltrated and undermined these efforts, arresting 800
people, including eight involved with the RNCWC.92 Initially, in Minnesota state court, the eight
“had been charged with felonies: first-degree damage to property and second-degree conspiracy
to riot. Prosecutors added a more serious charge of conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism,
which was later dismissed.”93 Five of the eight pled guilty to gross misdemeanor charges in 2010.
The others had all of the charges they faced dismissed.94
On April 30, 2012, five men who reputedly had anarchist sympathies were arrested for
purportedly scheming to blow up a bridge near Cleveland, OH.95 One was convicted on charges
related to the plot. The four others pled guilty.96 The plot was apparently timed to coincide with
peaceful protest activity arranged by Occupy Cleveland, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street
movement. Occupy Cleveland representatives stated that the would-be bombers “were in no way
representing or acting on behalf of Occupy Cleveland.”97 An FBI sting operation led to the
89 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Anarchist Extremism.” 90 Ibid. For information on reported anarchist criminal activity related to the 2008 Republican National Convention, see
Department of Justice, “Michigan Man Sentenced for Possessing Molotov Cocktails,” press release, March 10, 2009;
Department of Justice, “Texas Man Sentenced on Firearms Charges Connected to the Republican National
Convention,” press release, May 21, 2009; Department of Justice, “Austin, Texas Man Sentenced for Possessing
Molotov Cocktails During the Republican National Convention,” press release, May 14, 2009. For information on a
matter possibly related to the anarchist criminal activity at the 2008 convention, see James C. McKinley Jr., “Anarchist
Ties Seen in ‘08 Bombing of Texas Governor’s Mansion,” New York Times, February 22, 2011. 91 For an archived version of the group’s website see http://web.archive.org/web/20080907081250/http://
www.nornc.org./. 92 Pat Pheifer, “Guilty Pleas Close Book on ‘08 Convention Protests,” Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, October 19,
2010. Hereinafter: Pheifer, “Guilty Pleas.” See also Fred Burton and Scott Stewart, “The Lessons of St. Paul,”
STRATFOR, September 10, 2008. 93 Pheifer, “Guilty Pleas.” 94 Ibid. 95 Department of Justice, “Five Men Arrested in Plot to Bomb Ohio Bridge,” press release, May 1, 2012. Hereinafter:
Department of Justice, “Five Men.” David Ariosto, “5 Arrested in Alleged Plot to Blow Up Cleveland-Area Bridge,”
CNN, May 1, 2012. 96 Kim Palmer, “‘Anarchist’ Convicted in Ohio Bridge Bomb Plot,” Reuters, June 13, 2013. 97 Henry J. Gomez, “Bridge Bomb Plot: Suspects Were Active in Occupy Cleveland, Even As Movement Slowed to a
Crawl,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 2, 2012.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 16
quintet’s arrest.98 Purportedly, the group relied on an undercover FBI employee to supply them
with two inert bombs that the conspirators believed were functional.99
Criminal acts involving anarchist extremists do not have to be event-driven. For example, Eric G.
King pled guilty to using explosive devices to commit arson in a failed 2014 attempt to ignite a
fire at the Kansas City, MO, office of U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver II. The incident
occurred when the office was unoccupied, but King had posted violent commentary regarding
police to social media.100
DHS noted that anarchist extremists had set fires at urban development project sites in Vancouver,
Canada, and Seattle, WA, in 2013. Anarchist extremists are also suspected in a similar incident
that occurred in Grand Rapids, MI in 2011.101 These attacks followed instances of what DHS
characterized as “lower-level criminal activity or mischief involving anarchist or ‘anti-
gentrification statements.’”102
In another case that was not event-driven, Joseph Konopka, the self-dubbed “Dr. Chaos,”
allegedly led a group of boys he called “The Realm of Chaos” in a series of crimes involving
vandalism to radio and cell phone towers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In 2002, he was
arrested in Chicago for storing more than a pound of deadly cyanide powder in a passageway in a
Chicago Transit Authority subway tunnel.103 He had obtained the material (potassium cyanide and
sodium cyanide) from an abandoned warehouse.104 In 2002, Konopka pled guilty in federal court
to possessing chemical weapons, and in 2005 he pled guilty to 11 felonies, including conspiracy,
arson, creating counterfeit software, and interfering with computers in Wisconsin.105
White Supremacist Extremists
The term “white supremacist extremism” (WSE) describes people or groups who commit
criminal acts in the name of white supremacist ideology. According to media sources, in May
2017, FBI and DHS released a joint intelligence bulletin reputedly stating that white supremacists
“were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 ... more than any other
domestic extremist movement.”106
98 Department of Justice, “Five Men.” 99 Ibid. Four of the conspirators pled guilty “to conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, attempted use of
weapons of mass destruction, and malicious use of an explosive device to destroy property used in interstate
commerce.” See Department of Justice, “Three Men Sentenced to Prison for Roles in Plot to Bomb Ohio Bridge,” press
release, November 20, 2012. A fifth was “convicted of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and other
charges.” See Kim Palmer, “‘Anarchist’ Convicted in Ohio Bridge Bomb Plot,” Reuters, June 13, 2013. 100 Tony Rizzo, “Man Who Threw Molotov Cocktails at Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s KC Office Gets 10-Year Sentence,”
Kansas City Star, June 28, 2016; Department of Justice, “KC Man Pleads Guilty to Throwing Molotov Cocktails at
Congressional Office,” press release, March 3, 2016. 101 Department of Homeland Security, “Self-Identified Anarchist Extremists Target Urban ‘Gentrification’ Sites with
Arson,” July 23, 2013. 102 Ibid. 103 Juliet Williams, Federal appeals Court Overturns Dr. Chaos Conviction,” Associated Press, May 31, 2005; Mike
Robinson, “Federal Prosecutors Want ‘Dr. Chaos’ to Remain Locked Up,” Associated Press, March 13, 2002; Meg
Jones and Jesse Garza, “‘Anarchist’ Charged Over Cache of Cyanide,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 12, 2002. 104 “Man Pleads Guilty to Storing Cyanide,” Associated Press, November 21, 2002. 105 “Judge Sentences ‘Dr. Chaos’ to Prison for Damage to Wisconsin Power Systems, Associated Press, November 30,
2005. 106 Jana Winter, “FBI and DHS Warned of Growing Threat From White Supremacists Months Ago,” Foreign
Policy.com, August 14, 2017.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 17
At its core, white supremacist ideology purports that the white race ranks above all others. WSE
draws on the constitutionally protected activities of a broad swath of racist hate-oriented groups
active in the United States ranging from the Ku Klux Klan to racist skinheads. Some of these
groups have elaborate organizational structures, dues-paying memberships, and media wings.
Additionally, many individuals espouse extremist beliefs without having formal membership in
any specific organization.
A large proportion of white supremacists dualistically divide the world between whites and all
other peoples who are seen as enemies.107 Particular animus is directed toward Jews and African
Americans. In fact, a common racist and revisionist historical refrain is that the civil rights
movement succeeded only because Jews orchestrated it behind the scenes.108
Scholars indicate that white supremacists believe in racial separation and that society
discriminates against them. To them, whites have lost “ground to other groups and ... extreme
measures are required to reverse the trend.”109 All of this has been encapsulated in a slogan
known as the “Fourteen Words”: “We must secure the existence of our race and a future for white
children.” This was coined by David Lane, a member of a violent terrorist group active in the
1980s. The Fourteen Words have been described as “the most popular white supremacist slogan
in the world.”110
Neo-Nazism and its obsession with Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany is also a prominent
component of white supremacist extremism in the United States.111 The father of American neo-
Nazism, George Lincoln Rockwell, became publicly active in the late 1950s. According to one
scholar, Rockwell laid down three concepts that have shaped neo-Nazism ever since. For his
followers, he reconfigured the racial notion of “white,” broadening it beyond “Aryan” to include
people of Southern and Eastern European descent. Additionally, Rockwell denied the Holocaust.
He also encouraged tying neo-Nazism to religion, and some of his followers took up the obscure
creed of Christian Identity.112
Conflict and Conspiracy
Aside from racial superiority, a dualistic view of the world, and neo-Nazism, at least two other
broad concepts shape white supremacy in the United States. They are the inevitability of violent
107 Chip Berlet and Stanislav Vysotsky, “Overview of U.S. White Supremacist Groups,” Journal of Political and
Military Sociology, vol. 34, no. 1 (Summer 2006), p. 13. Hereinafter: Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview.” 108 Leonard Zeskind, Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the
Mainstream (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2009), p. 40. Hereinafter: Zeskind, Blood and Politics. 109 Rory McVeigh, “Structured Ignorance and Organized Racism in the United States,” Social Forces, vol. 82, no. 3
(March 2004), pp. 898-899. 110 Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook, p. 16. Lane died in 2007 while serving 190 years in prison for his
involvement with a terrorist group named the Order. See “Founder of Terrorist Group Dies in Prison,” Terre Haute
Tribune-Star, May 29, 2007, http://tribstar.com/local/x1155692948/Founder-of-terrorist-group-dies-in-prison. Among
other writings, Lane also drafted an influential racist ideological tract titled The 88 Precepts. 111 Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook, p. 15. 112 Fredrick J. Simonelli, “The Neo-Nazi Movement,” Southern Poverty Law Center. See also Charles S. Clark, “An
American Nazi’s Rise and Fall,” American History, vol. 40, no. 6 (February 2006), pp. 60-66; Simonelli, “The
American Nazi Party,” Historian, vol. 57, no. 3 (Spring 1995), pp. 553-566. A follower assassinated Rockwell in 1967.
For information on Christian Identity, see Kevin Borgeson and Robin Valeri, Terrorism in America (Sudbury, MA:
Jones and Bartlett, 2009), pp. 47-72; Martin Durham, “Christian Identity and the Politics of Religion,” Totalitarian
Movements and Political Religions, vol. 9, no. 1 (March 2008), pp. 79-91; Tanya Telfair Sharpe, “The Identity
Christian Movement: Ideology of Domestic Terrorism,” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 30, no. 4 (March 2000), pp. 604-
623; Anti-Defamation League, “Christian Identity.”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 18
conflict, and a belief that conspiracies hostile to white supremacy shape the existing world.113 It
can be said that WSE broadly shares these concepts with the militia movement (discussed below).
The FBI has stated that white supremacists “commonly anticipate” waging war against their
opponents.114 For example, the inevitability of RAHOWA—an acronym for “racial holy war”—is
a central tenet of the neo-Nazi Creativity Movement, which has its roots in the Church of the
Creator, a racist group founded by Ben Klassen in 1973.115 Klassen, who committed suicide in
1993, argued that whites had no choice but to wage war against non-whites.116 Likewise, some
white supremacists use racism to interpret apocalyptic imagery from Norse mythology embodied
in Odinism.117 Most Odinists are not racists, however.118
Conspiracism has been defined as “the idea that most major historic events have been shaped by
vast, long-term, secret conspiracies that benefit elite groups and individuals.”119 Conspiracy
theories are not the province of a particular movement or group. Regardless, conspiracy theories
can particularly shape the outlooks and actions of white supremacist extremists. Media sources
have stated that Richard Poplawski—convicted of shooting and killing three Pittsburgh police
officers in April 2009—believed that a Zionist conspiracy controlled government and major
corporations in the United States.120
As in Poplawski’s example, anti-Semitism plays a prominent role in the racist conspiracies of
many white supremacists.121 Many anti-Semites—as well as anti-government extremists—believe
in something they call the Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG).122 ZOG refers to the federal
government, which adherents contend is “controlled or manipulated by international Jewish
interests.”123 On its website, one WSE group sold versions of a video game titled “ZOG’s
Nightmare.” Gameplay involves shooting nonwhites while being chased by a police agency
113 Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” pp. 12-13 highlights dualism, conspiracism, and apocalypticism as key themes. 114 The Bureau has noted that “warfare” is reflected in beliefs drawn from Christian Identity, the Creativity Movement,
neo-Nazism, and Odinism. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel
since 9/11, July 7, 2008, p. 4. Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist. 115 After Klassen’s 1993 death, the Church of the Creator was revived in an altered form by Matt Hale. For more
information see Dobratz, “The Role,” p. 290; and Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist, p. 4. 116 Ben Klassen, “RAHOWA: The Fighting Slogan of the White Race,” Racial Loyalty, no. 32 (February 1986). 117 Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist, p. 4. Odinism has been defined as either a combination of old
Norse religion and Christianity or a belief system that draws exclusively on Nordic mythology. See Jonathan White,
“Political Eschatology: A Theology of Antigovernment Extremism,” The American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 44, no. 6,
(February 2001), p. 939. 118 Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” p. 30. 119 Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” p. 12. For more on conspiracy theories and terrorism see Jamie Bartlett and Carl
Miller, The Power of Unreason: Conspiracy Theories, Extremism, and Counter-Terrorism, Demos, London, August
29, 2010. Barlett and Miller (p. 24.) suggest that conspiracy theories “are one of a number of factors that can lead to
extremism, and can turn extremism to violence.” 120 Timothy McNulty, Paula Reed Ward and Sadie Gurman, “Jury Decides Poplawski Should Die for Killing 3
Officers,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 28, 2011. Hereinafter: McNulty et al., “Jury Decides.” See also Anti-
Defamation League, “Richard Poplawski: The Making of a Lone Wolf,” April 8, 2009. Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation
League, “Richard Poplawski.” Sean D. Hamill, “Man Accused in Pittsburgh Killings Voiced Racist Views Online,”
New York Times, April 7, 2009. Hereinafter: Hamill, “Man Accused.” 121 Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” p. 13. 122 Also seen as “Zionist Occupation Government.” 123 Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Investigating Terrorism, p. 93; Mattias Gardell, Gods of the Blood: The
Pagan Revival and White Separatism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003), pp. 11, 54, 68-69. Hereinafter:
Gardell, Gods.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 19
controlled by Jews.124 Racists explain all sorts of personal or social grievances by invoking
ZOG.125 One scholar has described ZOG as
an omnipresent and omnipotent cabal involving at its heart varying constellations of
Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, plutocrats, and multinational corporations. It operates
through many social ‘front’ institutions, from the United Nations to Parent-Teacher
Associations.... ZOG can be used to explain not only the existence of affirmative action,
environmental pollution, and pornography but also why a certain individual made poor
grades in school, lost his job, or seems unable to find a partner.126
According to adherents, ZOG is said to control the media, arts, religion, science, and education.127
Loss of Prominent Leaders and Decline of their Groups
In the 1980s and 1990s, a small number of figures dominated white supremacist circles. They
were intimately linked to their own relatively cohesive organizations. By the early 2000s, these
groups fragmented as they lost their leaders.
Two particularly well-known white supremacist figures died in the early 2000s. William Pierce,
head of the National Alliance, died in 2002. Richard Butler, leader of Aryan Nations, died in
2004. Both Pierce and Butler articulated clear ideologies that attracted followers and drew upon
resources such as rural headquarters/compounds to sustain their organizations.128 By the early
2000s, the National Alliance even had a substantial revenue stream estimated at $1 million
annually generated from a publishing company and record labels it owned as well as dues.129 The
deaths of Butler and Pierce exacerbated the downfall of both organizations. The decline of these
groups also resulted from a number of other forces, such as infighting among members and
pressure from law enforcement and watchdog groups.130 Other groups have emerged since to
promote white supremacist ideas. Several movements espousing such views participated in the
August 2017 rally in Charlottesville, VA, that led to violence mentioned earlier.131
Two prominent white supremacist movements are discussed below.
National Socialist Movement (NSM)
One long-standing white supremacist organization active in the United States is the National
Socialist Movement (NSM). It has benefitted from the decline of other groups as well as new
leadership in the form of Jeff Schoep.132 The NSM also capitalized on the expansion of the
124 Anti-Defamation League, The National Socialist Movement. 125 Gardell, Gods, p. 68. 126 Ibid. 127 Ibid. 128 Freilich, Chermak, and Caspi, “Critical Events,” 511. 129 Ibid., pp. 512, 513. 130 Ibid., p. 516. 131 Groups such as Vanguard America (started in 2014), Identity Evropa (founded in 2016), and the Traditionalist
Worker Party (begun in 2015) reportedly participated. “Various Far-Right Extremist Groups Joined at Virginia Rally,”
Associated Press, August 15, 2017; Terence Cullen, “Vanguard America, Group Charlottesville Driver James Fields Jr.
Marched with, Has Increasingly Become a Neo-Nazi Voice,” New York Daily News, August 13, 2017; Hailey Branson-
Potts, “In Diverse California, a Young White Supremacist Seeks to Convert Fellow College Students,” Los Angeles
Times, December 7, 2016; Ralph Ellis, At Least 7 People Injured at Sacramento Rally, Authorities Say,” CNN, June 27,
2016. 132 Anti-Defamation League, American Stormtroopers: Inside the National Socialist Movement, (2008), p. 3.
(continued...)
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 20
Internet in the early 2000s. The group, which emerged in 1974, is a descendant of the American
Nazi Party, and until the 1990s and early 2000s “it operated only on the fringes of the neo-Nazi
movement.”133 As of 2008, the group had around 500 members and close associates throughout
the United States.134 The NSM is flexible about membership, allowing its members to also
participate in other white supremacist organizations. 135
Individuals allegedly tied to the NSM at some point in their lives have run afoul of the law.
In Minnesota in April 2012, Joseph Benjamin Thomas was indicted on drug-
related charges, and Samuel James Johnson was indicted on weapons-related
charges. Purportedly the two were tied to NSM—at one point Johnson had
allegedly served as its leader in Minnesota. The duo had reportedly formed their
own white supremacist group, gathering weapons and ammunition and planning
to attack the government and other targets.136 In June 2012, Johnson pled guilty
to “one count of being a felon in possession of firearms.”137 In July 2012,
Thomas pled guilty to “possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of
high-purity methamphetamine.”138
William White, a onetime member of the NSM and founder of his own white
supremacist organization, has faced charges in several criminal cases. In
September 2014, he was found guilty on charges related to a December 2013
indictment that included “five counts of making threats in aid of extortion over
the Internet and one count of the unlawful use of identification information in
furtherance of those offenses.”139 He threatened a Florida judge, a state attorney,
and an FBI agent, with kidnapping, torture, rape, and murder. According to DOJ,
White included the families of these individuals in his threats. The officials that
White threatened had been involved in prosecuting suspects tied to the American
Front, a white supremacist organization in Florida. White apparently hoped that
his threats would somehow secure the release of the American Front suspects.140
In January 2011, White was convicted141 of soliciting violence online against the
jury foreman in U.S. v. Matthew Hale.142 In April 2011, a federal judge reversed
(...continued)
Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, American Stormtroopers. 133 Ibid. 134 Ibid. 135 Southern Poverty Law Center, “National Socialist Movement.” 136 Department of Justice, “Mendota Heights Man Indicted for Distributing Methamphetamine,” press release, April 27,
2012; Department of Justice, “Austin Felon Indicted for Possessing Firearms,” press release, April 27, 2012; Amy
Forliti, “Affidavit: 2 Men With Supremacist Ties Had Weapons,” Associated Press, April 27, 2012. 137 Department of Justice, “Austin Felon Pleads Guilty to Possessing an Assault Rifle,” press release, June 6, 2012. 138 Department of Justice, “Mendota Heights Man Pleads Guilty to Possessing Methamphetamine,” press release, July
11, 2012. 139 Department of Justice, “Neo-Nazi Sentenced for Sending Gruesome Threats to Florida Officials and Their
Families,” press release, November 21, 2014; Department of Justice, “White Supremacist Charged with Sending Online
Threatening Communications to a Florida Judge, State Attorney, and Task Force Agent,” press release, December 11,
2013. 140 Ibid. 141 Department of Justice, “Self-Proclaimed White Supremacist William White Convicted of Soliciting Violence
Against Hale Jury Foreman,” press release, January 5, 2011. 142 Matthew Hale was convicted of soliciting the murder of U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow. In the mid
1990s, Hale revived the Church of the Creator fortunes. He changed the organization’s name to the World Church of
(continued...)
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 21
White’s conviction. Upon appeal, the conviction was reinstated.143 In an
unrelated case, in December 2009, White was convicted of four counts of
communicating threats in interstate commerce and one count of witness
intimidation. One of the convictions for communicating threats in interstate
commerce was later reversed. 144
The witness intimidation charges involved White
reportedly attempting to “delay or prevent the testimony” of African Americans
in a discrimination case.145 According to publicly available information, in 2005
and 2006 White was involved with NSM, for a time serving as its national
spokesman.146 His activity with NSM ceased after he had a falling out with
Schoep.147
Racist Skinheads
In the United States, racist skinheads have a legacy stretching back to the 1980s.148 However,
skinhead culture originated in the United Kingdom in the late 1960s and today has a global
reach.149 Since the early 2000s, the movement in the United States has been characterized by a
proliferation of regional groups or crews rather than a united core organization.150 In law
enforcement circles, racist skinheads have a reputation for violence. This is “reinforced by hate-
filled white power music and literature.” “[T]hey foster [their reputed toughness] through their
(...continued)
the Creator, and according to a watchdog group, by 2002 it had more chapters in the United States than any other neo-
Nazi organization. Judge Lefkow had originally ruled in favor of Hale in a trademark infringement case involving the
name “World Church of the Creator.” Her ruling was reversed on appeal, and as a result, she had to enforce the higher
court’s reversal. Via email and during a conversation, Hale discussed with his security chief the idea of killing Lefkow.
Hale did not know that his security chief was an FBI informant. In 2003, Hale was arrested for soliciting the murder of
Judge Lefkow, and this, as well as his subsequent conviction on charges related to the case, hastened a downturn in
fortune for his World Church of the Creator. Hale is serving a 40-year prison term. After another name change, the
group—currently known simply as the Creativity Movement—shows signs of revival under new leadership. See
Michael, Theology of Hate, pp. 120-133, 173-188; Chris Dettro, “Follow-Up File: White Supremacist Finds Quiet Life
in Prison,” The State Journal-Register, Springfield, IL, October 25, 2010; Federal Bureau of Investigation, “A
Different Breed of Terrorist,” June 6, 2004. 143 Department of Justice, “White Supremacist William White Sentenced to 42 Months in Prison for Soliciting
Violence Against Hale Jury Foreman,” press release, February 20, 2013; Laurence Hammack, “Judge Tosses William
A. White Verdict,” The Roanoke Times, April 20, 2011. 144 Department of Justice, “Roanoke, Virginia Neo-Nazi Sentenced for Threats, Witness Intimidation,” press release,
April 14, 2010. 145 Ibid. See also Laurence Hammack, “Former Neo-Nazi Leader Gets 3 More Months in Prison,” October 23, 2012. 146 Laurence Hammack, “White’s Life on Fringe Puts Him at Center of Storm,” The Roanoke Times, July 26, 2009. 147 Ibid; Southern Poverty Law Center, “Bill White,” 2011. For other cases involving individuals allegedly tied to
NSM, see Department of Justice, “Valley Man Enters Guilty Plea for Possession and Transport of an Improvised
Explosive Device,” press release, September 27, 2011; Department of Justice, “Valley Man Indicted for Possessing and
Transporting Improvised Explosive Devices,” press release, January 26, 2011, http://phoenix.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/
pressrel11/px012611.htm; Rudabeh Shahbazi, “Documents Show Apache Junction Man Planned To Take IEDs to the
Border,” ABC 15; Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: Tip Leads to Sting, Prison for Plotter,”
November 29, 2006. 148 Serge F. Kovaleski, “American Skinheads: Fighting Minorities and Each Other,” Washington Post, January 16,
1996; Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads in America: Racists on the Rampage, p. 3. Hereinafter: Southern
Poverty Law Center, Skinheads. 149 Ibid. 150 Ibid., p. 13; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, p. 8.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 22
appearance (shaved heads or close-cropped hair, white power tattoos) and dress (bomber jackets,
‘braces’ (suspenders), steel-toed boots).”151
Skinheads emerged as a non-racist movement among British working-class youth in the late
1960s. These early skinheads rejected the hippie lifestyle and embraced elements of Jamaican
culture, particularly reggae and ska music. As immigration from South Asia to the UK grew, some
white British skinheads embraced racism and neo-Nazism. This racist skinhead variant of the
subculture materialized in the U.S. Midwest and in Texas in the early 1980s.152
In the mid-1990s, many U.S.-based racist skinhead groups allied with one another to form the
Hammerskin Nation (HSN). HSN eventually developed chapters throughout the United States
and in Europe. It had its own annual meeting/concert called Hammerfest, ran a record label, and
had a publishing company. In the early 2000s, other groups such as the Outlaw Hammerskins,
Hoosier State Hammerskins, and Ohio State Skinheads challenged HSN for preeminence. These
groups saw HSN as “elitist.”153
In January 2010, the FBI released a bulletin that, among other things, emphasized that some racist
skinheads formed the most violent segment of WSE adherents.154 This supported the findings in a
2008 FBI assessment.155 Between 2007 and 2009, skinheads were involved in 36 of the 53 violent
incidents the FBI identified in the United States as being tied to WSE proponents.156 The Bureau
has stated that “violence is an integral part of the racist skinhead subculture.”157 Elements within
the fractious movement even target one another.158 These criminal acts are typically unrehearsed
and opportunistic, targeting nonwhites and “other religious and social minorities.”159
At least one exception involved greater levels of planning. One man was convicted and two
others pled guilty in a Connecticut case that involved the illegal sale of firearms and homemade
grenades. The scheme included multiple meetings between late 2008 and early 2010 to negotiate
the transactions, prepare the firearms, and assemble the grenades. The trio was tied to a skinhead
group known as Battalion 14 (originally called the Connecticut White Wolves). They sold the
weapons to a convicted felon working as an FBI cooperating witness. The informant posed as a
member of the Imperial Klans of America, a Ku Klux Klan organization. Two others in the case,
including the leader of Battalion 14 and a man not tied to the group, were acquitted of charges.160
151 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, pp. 5-6. 152 Michael R. Ronczkowski, Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime: Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and
Investigations, 2nd ed. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2007), pp. 40-41. Hereinafter:
Ronczkowski, Terrorism. Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads, pp. 3-4. 153 Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads, p. 5. 154 Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Extremist Violence Possibly Decreases But Racist Skinheads
Remain the Most Violent, January 28, 2010. Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Extremist
Violence. 155 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism: Skinhead Violence on the Far Right, December 10, 2008.
Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism. 156 Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Extremist Violence, p. 4. 157 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, p. 5. 158 Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads, pp. 5, 16. 159 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, p. 5. 160 Department of Justice, “Milford Man Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Making Grenades and Selling Guns
Intended for White Supremacist Group,” press release, May 5, 2011, http://newhaven.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel11/
nh050511.htm; Michael P. Mayko, “Two Acquitted in White Wolves Conspiracy Case,” Connecticut Post, December
2, 2010; Michael P. Mayko, “White Wolves Called ‘Home Grown Terrorists,’” Connecticut Post, November 16, 2010;
Anti-Defamation League, “Connecticut White Supremacists Indicted on Firearms and Explosives Charges,” March 24,
(continued...)
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 23
Anti-Government Extremists
As mentioned above, DOJ considers both unauthorized militias and sovereign citizens as anti-
government extremists. Neither militia membership nor advocacy of sovereign citizen tenets
makes one a terrorist or a criminal. However, in some instances both militia members and
sovereign citizens have committed crimes driven in part by their ideologies.161
Militia Extremists
The militia movement became prominent in the 1990s as a collection of armed, paramilitary
groups formed to stave off what they perceived as intrusions of an invasive government.162
Central to this is a fear of firearm confiscation by a federal government thought to be out of
control. Some adherents also believe in anti-Semitic and racist ideologies.163 Regardless, most
militia members engage in constitutionally protected activity.
Militia groups typically coalesce around a specific leader. Groups can run training compounds
where they rehearse paramilitary tactics, practice their survival skills, and receive weapons
instruction and lessons in movement ideology. Some militia groups also maintain websites for
recruitment and fundraising.164 Extremists within the movement who run afoul of law
enforcement “tend to stockpile illegal weapons and ammunition, trying illegally to get their hands
on fully automatic firearms or attempting to convert weapons to fully automatic. They also try to
buy or manufacture improvised explosive devices.”165
Segments of the militia movement believe that the U.S. government is either run by some hidden
conspiracy or is an overreaching sham. Some see a “New World Order” controlling U.S.
institutions such as the media and the federal government. They contend that this is partly
fostered by international organizations such as the United Nations. From this perspective, these
organizations sap American sovereignty. Some militia supporters believe that agents of an un-
authentic “Shadow Government” are interested in seizing lawfully owned firearms as part of a
plan to undermine democracy.166 Importantly, others in the militia movement hold that the federal
government has overstepped its constitutional bounds.167 One scholar has noted that some militia
(...continued)
2010. For another case allegedly involving racist skinheads, see Amy Pavuk and Henry Pierson Curtis, “Details
Emerge in Osceola Skinhead Race-War Case,” Orlando Sentinel, May 8, 2012. 161 The material in this section describes militia extremists and sovereign citizen extremists. On occasion more broadly
anti-government extremists engage in violence but defy easy categorization. For example, in 2014, broadly anti-
government extremists Jerad and Amanda Miller (husband and wife) shot and killed two Las Vegas, NV, Metropolitan
Police Department officers. Police shot and killed the couple. Mark Berman, Las Vegas Shooters Had Expressed Anti-
Government Views, Prepared for ‘Lengthy Gun Battle,’” Washington Post, June 9, 2014. 162 Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism: Terms and Concepts,
Version 1.0, (Tallahassee, Florida: Institute for Intergovernmental Research, 2005), p. 49; Hereinafter: Institute for
Intergovernmental Research, Investigating Terrorism. 163 Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center, “Sovereign Citizens and Militia Information,” August 19, 2008,
p. 1. 164 Lane Crothers, “The Cultural Foundations of the Modern Militia Movement,” New Political Science, vol. 24, no. 2
(2002), p. 231. Hereinafter: Crothers, “The Cultural.” 165 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: Focus on Militia Extremism,” September 22, 2011. 166 Lane Crothers, Rage on the Right: The American Militia Movement from Ruby Ridge to Homeland Security
(Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), p. 57. Hereinafter: Crothers, Rage on the Right. 167 Crothers, “The Cultural,” pp. 226-228.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 24
members assert that they have “the right to organize, purchase and use firearms, and enforce the
law against agents of the government who behave unconstitutionally.”168
A small minority of Americans who held anti-government fears formed militias largely in
response to two incidents in the early 1990s. These were confrontations between federal law
enforcement and private citizens at Ruby Ridge, ID, and at a site near Waco, TX.169 Both involved
warrants related to firearms violations.
In August 1992, Randy Weaver and his family were engaged in an 11-day
standoff with federal law enforcement agents. Randy Weaver had failed to appear
in court on firearms-related charges in 1991. Subsequently, an unsuccessful
operation to arrest Weaver led to the death of his 14-year-old son and a U.S.
Marshal. It also precipitated the standoff. During the standoff, Weaver and a
friend were shot and wounded. An FBI sniper also shot and killed Weaver’s wife,
Vicki.170 Weaver was eventually found guilty of failing to appear in court on the
gun charges that played a role in the standoff. In October 1993, he was sentenced
to 18 months in jail and a $10,000 fine. In 1995, Weaver received a $3.1 million
settlement in a wrongful death suit filed against the U.S. government.171 The
events at Ruby Ridge helped precipitate the militia movement, whose members
tend to view Randy Weaver as a hero and demonize the federal government.172
The militia movement also emerged because of the 51-day standoff between
federal law enforcement and a religious sect named the Branch Davidians near
Waco.173 On February 28, 1993, an unsuccessful attempt by Bureau of Alcohol
Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents to arrest the sect’s leader, David
Koresh, initiated the events near Waco. He was wanted on suspicion of federal
firearms and explosives violations.174 Four ATF agents and six Branch Davidians
died in a gunfight during the operation.175 Protracted discussions followed
between federal negotiators and Koresh. These failed. On April 19, federal agents
assaulted the Davidian compound, which caught on fire. At least 75 Branch
Davidians perished in the assault.176
168 Ibid., p. 228. 169 Ibid., pp. 230-231. See also Michael Barkun, “Appropriated Martyrs: The Branch Davidians and the Radical Right,”
Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 19, no. 1 (2007), p. 120. Hereinafter: Barkun, “Appropriated Martyrs.” See also
Steven M. Chermak, Searching for a Demon: The Media Construction of the Militia Movement, (Boston: Northeastern
University Press, 2002). 170 Stuart A. Wright, Patriots, Politics, and the Oklahoma City Bombing (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2007), pp. 142-148. Hereinafter: Wright, Patriots. Weaver has been described as a survivalist who believed in the
Christian Identity religion. See Barkun “Appropriated Martyrs,” p. 118. He has also been described as holding white
supremacist beliefs and was not a militia member. See Crothers, Rage on the Right, pp. 78-79. 171 Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 90. 172 Wright, Patriots, pp. 149-152; Crothers, Rage on the Right, pp. 92-97; Barkun, “Appropriated Martyrs,” pp. 120-
121. 173 Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 104. 174 Department of Justice, Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas, October 8, 1993. The
Branch Davidian sect emerged from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and was formed in 1929. The two severed
official ties with one another in 1934. David Koresh was not a militia member. See Crothers, Rage on the Right, pp.
100-101. 175 Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 105. 176 Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 110.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 25
If the incidents involving the Weavers and the Branch Davidians helped form the militia
movement, Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
City on April 19, 1995, helped usher in a temporary decline.177 In the bombing’s aftermath, militia
groups received greater law enforcement scrutiny.178 The bombing claimed 168 lives, and until
9/11 was the largest single act of terrorism on U.S. soil. The militia movement declined after the
bombing.179 Although McVeigh’s bombing cannot fully account for a dip in militia activity, it
affected the movement by causing some groups to temper their rhetoric while others grew more
extreme, and militias became more marginalized.180
Observers have noted that the militia movement has experienced resurgence in the last decade,
likely driven by growing antipathy toward the federal government.181 A few individuals still draw
inspiration from McVeigh. Jerry Drake Varnell was arrested in August 2017 after he allegedly
intended to damage or destroy a bank in downtown Oklahoma City by reportedly attempting to
detonate what he thought was a bomb in a van. But the inert explosive device was based on
materials provided by an undercover FBI agent as part of an investigation that nabbed Varnell,
who allegedly was inspired by the Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 bombing. Varnell purportedly hewed
to militia extremist beliefs and, according to investigators, expressed an interest in founding a
small militia.182
Two widely reported incidents in recent years have attracted militia and other anti-government
extremists.
In 2014, multiple individuals led by Cliven Bundy engaged in an armed standoff
with police officials at Bundy’s ranch in Bunkerville, NV, preventing the
execution of a court order related to a dispute involving the grazing of cattle on
federal lands.183 One individual involved was sentenced to 68 years in prison for
a variety of crimes related to his involvement in the standoff.184
For 41 days in late 2015 and early 2016, Ammon and Ryan Bundy (sons of
Cliven Bundy) led numerous individuals in armed occupation of federal property
at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. Although the ringleaders of
the broader occupation—including the Bundy brothers—were acquitted in
177 McVeigh was not a militia member, but he interacted with others who were. 178 Devlin Barrett and Eileen Sullivan, “FBI Sees Little Chance of Copycat Militia Plots,” Associated Press, March 31,
2010. 179 Andrew Wolfson, “The Execution: Militias Dwindle Since Oklahoma City Bombing,” USA Today, June 20, 2001. 180 Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 138, 147. 181 Max Strasser, “Fed Up with the Feds,” Newsweek, May 2, 2014. 182 Eli Watkins and Shimon Prokupecz, “FBI Arrests Man in Oklahoma Bombing Sting,” CNN, August 14, 2017;
United States v. Jerry Drake Varnell, criminal complaint, U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, August
13, 2017. 183 “Federal Authorities Indict 19 in 2014 Range Standoff in Nevada,” Associated Press, March 4, 2016; Department of
Justice, “Fourteen Additional Defendants Charged for Felony Crimes Related to 2014 Standoff in Nevada,” press
release, March 3, 2016; United States v. Cliven Bundy, et al., superseding indictment, United States District Court,
District of Nevada, March 2, 2016. This standoff is included in this memo’s list of domestic terrorist/extremist
incidents, because the superseding indictment in the federal criminal case related to the standoff describes it as “a
massive armed assault against federal law enforcement officers.” 184 The charges included assault on a federal officer; threatening a federal law enforcement officer; obstruction of the
due administration of justice; interference with interstate commerce by extortion; interstate travel in aid of extortion;
and three counts of use and carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. See Department of Justice, “Phoenix
Man Sentenced to Over 68 Years in Prison for Threat and Assault of Federal Law Enforcement and Other Charges
Related to 2014 Armed Standoff in Bunkerville,” press release, July 26, 2017.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 26
federal court of many of the most serious charges levied against them, a violent
incident occurred during the occupation. Oregon State Police officers fatally shot
LaVoy Finicum. The shooting occurred after Finicum reportedly drove a pickup
truck at high speed toward a police roadblock, reputedly endangering officers
before careening into a nearby snowbank. According to law enforcement
officials, Finicum subsequently left the vehicle, refusing to comply with police
commands, and reached for a gun in his pocket before he was shot to death.185 In
the fallout related to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge takeover, Cliven
Bundy was arrested on charges tied to the 2014 Bunkerville standoff.
Several other examples highlight how some militia adherents have reportedly engaged in criminal
activity since 9/11.
Purportedly, Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright, and Patrick Eugene Stein conspired to
detonate explosives at an apartment complex in Garden City, KS. Prosecutors
allege Allen, Wright, and Stein hoped to target Somali immigrants living in the
complex.186 The trio was part of a small militia-style group dubbed the Crusaders.
Underscoring the violent viewpoints the trio reputedly held, a larger militia
organization in Kansas reportedly rejected Wright and Stein for membership
because the larger group perceived the duo as too extreme.187
In November 2011, the FBI arrested four retirees, Samuel J. Crump, Ray H.
Adams, Dan Roberts, and Frederick W. Thomas, who allegedly formed a fringe
militia group and planned violent attacks on government officials. The group,
based in northern Georgia, purportedly had ties to an unnamed militia
organization. According to DOJ, the quartet “discussed multiple criminal
activities, ranging from murder; theft; manufacturing and using toxic agents; and
assassinations in an effort to undermine federal and state government and to
advance their interests.”188 Between June and November 2011, Roberts and
Thomas met with an FBI undercover agent to negotiate the purchase of matériel
for the plot: “a silencer for a rifle and conversion parts to make a fully automatic
rifle, as well as explosives.”189 In October, plotters reportedly discussed making
ricin, a deadly poison derived from castor beans.190 In April 2012, Roberts and
Thomas pled guilty to conspiring to obtain an unregistered explosive device and
185 Patrik Jonsson, “After the Bundy Acquittal, Some Surprising Lessons of the Malheur Occupation,” Christian
Science Monitor, October 29, 2016; Hal Bernton, “Jury Acquits Leaders of Malheur Wildlife-Refuge Standoff,” Seattle
Times, October, 27, 2016. A second trial led to additional verdicts, see Department of Justice, “Jury Delivers Verdict in
Second Oregon Standoff Trial,” press release, March 10, 2017. Greg Botelho and Michael Martinez, “Shooting Death
of LaVoy Finicum Justified, Necessary, Prosecutor Says,” CNN, March 8, 2016. In 2017, an FBI agent involved in the
Finicum shooting was federally indicted for his allegedly attempting to cover up his own involvement in the shooting.
See Maxine Bernstein, “LaVoy Finicum Shooting: Indictment of Agent ‘devastating’ for FBI,” The Oregonian, June
29, 2017. 186 Department of Justice, “Three Kansas Men Charged With Plotting a Bombing Attack Targeting the Local Somali
Immigrant Community,” press release, October 14, 2016. 187 Judy L. Thomas, “Kansas Militia Says It Spurned Alleged Terrorists Arrested in Garden City Case,” Kansas City
Star, November 2, 2016. 188 Department of Justice, “North Georgia Men Arrested, Charged in Plots to Purchase Explosives, Silencer and to
Manufacture a Biological Toxin,” press release, November 1, 2011. 189 Ibid. 190 Craig Schneider, “Documents: Men with Castor Beans, Guns Worried about Getting Caught,” Atlanta Journal-
Constitution, November 6, 2011.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 27
silencer.191 Crump and Adams were found guilty of “conspiring to make ricin to
be used as a weapon in January 2014. Also, they were found guilty of one count
each of possessing a biological toxin for use as a weapon.” Adams was acquitted
of “attempting to develop, produce and possess a biological toxin.”192
In June 2012, three individuals were found guilty in Anchorage, AK, of
conspiracy and firearms charges related to a scheme purportedly led by Francis
“Schaeffer” Cox.193 He and his followers allegedly plotted “a potential retaliatory
response to any attempt by law enforcement to arrest Cox, who had an
outstanding bench warrant for not attending a trial over a misdemeanor weapons
charge.”194 They were members of the Alaska Peacemaker’s Militia based in
Fairbanks, AK, and also held sovereign citizen beliefs. The plotters supposedly
codenamed their plan “241 (two for one),” because they reputedly intended to
kill two government officials for every militia member killed in the operation.195
The above activities are not necessarily indicative of trends toward violence in the larger militia
movement, and in one prominent case, DOJ failed to convince the presiding judge of serious
charges revolving around a purported violent plot. In March 2012, a federal judge acquitted
members of a Michigan Militia group known as the Hutaree on charges of seditious conspiracy or
rebellion against the United States and conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction. The judge
also cleared the accused Hutaree members of weapons crimes related to the conspiracies.196
The case garnered headlines in March 2010, when nine Hutaree members were indicted for
allegedly preparing to violently confront U.S. law enforcement.197 Their supposed plotting
included the murder of a local law enforcement officer and an attack on fellow officers who
gathered in Michigan for the funeral procession. According to DOJ, the Hutaree discussed the use
of explosives against the funeral procession.198 Audio recordings by an undercover FBI agent of
reputed Hutaree leader David Brian Stone capture him discussing the New World Order and how,
“it’s time to strike and take our nation back so we will be free of tyranny.... The war will come
191 Department of Justice, “North Georgia Men Plead Guilty to Plot to Purchase Explosives and a Silencer,” press
release, April 10, 2012. 192 Kate Brumback, “Jury Finds 2 Georgia Men Guilty in Ricin Plot,” Associated Press, January 17, 2014. 193 Department of Justice, “Guilty Verdicts in USA v. Cox, Barney, and Vernon,” press release, June 19, 2012. 194 Department of Justice, “Superseding Indictment Returned by Federal Grand Jury Against Fairbanks-Area Men for
Conspiracy to Kill Federal Officers,” press release, January 23, 2012; Sam Friedman, “Details Emerge in Alleged Plot
to Kill Alaska State Troopers, Judge,” Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, March 3, 2011. Cox has also been described as a
sovereign citizen (discussed below). See Sam Friedman, “The Schaeffer Cox File: The Trail of a Young Man,”
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, April 10, 2011. For a related case see Department of Justice, “Salcha Couple Pleads
Guilty to Conspiracy to Murder Federal Officials,” press release, August 27, 2012; Department of Justice, “Couple
Charged with Conspiracy to Murder Judge and Federal Firearms Crimes, Two Others Indicted for Conspiracy to
Possess Destructive Devices and Illegal Weapons,” press release, March 17, 2011. 195 For examples of other militia adherents involved in crime, see Meghann M. Cuniff, “Health Problems Reduce
Militia Leader’s Sentence,” The Spokesman-Review, August 11, 2011; David Cole, “Militia Member Sentenced on
Federal Firearms and Explosives Charges,” Coeur d’Alene Press, August 9, 2011; Federal Bureau of Investigation,
“Preventing Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil: The Case of the Wrong Package Falling into the Right Hands,” April 9,
2004; Scott Gold, Case Yields Chilling Signs of Domestic Terror Plot,” Los Angeles Times, January 7, 2004. 196 Ed White, “Michigan Militia Members Cleared of Conspiracy,” Associated Press, March 27, 2012,
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/critical-charges-dropped-michigan-militia-16013255?singlePage=
true#.T3MB5kd_lLc. Hereinafter: White, “Michigan Militia.” 197 Department of Justice, “Nine Members of a Militia Group Charged with Seditious Conspiracy and Related
Charges,” press release, March 29, 2010. 198 Ibid.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 28
whether we are ready or not.”199 According to DOJ, the group had a hit list that included federal
judges, among others.200 However, during the trial an Assistant U.S. Attorney acknowledged that
the Hutaree had not formed a “specific plan” to attack government targets.201 U.S. District Judge
Victoria Roberts stated that, “The court is aware that protected speech and mere words can be
sufficient to show a conspiracy. In this case, however, they do not rise to that level.” 202
Three
Hutaree members pled guilty to firearms charges.203
Sovereign Citizen Movement
The FBI defines the sovereign citizen movement as “anti-government,” involving people “who
believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or ‘sovereign’
from the United States. As a result, they do not accept any government authority, including
courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.”204 However, simply
holding these views is not a criminal act, and numerous movement adherents solely exercise their
beliefs via constitutionally protected activities.
The ideas behind the movement originated during the 1970s with a group known as the Posse
Comitatus and enjoyed some popularity in extremist circles during the 1980s and 1990s.205 Early
on, the movement featured white supremacist elements, but this has not kept some African
Americans from subscribing to its ideals in recent years.206 In the 1990s, the movement attracted
250,000 followers and was marked by the FBI’s standoff with a group known as the Montana
Freemen that lasted 81 days.207 Estimates from 2011 suggested a membership of 300,000.208
199 Corey Williams and Jeff Karoub, “Prosecutor: Undercover FBI Agent Infiltrated Militia,” Associated Press, March
31, 2010. 200 Dan Harris, Emily Friedman, and Tahman Bradley, “Undercover Agent Key Witness Against Hutaree Militia
Members,” ABC News, April 1, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/undercover-agent-credited-hutaree-militia-bust/
story?id=10257584. 201 Robert Snell and Christine Ferretti, “Key Charges Dropped Against Hutaree Militia,” Detroit News, March 28,
2011. 202 White, “Michigan Militia.” 203 See Department of Justice, “Members of the Hutaree Militia Plead Guilty to Weapons Charges,” March 29, 2012;
Matthew Dolan, “Defendant in Michigan Militia Case Changes Plea to Guilty,” press release, December 6, 2011,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204083204577080630555077796.html?mod=googlenews_wsj. When
the Hutaree suspects were arrested in the case, some militia members in Michigan did not support the group’s alleged
scheming. For example, a member of another militia group in Michigan provided information to authorities regarding
the whereabouts of a fugitive Hutaree militia member. See Kirk Johnson, “Militia Draws Distinctions Between
Groups,” New York Times, March 31, 2010. Also, a militia leader from Michigan has said that the Hutaree case,
“caused a rift in the militia movement about whether this is the sort of group we want to rally behind or if what they
were doing was outside the scope of what’s acceptable.” See Robert Snell, “Militias Split over Defending Hutaree,”
Detroit News, March 31, 2011. 204 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: The Sovereign Citizen Movement,” April 13, 2010.
Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Sovereign Citizen.” 205 J.M. Berger, “Without Prejudice: What Sovereign Citizens Believe,” George Washington University Program on
Extremism, June 2016. 206 Sarah Netter, “Anti-Government Sovereign Citizens Taking Foreclosed Homes Using Phony Deeds, Authorities
Say,” ABC News, August 23, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-battling-sovereign-citizens-squatting-
foreclosed-homes/story?id=11445382. See Leah Nelson, “Sovereigns in Black,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty
Law Center, no. 143 (Fall 2011). 207 Patrik Jonsson, “‘Sovereign citizens’: Is Jared Loughner a sign of revived extremist threat?” Christian Science
Monitor, March 9, 2011. 208 Ibid.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 29
For the most part, the sovereign citizen movement is diffuse and includes few organized
groups.209 The FBI suggests that sovereigns “operate as individuals without established leadership
and only come together in loosely affiliated groups to train, help each other with paperwork
[critical to some of their schemes], or socialize and talk about their ideology.”210 The movement
involves leaders described as “gurus” who proselytize online, in print publications, or via in-
person seminars. These gurus rouse followers into believing a conspiracy theory in which the
legitimate federal government has been replaced by a government designed to take away the
rights of ordinary citizens.211 This shares the same broad interplay between concepts of legitimate
and illegitimate rule seen in the New World Order and WSE theories about ZOG. Gurus can also
promote illegal techniques that individuals can use to supposedly cut their ties to the federal
government or avoid its reach, particularly when it comes to taxation.212
Sovereign citizens reject the legitimacy of much of the U.S. legal system.213 Many believe that
the 14th Amendment “shifted the nation from its original common-law roots with states’ rights to
a federal corporation that legally enslaved everyone.”214 According to movement members, the
amendment ushered in an illegitimate federal government by supposedly abrogating individual
rights and replacing them with a system that “grant[ed] privileges through contracts such as
marriage and driver’s licenses, gun permits, and property codes.”215
By ignoring all sorts of laws, avoiding taxes, disregarding permit requirements, and destroying
government-issued identification documents, some sovereign citizens have tried to cut formal ties
with what they perceive as an illegitimate regime.216 Sovereigns have filed court documents
stating that they are not U.S. citizens.217 They have also created bogus financial documents to
harass or defraud their enemies. (For more information, see the “Paper Terrorism”: Liens,
Frivolous Lawsuits, and Tax Schemes” section in this report.)
Sovereign citizens have in some instances created fictitious entities and used fake currency,
passports, license plates, and driver licenses. In 2009, a federal jury found three men guilty of
209 One sovereign citizens group is the “Republic for the united States of America” (RuSA) which is based in Alabama.
RuSA is a successor to a group known as the Guardians of the Free Republics (GFR), which in 2010 mailed letters to
the governors of all 50 U.S. states urging them to leave office. See Southern Poverty Law Center, “Sovereign
President,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, no. 143 (Fall 2011). In March 2013, the group’s self-
proclaimed president was convicted of “conspiracy to defraud the United States, attempting to pay taxes with fictitious
financial instruments, attempting to obstruct and impede the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), failing to file a 2009
federal income tax return, and falsely testifying under oath in a bankruptcy proceeding.” See Department of Justice,
“Self-Proclaimed President of Sovereign Citizen Nation Convicted in Alabama of Federal Tax Crimes,” press release,
March 25, 2013. 210 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counterterrorism Analysis Section, “Sovereign Citizens: A Growing Domestic
Threat to Law Enforcement,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, (September 2011). Hereinafter: FBI Counterterrorism
Analysis Section, “Sovereign Citizens.” 211 Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless Ones: The Resurgence of the Sovereign Citizen Movement, August 9, 2010,
pp. 2-6. Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless. 212 Ibid., p. 6. 213 However, this reportedly does not keep some sovereign citizen extremists from cashing government paychecks. See
J.J. McNabb, “Working for the Man: Anti-Government Extremists Who Cash Government Paychecks,” Forbes, March
5, 2012. 214 Tom Morton, “Sovereign Citizens Renounce First Sentence of 14th Amendment,” Casper Star-Tribune, April 17,
2011, http://trib.com/news/local/casper/article_a5d0f966-7ed0-549f-a066-b1b2c91f9489.html. 215 Ibid. 216 Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless, pp. 4-5. 217 Lance Griffin, “‘Sovereigns’ Gain Attention of Law Enforcement,” Dothan Eagle, May 21, 2011.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 30
conspiring to use and sell fraudulent diplomatic credentials and license plates that they believed
allowed “their customers [to] enjoy diplomatic immunity and [to] no longer ... pay taxes or be
subject to being stopped, detained, or arrested by law enforcement personnel.”218 In 2003, Ronald
K. Delorme developed the Pembina Nation Little Shell Band of North America219 into a sovereign
citizen group. 220
It is a sham Native American tribe that anyone can join to try and avoid taxes
and government-imposed costs, such as auto registration fees. For example, news reports indicate
that in June 2010, a sheriff’s deputy in Florida pulled over John McCombs when the law
enforcement official noticed a Pembina Nation Little Shell license plate on the motorcycle
McCombs was driving. According to publicly available sources, McCombs presented a fraudulent
letter of diplomatic immunity and an invalid Pembina Nation Little Shell vehicle registration.221
Some sovereign citizen fraud appears to be motivated by economic opportunism rather than
ideology.222 This includes “pyramid schemes, other investment schemes, bogus trust scams, real
estate fraud, and various types of tax frauds [as well as] more esoteric scams ... ranging from
immigration fraud to malpractice insurance fraud.”223 In November 2011, husband and wife
Monty and Patricia Ervin were convicted in federal court of conspiring to defraud the United
States as well as three counts of tax evasion. In addition, the federal jury convicted Patricia of
structuring transactions to avoid bank reporting requirements.224 The couple allegedly had not
filed federal income tax returns between 2000 and 2008, denied their U.S. citizenship, and
dubbed themselves “sovereign” when the IRS investigated.225 The Ervins earned more than $9
million from investment properties they owned.226 A group of self-proclaimed sovereign citizens
in North Georgia was indicted in March 2011 for using sovereign schemes to allegedly steal
millions of dollars worth of real estate.227
Some avowed sovereign citizens have been involved in violent altercations with law enforcement
officers:
In June 2016, Gavin Long shot and killed three police officers and wounded three
others in Baton Rouge, LA, before police killed him. He had articulated
sovereign citizen views online.228
In May 2010, two self-professed sovereign citizens were involved in a violent
confrontation with West Memphis, TN, police officers. During a traffic stop, Joe
Kane fired an AK-47 assault rifle and killed two officers. Kane and his father
218 Department of Justice, “Jury Convicts Three Men of Conspiracy To Use Fake Diplomatic Identification,” press
release, August 31, 2009. 219 The group is not a federally recognized tribe. 220 Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless; Chris Gerbasi, “Tribal Claims Causing Charlotte Controversy,” Sarasota
Herald Tribune, July 25, 2010; “Punta Gorda Man Arrested for Driving with Pembina Nation Plate,” WINK News, June
1, 2010. 221 Ibid. 222 For a discussion of redemption as a scam, see Federal Bureau of Investigation, Common Fraud Schemes,
http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/fraud. 223 Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless, p. 24. 224 Department of Justice, “Self-Proclaimed ‘Governor’ of Alabama and Wife Convicted of Tax Fraud,” press release,
November 4, 2011. Hereinafter: Department of Justice, “Self-Proclaimed.” 225 Ibid; United States v. Patricia Ervin and Monty Ervin, Superseding Indictment, 1:11-CR-07-MHT, District Court,
Middle District of Alabama, February 17, 2011. 226 Department of Justice, “Self-Proclaimed.” 227 Megan Matteucci, “12 ‘sovereign citizens’ indicted,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 15, 2011. 228 Joshua Berlinger, “Gavin Long: Who is Baton Rouge Cop Killer?” CNN, August 4, 2016.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 31
Jerry fled the scene. Law enforcement sighted their vehicle in a nearby parking
lot 90 minutes later. The duo died in the ensuing shootout, which also wounded
two more officers.229 The FBI had investigated Jerry Kane five years before the
murders because he was allegedly traversing the United States peddling what the
FBI termed a “debt elimination scheme.” 230
In June 2012, the FBI issued a bulletin suggesting that some sovereign extremists might move
away from more spontaneous violence simply in reaction to encounters with police and are
potentially preparing for conflict in advance, “making more specific plans to interfere with state
and local law enforcement officers during traffic stops and, in some cases, intentionally initiating
contact with law enforcement.”231 In August 2013, authorities in Las Vegas, NV, arrested two
reputed Sovereigns, David Allen Brutsche and Devon Campbell Newman, after a local
investigation uncovered the duo’s purported schemes to kidnap and kill police officers.
Reportedly, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ran an undercover investigation to nab
the two after they encountered Brutsche in what has been characterized as a series of vehicle
stops during which “Brutsche would espouse his Sovereign Citizen beliefs that he wasn’t bound
by the law Metro officers were enforcing.”232 Brutsche pled guilty to felony kidnapping
conspiracy in February 2014 after “prosecutors abandoned the two most serious charges—
conspiracy to murder and attempted armed kidnapping.”233
Other cases have garnered attention. For example, in July 2011 James M. Tesi allegedly shot at a
local police officer trying to arrest him near Fort Worth, TX. Tesi was reportedly wounded in the
altercation. Outstanding “arrest warrants for speeding, driving without a license in possession,
and failure to appear” prompted the attempted apprehension.234 Court documents described in
news reporting noted that Tesi linked himself to a sovereign citizen group.235 In February 2012,
Tesi was found “guilty of aggravated assault on a public servant with a deadly weapon.”236 In
June 2011, a police officer in Page, AZ, shot and killed William Foust while responding to a
domestic violence 911 call. The shooting reportedly occurred during a physical struggle in which
Foust attempted to “gain control of” the police officer’s Taser.237 According to a press account,
Foust had declared his sovereign citizen status in court proceedings in Kanab, UT (about 75 miles
from Page), related to a speeding ticket.238
229 Cindy Wolff, “West Memphis Police Sued by Widow of Man Killed in Shootout,” The Commercial Appeal, April
21, 2011; Kristina Goetz, Cindy Wolff, “Grieving West Memphis Chief Raises National Curtain on Sovereign
Citizens,” The Commercial Appeal, April 17, 2011. 230 Scott Knoll, “The Warning That Never Came: What the FBI Knew About Jerry Kane,” WREG, March 2, 2011. 231 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Recent Sovereign Citizen Extremist Targeting of Law Enforcement Highlights
Potential for Violence during Traffic Stops, June 1, 2012. 232 Jackie Valley, “Metro Infiltrates Sovereign Citizens Movement, Uncovers Plots to ‘Snatch,’ Execute Officers,” Las
Vegas Sun, August 22, 2013. 233 Ken Ritter, “Man Takes Plea Deal in Las Vegas ‘Sovereign Citizen’ Case,” Associated Press, February 7, 2014. 234 Domingo Ramirez Jr., “Man in ‘Sovereign Citizen’ Group is Wounded in Shootout,” July 22, 2011. 235 Ibid. 236 Steve Norder, “‘Sovereign Citizen’ Gets 35 Years for Assault on Officer,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, February 1,
2012, http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/31/3702338/sovereign-citizen-found-guilty.html. 237 Todd Glasenapp and Larry Hendricks, “Page Officer Kills Man in DV Incident,” Arizona Daily Sun, June 21, 2011,
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_61e27d9d-6d47-5655-8a71-d28b846d8e3e.html. 238 Ibid. For other violent plots with alleged sovereign ties, see Alyssa Newcomb, “Suspects in Louisiana Cop Killings
Linked to Sovereign Citizens Movement,” ABC News, August 19, 2012, http://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-louisiana-
cop-shooters-linked-sovereign-citizen-movement/story?id=17038353#.UL4plddrq1g; J.J. MacNabb, “Sovereign
Extremist Injured in Texas Bomb Explosion,” Forbes, July 3, 2012.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 32
Black Separatist Extremists
DOJ includes black separatism in its list of movements that potentially spawn domestic
terrorists.239 However, most black separatists solely engage in constitutionally protected behavior.
Since 9/11, there has been little public discussion of federal investigations involving black
separatist extremists. One group exhibiting what can be described as black separatist views, the
New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP), has received national attention over several
incidents.
The NBPP emerged in the early 1990s, and it is not tied to the Black Panthers from the 1960s.240
Watchdog groups have described the NBPP as “a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization
whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews, and law enforcement officers,”241
as well as “the largest organized anti-Semitic and racist black militant group in America.”242 The
NBPP, which denies that it is a hate group, engages in “high-profile” rhetoric at rallies or
demonstrations intended to encourage confrontation with authorities. The group’s actions occur
“on behalf of the poor or disadvantaged, involving the ready display of firearms.”243 As an
example of the rhetoric the group uses, an NBPP representative characterized the March 2011
shooting death of a drug suspect in Jacksonville, FL, as “a violent act of terrorism” committed by
police.244 Soon after the shooting, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office said that the confrontation
involved undercover officers serving a search warrant at an apartment. Officers claimed that
inside the apartment, the victim—an alleged drug dealer with a criminal record—was holding a
firearm.245 In an infamous recent incident, Micah Johnson shot and killed five police officers in
Dallas, TX, in July 2015. He reportedly “liked” groups on Facebook tied to black separatism and
may have been involved at some point with the NBPP in Houston.246 Johnson purportedly told
police that he wasn’t affiliated with any groups at the time of the shooting.247 He died in the
altercation with police.
In 2008, the Philadelphia, PA, chapter of the NBPP was involved in a case that generated public
controversy. A 2009 civil suit filed by DOJ claimed that two NBPP members wearing the group’s
paramilitary uniforms loitered around the entrance to a 2008 federal general election polling
station in Philadelphia. One of the NBPP members allegedly carried a nightstick. According to
DOJ, some poll watchers feared for their safety because of this activity. Philadelphia police
officers responding to claims of voter intimidation removed the nightstick-wielding NBPP
member and allowed the other to remain (the latter was a certified poll watcher). Police asked
people at the polling station whether they had been threatened by the two individuals. All those
questioned replied that they had not. However, at least one individual claimed that the presence of
239 Department of Justice, White Paper, p. 59. 240 D.J. Mulloy, “New Panthers, Old Panthers, and the Politics of Black Nationalism in the United States,” Patterns of
Prejudice, vol. 44, no. 3 (2010), pp. 217, 219, 229-236. Hereinafter: Mulloy: “New Panthers.” 241 Southern Poverty Law Center, “New Black Panther Party.” 242 Anti-Defamation League, “New Black Panther Party for Self Defense,” June 1, 2011. 243 Mulloy: “New Panthers,” pp. 223, 233. 244 “Black Panthers Protest Police Shooting,” October 14, 2011; “Black Panthers Protest Police Shooting,” First Coast
News, March 19, 2011. 245 Ibid. 246 Melissa Jacobs, “Dallas Police Sniper Was Shunned by New Black Panthers, Says Group’s Leader,” Fox News, July
12, 2016. Brian Fung, “What You Need to Know about the Black Nationalists the Dallas Shooter Liked on Facebook,”
Washington Post, July 9, 2016; “Dallas Shooter Was Ex-Member of Houston’s New Black Panther Party,”
Click2Houston, website of NBC affiliate station in Houston, TX, July 7, 2016. 247 Ibid.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 33
the two NBPP members had been intimidating.248 The NBPP disavowed the actions of its two
members.249 In May 2009, DOJ voluntarily dismissed claims against defendants in the case, and a
July 2009 letter from 10 Members of Congress to DOJ’s Inspector General questioned the
decision to do so. DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated, and in March
2011, OPR issued a report which argued that DOJ officials did not act inappropriately regarding
the matter.250
Abortion Extremists
The vast majority of activists who either favor or oppose abortion engage in constitutionally
protected activity. However, abortion extremism involves crimes committed based on such
beliefs. Over the past two decades, most abortion-related violence appears to have targeted
abortion providers.251 Eighty-four instances of “extreme violence” targeting abortion providers
and clinics occurred in the United States from 1997 through 2015, according to one group that
supports abortion rights and tracks criminal activity intended to limit access to abortion
services.252 These cases involved shootings, bombings, arson incidents, and acid attacks.253 Since
1993, eight clinic workers have been murdered by anti-abortion extremists in the United States.254
Because of a wave of violence focused on abortion providers in the 1980s and early 1990s,
Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances
Act (FACE Act) (18 U.S.C. §248) in 1994.255 As with other types of domestic terrorism
investigations, it is unclear exactly which incidents of violence perpetrated against abortion
providers the FBI considers terrorist acts.
Two violent incidents have been prominent in recent years. In 2015, Robert Dear Jr., allegedly
killed three people and wounded nine others in a shooting at a Planned Parenthood facility in
Colorado Springs, CO.256 The 2009 murder of George Tiller, an abortion provider, received
248 Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Report, Investigation of Dismissal of Defendants in
United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Inc. et al., March 17, 2011, pp. 6-8. Hereinafter: DOJ,
OPR, Investigation of Dismissal. 249 Mulloy: “New Panthers,” pp. 217-218. 250 DOJ, OPR, Investigation of Dismissal, pp. 1-3. 251 There also has been at least one incident involving violence reportedly by anti-abortion activists. See Philip
Jankowski, “APD: Woman Threw Molotov Cocktail Near Anti-Abortion Protesters,” The American-Statesman,
(Austin, TX), March 24, 3015; “Woman Arrested for Throwing Molotov Cocktail in Front of Planned Parenthood,”
KXAN, NBC affiliate, Austin, TX, March 23, 2015. 252 National Abortion Federation, “Clinic Violence,” http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/
history_extreme.asp. See also “NAF Violence and Disruption Statistics,” https://prochoice.org/education-and-
advocacy/violence/violence-statistics-and-history/. 253 Ibid. 254 NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, “Anti-Choice Violence and Intimidation,” press release. 255 This is not a terrorism-related statute. In fact, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, prosecutes both criminal and civil cases
involving the FACE Act. See http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/overview.php; http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/
face.php. The FACE Act (18 U.S.C. §248), “protects the exercise of free choice in obtaining reproductive health
services, and the exercise of First Amendment religious freedoms. Section 248 makes it unlawful for a person to use
force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure or intimidate a person because he/she is or has been
obtaining or providing reproductive health services. Section 248 also makes it unlawful for a person to use force, threat
of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure or intimidate a person because he/she is lawfully exercising the
right of religious freedom at a place of worship. Finally, Section 248 makes it unlawful for a person to intentionally
damage or destroy the property of a facility because it provides reproductive health services, or because it is a place of
worship. Section 248 also prohibits anyone from attempting to commit any of the above.” 256 Julie Turkewitz, et al., “Robert Dear, Suspect in Colorado Killings, ‘Preferred to be Left Alone,’” New York Times,
(continued...)
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 34
significant public attention. On January 29, 2010, Scott Roeder was convicted of first-degree
murder and two counts of aggravated assault for killing Tiller. Roeder shot Tiller while the latter
was at church on May 31, 2009. Roeder was sentenced to “life in prison with no possibility of
parole for 50 years.”257
A number of other unrelated schemes targeting abortion clinics have been uncovered since
Roeder’s arrest. These incidents appear to involve individuals largely operating alone.
In January 2012, Bobby Joe Rogers was charged in the firebombing of a
Pensacola, FL, abortion clinic on New Year’s Day 2012. The bombing destroyed
the clinic, which had been targeted in the past.258 In February 2012, a federal
grand jury indicted him on two counts—arson and damaging a reproductive
health facility.259 He pled guilty to the charges in July 2012.260
In May 2011, Ralph Lang was arrested after allegedly accidently firing his
handgun through the door of a hotel room in Madison, WI. He was reportedly
planning to kill abortion providers in the area.261
One underground network that supports attacks on abortion clinics is the Army of God (AOG).262
The loosely structured organization openly promotes anti-abortion violence.263 However, its
members deny that they are terrorists. They also deny that attacks against clinics and abortion
providers constitute violent activity, because they see it as “Godly work.”264 AOG first made
headlines with the 1982 kidnapping of a doctor and his wife, both of whom ran an abortion clinic
in Illinois. Three individuals who claimed membership in AOG were responsible.265 The group
(...continued)
November 28, 2015. Dear was found mentally incompetent to stand trial. Lance Benzel, “Robert Dear Remains
Mentally Incompetent to Stand Trial for Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Attack,” Colorado Springs Gazette,
November 17, 2016. 257 Ron Sylvester, “Scott Roeder Gets Hard 50 in Murder of Abortion Provider George Tiller,” Wichita Eagle, April 1,
2010. Hereinafter: Sylvester, “Scott Roeder.” Roeder reportedly also adhered to anti-government beliefs beginning in
the 1990s. See Ron Sylvester, Abortion Issue Front and Center in Roeder Murder Trial,” January 10, 2010, Wichita
Eagle. 258 “Man Indicted for Abortion Clinic Firebombing,” Associated Press, February 23, 2012. 259 Department of Justice, “Arson Indictment Returned Regarding American Family Planning Clinic,” press release,
February 23, 2012. 260 Department of Justice, “Man Pleads Guilty to Arson of Reproductive Health Facility in Pensacola,” press release,
July 19, 2012. 261 Kevin Murphy, Feds Mull Felony Charge for Suspect Ralph Lang of Marshfield in Abortion Clinic Shooting Plot,”
Marshfield News, May 28, 2011; Department of Justice, “Wisconsin Man Charged with FACE Act Violations,” press
release, May 26, 2011, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/May/11-crt-695.html. For other examples of individuals
involved in abortion-related violence, see Department of Justice, “Man Pleads Guilty to Civil Rights Violation in
Connection with Arson at Planned Parenthood and Vandalism of Mosque in Madera, California,” press release,
October 7, 2011. Mower also threw a brick at a mosque in Madera. Ryan Seals, “Update: Concord Man Charged in Plot
to Bomb Abortion Clinic,” Greensboro News and Record, September 9, 2010; “Man Guilty of Bombing Plot Gets 30
Months,” Salisbury Post, March 2, 2011. 262 National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), “Terrorist Organization
Profile: Army of God.” Hereinafter: START, “Army of God.” 263 Mireille Jacobson and Heather Royer, “Aftershocks: The Impact of Clinic Violence on Abortion Services,” National
Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 16603, (January 7, 2010), p. 6. 264 Jennifer Jefferis, Armed for Life: The Army of God and Anti-Abortion Terror in the United States (Santa Barbara,
CA: Praeger, 2011), p. xvi. Hereinafter: Jefferis, Armed for Life. 265 Ibid., p. 23. The victims were released unharmed after eight days of captivity. See; “Abortion Opposition Stressed in
Kidnapping Trial in Illinois,” New York Times, January 26, 1983.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 35
disseminates a manual that “is a ‘how to’ for abortion clinic violence. It details methods for
blockading entrances, attacking with butyric acid, arson, bomb making, and other illegal
activities. The manual contains anti-abortion language as well as anti-government and anti-
gay/lesbian language. The manual begins with a declaration of war on the abortion industry.”266
Eric Rudolph, who in the late 1990s bombed an abortion clinic near Atlanta, GA, and one in
Birmingham, AL, “published his writings on the Army of God website.”267
Protected Activities vs. Terrorism—Divergent Perceptions of
the ALF
The boundary between constitutionally protected legitimate protest and terrorist activity has
received much attention in public discussions of domestic terrorism. As an example of this, the
next several sections of this report explore such considerations regarding the ALF.
A Serious Domestic Concern or “Green Scare?”
U.S. law enforcement, some business groups, and some scientists—among others—have stressed
that animal rights extremists (and ecoterrorists) are a security and law enforcement concern. In
2008, the FBI stated that animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists together posed a serious
domestic terrorism threat for several reasons, including the number of crimes attributed to animal
rights extremists and ecoterrorists (between 1,800 and 2,000 incidents accounting for more than
$110 million268 in damages from 1979 to early 2009), the broad pool of victims (such as large
pharmaceutical corporations, scientific laboratories, ski resorts, automobile dealerships,
individual researchers, and lumber companies), and the movement’s rhetoric and destructive
tactics.269 In March 2012, the FBI suggested that the threat from ecoterrorists may be declining.270
As articulated by some scientific researchers, the monetary toll on legitimate businesses and
laboratories in the United States exacted by animal rights and eco-extremists is compounded by
less tangible issues. For example, animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists have impacted the
work of scientists. In some cases, special equipment and research materials have been destroyed
266 START, “Army of God.” 267 Beau Seegmiller, “Radicalized Margins: Eric Rudolph and Religious Violence,” Terrorism and Political Violence,
vol. 19, no. 4 (October 2007), p. 524. The 1998 bombing in Birmingham killed a police officer and injured a nurse. On
May 31, 2003, Rudolph was arrested and charged with the clinic bombings, bombing the Centennial Olympic Park
during the 1996 summer Olympic games in Atlanta (claiming one life), and attacking a gay club—Atlanta’s Otherside
Lounge—in 1997. Rudolph admitted to the bombing spree in April 2005. He claimed that the 1996 attack at Centennial
Olympic Park was intended to shame the U.S. government for what Rudolph saw as its support of abortion rights. See
“Rudolph Pleads Guilty in Series of Bombings,” Associated Press at MSNBC, April 13, 2005; “Rudolph Agrees to Plea
Agreement,” CNN, April 12, 2005, http://articles.cnn.com/2005-04-08/justice/rudolph.plea_1_emily-lyons-eric-robert-
rudolph-atlanta-attacks?_s=PM:LAW. 268 ELF claims that it has caused over $150 million in damages, although the geographic range and timeframe for this
figure are unknown. Earth Liberation Front.org, “What Is the Earth Liberation Front?” Hereinafter: ELF, “What Is the
Earth?” See also http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/ELF/ELFPressOffice.htm. 269 There is some imprecision in the FBI’s public statements regarding the number of crimes committed by animal
rights extremists and ecoterrorists. In April 2009, the FBI estimated that “to date [animal rights and eco-] extremists
have been responsible for more than 1,800 criminal acts.” Ten months earlier, in June 2008, the FBI placed the number
of criminal acts at “over 2,000 since 1979.” See Michael J. Heimbach, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, press conference, April 21, 2009. Hereinafter: Heimbach, press conference. See also
FBI, “Putting Intel.” The $110 million figure remained the same in both publicly released documents. 270 Juliet Eilperin, “As Eco Terrorism Threat Wanes, Governments Keep Eyes on Activists,” Washington Post, March
11, 2012. Hereinafter: Eilperin, “As Eco Terrorism.”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 36
in attacks. The consequences of criminal activity in the name of movements such as the ALF can
also be more personal. Two advocates of animal research conducted strictly according to federal
regulations have noted that the actions of animal rights extremists have pushed some scientists to
quit lab work involving animals. Often, this work relates to products and procedures that some
maintain cannot feasibly be marketed without animal testing. 271
In 2006, a UCLA professor of
behavioral neuroscience declared he was stopping his research on monkeys because of what he
described as harassment by animal rights groups.272 Additionally, animal rights extremists are said
to be driving out students from research programs.273
Critics of U.S. efforts to fight animal rights extremism and ecoterrorism have suggested that the
threat is overblown by law enforcement and that the government’s pursuit of purported extremists
perpetuates a “green scare,” chilling the exercise of protected speech by protesters.274 Some say
that the government conflates property crime with terrorism.275 Others add that people engaged in
what the government describes as animal rights extremism or ecoterrorism do not deserve the
terrorist label.
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374)
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374; AETA) expanded the federal government’s
legal authority to combat animal rights extremists who engage in criminal activity. Signed into
law in November 2006, it amended the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act (P.L. 102-346;
AEPA). Namely, the AETA
Amends the federal criminal code to revise criminal prohibitions against damaging or
interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise to include intentional damage or
loss to any real or personal property and intentional threats of death or serious bodily
injury against individuals (or their family members, spouses, or intimate partners) who
are involved with animal enterprises.276
The AETA expanded the AEPA to include both successful and attempted conspiracies. It also
prohibits intentionally placing a person in “reasonable fear” of death or serious bodily injury
while damaging or interfering in the operations of an animal enterprise. The AETA revised and
increased monetary and criminal penalties. It also stipulates that it does not prohibit First
Amendment-protected activity.
271 Conn and Parker, The Animal, pp. xii, xvi. See also 21 C.F.R. §314.610 (regarding approval based on evidence of
effectiveness from studies in animals). 272 Samantha Henig, “UCLA Professor Halts Monkey Research,” Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 53, no. 2
(September 1, 2006), p. 21. 273 Michael Conn and James Parker, “Winners and Losers in the Animal Research Wars,” American Scientist, vol. 96,
no. 3 (May-June 2008), p. 184. 274 See Will Potter, Green Is the New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege, (San Francisco:
City Lights Books, 2011), p. 61. 275 Coalition to Abolish the AETA, “AETA v. AEPA: A Side-by-Side Comparison,” October 16, 2008,
http://abolishtheaeta.org/web/aeta-v-aepa-a-side-by-side-comparison/; Center for Constitutional Rights, factsheet, “The
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA),” http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-animal-enterprise-
terrorism-act-(aeta). 276 P.L. 109-374, CRS summary. Instead of damage and interference, the AEPA focused on the “physical disruption to
the functioning of an animal enterprise.” According to AETA, “animal enterprise” means: “(A) a commercial or
academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture,
education, research, or testing; (B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other
lawful competitive animal event; or (C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts or sciences.”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 37
DOJ successfully prosecuted individuals on charges relating to animal enterprise terrorism for the
first time under the AEPA in 2006 (the case had been built before the AETA had been signed into
law).277 Six individuals were convicted for what DOJ described as “their roles in a campaign to
terrorize officers, employees, and shareholders of HLS [Huntingdon Life Sciences, a research
corporation that performs animal research and has U.K. and U.S. facilities].” 278
These individuals
belonged to an animal rights campaign named Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)279 and
the entity SHAC USA, Inc. SHAC involves both legal protests and criminal activity against HLS.
Reportedly, the six incited threats, harassment, and vandalism and on this basis were convicted of
violating the AEPA.280 DOJ has noted that SHAC’s stated mission was to work “outside the
confines of the legal system.”281 DOJ proved in court that the group managed websites that
encouraged others “to direct their intimidation, harassment, and violence against HLS and its
targeted employees, as well as secondary targets—companies and employees who did business
with HLS.”282
DOJ has also successfully applied the AETA. For example, on February 14, 2011, Scott DeMuth
was sentenced to six months in prison on one count of misdemeanor conspiracy to commit animal
enterprise terrorism. He was involved in a raid that released about 200 ferrets at a Minnesota farm
in 2006. Activists had claimed the action in the name of the ALF.283 In another case, William
James Viehl and Alex Hall were sentenced to 24 months and 21 months in prison, respectively,
under AETA. The duo had released 650 minks, destroyed breeding records, and vandalized
structures at the McMullin Ranch in South Jordan, UT, in 2008.284
DOJ has experienced at least one setback in its application of the AETA. In February 2009, the
FBI announced the arrests of what it described as “four animal rights extremists.” The four (two
277 Department of Justice, “Three Militant Animal Rights Activists Sentenced to Between Four and Six Years in
Prison,” press release, September 21, 2006. 278 Ibid. See also “The SHAC 7,” http://www.shac7.com/case.htm. 279 An undercover British television report on the treatment of animals at a British company, Huntingdon Life Sciences
(HLS), sparked the creation of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) in the United Kingdom in 1999. Active in a
number of countries around the world, including the United States, the campaign has tried to compel business and
financial firms to cut ties to HLS. It has involved both legal protests and crime. John P. Martin, “Animal Rights and
Wrongs,” Newark Star-Ledger, November 28, 2004; Anti-Defamation League, Ecoterrorism. For more on SHAC from
a movement perspective, see “History of the Animal Liberation Front,” http://www.animalliberationfront.com/
ALFront/Premise_History/ALF_History.htm. The SHAC campaign made its way to the United States in 2000. See
Heimbach, press conference. 280 Four of the six were guilty of other charges related to the case as well. Department of Justice, “Militant Animal
Rights Group, Six Members Convicted in Campaign to Terrorize Company, Employees, and Others,” March 2, 2006.
Hereinafter: Department of Justice, “Militant Animal Rights.” Anti-Defamation League, “Animal Rights Group
Sentenced for Inciting Violence and Stalking.” Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, “Animal Rights Group.” 281 Department of Justice, White Paper, p. 60. 282 Ibid. The convictions in the case were upheld by a federal appeals court in 2009. See Lisa Coryell, “Convictions of
Animal Rights Activists Upheld,” Times of Trenton, October 14, 2009. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court refused
to review the case. See Center for Constitutional Rights, “U.S. v. SHAC 7,” http://ccrjustice.org/us-v-SHAC7; Will
Potter, “Supreme Court Will Not Hear SHAC 7 Case,” March 7, 2011, http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/shac-7-
supreme-court/4447/. 283 Ryan J. Foley, “Minn. Man Gets 6 Months for Raid on Ferret Farm,” Associated Press, February 14, 2011. Jennifer
Kotila, “Minneapolis Man to Be Sentenced for Releasing HL Ferrets He Thought Were Mink,” Delano Herald Journal,
(Minnesota) December 20, 2010. 284 Dennis Romboy, “Man Who Raided South Jordan Mink Farm Sentenced,” Deseret News, July 1, 2010; Department
of Justice, “Viehl Pleads Guilty to Damaging, Interfering with Animal Enterprise in Connection with McMullin Mink
Farm Incident,” press release, September 3, 2009.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 38
women, two men, all in their 20s) allegedly violated the AETA by using “force, violence, or
threats to interfere with the operation of the University of California.”285 The incidents leading to
the indictment included protests at the houses of researchers from the University of California,
Berkeley and University of California, Santa Cruz. According to the FBI’s press release, in one
instance, three of the indicted individuals tried to forcibly enter the home of a researcher, whose
husband was hit by an object while confronting the protesters.286 In July 2010, a federal judge
dismissed the indictment against the four. According to the ruling, the indictment failed to
specifically describe crimes allegedly committed by the defendants.287 Opponents of the
prosecution stress that the case involved over-broad application of AETA to First Amendment-
protected behaviors.288
Criticisms of federal government efforts to counter animal rights extremists have focused on the
AETA itself and First Amendment-related issues. Opponents of the AETA suggest that it
expanded the AEPA too much by making it easier to prosecute individuals who wage protest
campaigns against secondary or tertiary targets—companies or people (such as insurers)
indirectly tied to an animal enterprise.289 Opponents also take issue with the inclusion of
“reasonable fear” in the AETA, suggesting that protected speech or activities may possibly be
interpreted as provoking “reasonable fear” in some instances. Echoing critiques of the AETA, one
observer emphasizes that while activities linked to U.S.-based animal rights extremists have
caused significant property damage, none of these criminal acts has physically harmed people.
This critic suggests that describing vandalism or arson as terrorism and not ordinary crime
dampens constitutionally protected protest activity by people who support animal rights or radical
environmentalism but do not engage in criminal activity.290 In essence, this position argues that
the U.S. government is encouraging a “green scare” by labeling the activity of movements such
as the ALF and the ELF as terrorism or extremism.291 After serving 40 months in prison for her
involvement with SHAC USA, Lauren Gazzola argued that she was not a terrorist, claiming, “I
hadn’t hurt anyone or vandalized any property. In fact, the indictment didn’t allege that I’d
committed any independent crime at all, only that I’d ‘conspired’ to publish a website that
advocated and reported on protest activity against a notorious animal testing lab in New
Jersey.”292
The U.S. Code’s definition of “domestic terrorism” has been seen by some as potentially chilling
to legitimate animal rights and environmental protest activities.293 As mentioned, the current
285 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Four Extremists Arrested for Threats and Violence Against UC Researchers,”
press release, February 20, 2009, http://sanfrancisco.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/sf022009.htm. 286 Ibid. 287 “S.C. Animal Activists Won’t Face Charges,” The Monterey County Herald, July 14, 2010. 288 Will Potter, “Breaking: AETA 4 Case Dismissed, But Re-Indictment Possible,” GreenIstheNewRed.com, July 12,
2010, http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aeta-4-case-thrown-out-dismissed/3015/; Bill Quigley and Rachel
Meeropol, “Victory for Animal Rights Dissent,” Huffington Post, July 16, 2010. Hereinafter: Quigley and Meeropol,
“Victory for Animal.” 289 The AETA makes it illegal to damage or interfere with the operations of an animal enterprise. Presumably this
covers tertiary targets. 290 Will Potter, “The Green Scare,” Vermont Law Review, vol. 33, no. 4 (June 2009), pp. 672-673. 291 Ibid; Quigley and Meeropol, “Victory for Animal.” 292 Lauren Gazzola, “Animal Rights Activists Like Me Aren’t Terrorists,” EGP News, January 12, 2012,
http://egpnews.com/?p=33714. 293 American Civil Liberties Union, “How the USA PATRIOT Act Redefines “Domestic Terrorism,” December 6,
2002. For an additional view suggesting that the activities of movements such as the ALF and the ELF should not be
treated as terrorism, see DeMond Shondell Miller, Jason David Rivera, and Joel C. Yelin, “Civil Liberties: The Line
(continued...)
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 39
delineation of domestic terrorism in the U.S. Code includes criminal acts “dangerous to human
life” that appear to intend to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence governmental
policy via intimidation or coercion. This line of reasoning suggests that the crimes committed by
animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists cannot be compared to clearly violent attacks by groups
such as Al Qaeda. An opposing commentary stresses that such discussion is irrelevant and
miss[es] the mark. The ALF ideology encourages members to instill fear in those who
engage in the activities that the ALF opposes: fear of harm to themselves and their
families, and fear of personal and professional economic loss. Additionally, these
arguments assume that “true terrorism” is fundamentally different from animal rights
terrorism. While it is true that animal rights terrorism, as a whole, does not engage in the
same scale of violence as other extremist groups, those working in academia, research,
agriculture, and food service industries are no less fearful when their homes and
workplaces are firebombed; violent tactics can instill fear even when they are used
infrequently.294
Assessing Domestic Terrorism’s Significance Domestic terrorist attacks have come nowhere near the devastation of 9/11. However, it is worth
noting that (as mentioned above) Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, claimed 168 lives and injured more than 500
others. It ranks as the second-deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, behind only the devastation
wrought by Al Qaeda on 9/11. Domestic terrorists feature prominently among the concerns of
some law enforcement officers. For example, Los Angeles Deputy Police Chief Michael P.
Downing recently described violent Islamists such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas as Los
Angeles’s main terrorist threats “along with three other terrorist categories: black separatists,
white supremacist/sovereign citizen extremists, and animal rights terrorists.”295 A 2014 national
survey of state and local law enforcement officers found that among terrorist threats, sovereign
citizens were “the top concern.”296 In one 2008 study, state police agencies “overwhelmingly
reported” dangerous domestic extremist groups present in their jurisdictions.297 Of course, as one
expert reminds us, most followers of extremist viewpoints pose no threat: “Most of them are not
going to do anything but bore their relatives and friends with ridiculous papers and treatises.”298
Four broad themes speak to the threat posed by domestic terrorists. First, domestic terrorists
likely have been responsible for numerous incidents since 9/11. Second, a large number of those
labeled as domestic terrorists do not necessarily use major terrorist tactics such as bombings or
airplane hijackings. Third, domestic terrorists—much like their violent jihadist analogues—are
often Internet savvy and use the medium as a resource for their operations. Fourth, domestic
(...continued)
Dividing Environmental Protest and Ecoterrorists,” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, vol. 2, no. 1 (2008), pp. 109-
123. 294 Grubbs, “Saving Lives,” pp. 364-365. 295 Bill Gertz, “L.A. Police Use Intel Networks Against Terror,” Washington Times, April 11, 2011. 296 Jessica Rivinius, “Sovereign Citizen Movement Perceived as Top Terrorist Threat,” National Consortium for the
Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, July 30, 2014. For the report, see Carter, David, et al., “Understanding
Law Enforcement Intelligence Processes,” National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to
Terrorism, 2014. 297 “Far Right Domestic Terrorism on Par with Foreign Threat, Experts Say,” CNN, July 25, 2011. 298 Ibid.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 40
terrorism can be seen as a somewhat decentralized threat often involving lone wolves and
movements operating under the model of leaderless resistance.
Counting Incidents
The U.S. government does not keep a publicly available list of domestic terrorist incidents (foiled
plots or attacks). This makes it especially challenging for anyone trying to develop a sense of this
particularly diverse threat.299 However, as of August 2017, the New America Foundation
reportedly has found that people who can be characterized as domestic terrorists have killed 75
people in the United States since 9/11, whereas jihadist terrorists have killed 95.300
Some U.S. government sources suggest levels of domestic terrorist activity. Examples of such
sources include the following:
An unclassified 2008 DHS report includes a table that lists selected criminal acts
perpetrated by people involved in the animal rights extremist and ecoterrorist
movements. This list counts 74 criminal acts between 9/11 and March 2008.301
As noted, the FBI estimated that animal rights extremist and ecoterrorists
together committed between 1,800 and 2,000 criminal incidents accounting for
more than $110 million in damages from 1979 to early 2009.302 In 2012, the FBI
also publicly discussed a decline in ecoterrorism, especially after a wave of
successful prosecutions in 2007. The Bureau reportedly attributes the perceived
dip to activists possibly viewing “a Democratic administration as more
sympathetic to their goals and [thus] be less inclined to take radical steps.”303
An unclassified FBI intelligence bulletin estimates that 53 acts of violence were
committed by what it calls “white supremacist extremists” between 2007 and
2009 in the United States. Victims included other white supremacists, African
Americans, and Latinos. Most of the incidents involved assaults. The bulletin
bases these findings on law enforcement and media reporting.304
299 From 2004 to early 2012, the National Counterterrorism Center’s Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS)
publicly captured information on terrorist incidents (attacks) worldwide, including in the United States. It is no longer
available. Prior to WITS, the FBI published regular reports of such activity. See https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/
terrorism/publications. 300 These figures are based on tallies available at the New America Foundation website. See
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/. The figure for domestic
terrorists combines the 67 people killed by “far right wing” terrorists as described by the New America Foundation
study with 8 deaths since 9/11 attributed to “black separatist/nationalist/supremacist” actors tabulated in the same
report. 301 Department of Homeland Security, Ecoterrorism: Environmental and Animal-Rights Militants in the United States,
Universal Adversary Dynamic Threat Assessment, May 7, 2008. Table 1 from the report is a “compilation of material
from ALF and ELF communiqués and publications, media reports, and law enforcement” listing selected criminal acts
perpetrated by the ALF and the ELF from 1984 to March 2008. Table 1 from the DHS report is not a comprehensive
list of crimes tied to the ALF and the ELF. Hereinafter: Department of Homeland Security, Ecoterrorism. 302 Heimbach, press conference; Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Putting Intel.” 303 Eilperin, “As Eco Terrorism.” 304 Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Extremist Violence, pp. 1-2. The FBI bulletin defines “acts of
violence” to include “arson; assaults and murders; and acts designed to threaten or intimidate due to a person’s
ethnicity, religious beliefs, or lifestyle.” See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism p. 5.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 41
In February 2012, the FBI announced that sovereign citizen convictions
increased from 10 in 2009 to 18 in both 2010 and 2011.305
Additionally, a key caveat regarding estimates of domestic terrorist activity may be of
importance. Many domestic terrorist incidents have been linked to either animal rights extremists
or ecoterrorists. As highlighted elsewhere in this report, many animal rights extremists and
ecoterrorists claim to avoid violent acts that directly target people. The attacks by these
individuals can often be described as property crimes involving arson or vandalism.
“Nonviolent” Strategies
While some terrorists engage in violence, others commit much different crimes that do not
physically harm people. This latter group differs from their homegrown violent jihadist
counterparts, who are often bent on killing or harming people. Two types of activities that avoid
visiting violence upon people but are commonly associated with subjects of domestic terrorism
investigations stand out. First, many animal rights extremists, ecoterrorists, and anarchist
extremists believe in “direct action.” This typically involves what movement members would
characterize as nonviolent but criminal protest or resistance activities furthering the movement’s
ideology. While direct action has a long legacy among anarchists, in recent years the ALF and the
ELF have played a large role in articulating its meaning. Second, “paper terrorism” is a term used
to describe some of the nonviolent criminal activity committed by sovereign citizens involving
the filing of fraudulent documents in the hopes of harassing enemies or bilking state or federal tax
authorities.
Direct Action
Anarchist extremists, animal liberation extremists, and environmental extremists refer to much of
their operational activity as “direct action.” This term has a long history, and it can be used to
describe legitimate protest such as letter writing campaigns or work stoppages. However, this
report uses “direct action” to describe criminal activities such as sabotage and arson.306
ALF and ELF members understand that criminality and direct action are one and the same. The
Animal Liberation Primer, a movement resource, highlights criminality in the actions of
supporters: “anyone working in the ALF is a criminal. You have to begin to think like a criminal.”
ALF and ELF members also generally view direct action as nonviolent and heroic. Using
politically charged language, the ALF allegedly styles itself along the lines of the Underground
Railroad, freedom fighters in Nazi Germany, anti-Apartheid protestors, U.S. civil rights activists,
and Palestinian groups opposing Israel.307 The ELF views constitutionally protected protest as
“state sanctioned” and eschews such activity. The ELF, much like the ALF, also wraps itself in the
305 Patrick Temple-West, “Anti-Government Extremists Opposed to Taxes and Regulations Pose a Growing Threat to
Local Law Enforcement Officers in the United States, the FBI Warned on Monday,” Reuters, February 6, 2012. 306 According to the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General, the FBI “generally” defines “direct action” as, “criminal
activity designed to cause economic loss or to destroy property or operations.” See Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, Oversight and Review Division, A Review of the FBI’s Investigations of Certain Domestic Advocacy
Groups, (September 2010), p. 97; Darren Thurston, The ALF Primer, n.d. p. 4. DOJ believes Thurston authored the
Primer, although he is not attributed as an author in the document. Hereinafter: Thurston, The ALF Primer. See also
Guide to Direct Action, 2010, http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Activist%20Tips/Direct_Action-
Guide.htm; Earth Liberation Front.org, “Earth Liberation Front Frequently Asked Questions,” Hereinafter: ELF,
“FAQs.” See also http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/ELF/elf_faq.pdf. 307 NAALPO, “History.”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 42
mantle of reformers and describes itself as inheriting the spirit of Luddites, abolitionists,
suffragists, and even the American revolutionary-era Boston Tea Party.308
The ALF: “Live Liberations” and “Economic Sabotage”
The ALF frames its version of direct action as “economic sabotage” or “ethical vandalism.” The
ALF supports the destruction of property and intimidation of individuals and businesses
considered by the movement to be involved in the exploitation of animals. Cells and individuals
linked to the ALF also engage in trespassing and theft, or what they perceive as “live liberations”
or “rescuing” animals from “the horrors of exploitation”309 and human use310 by stealing them
from places such as legitimate research facilities or farms. Economic sabotage can be virtual. The
North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAALPO) has carried claims of cyber hacking
incidents in the name of animal rights.311 NAALPO is one of the web-based vehicles used by ALF
supporters to publicize criminal activities claimed on behalf of the movement.
The ELF: “Monkeywrenching”
Like the ALF, the ELF’s discussions of direct action also revolve around economic sabotage. The
ELF rejects legal protest tactics partly for what it views as pragmatic reasons—“because they
have been proven not to work, especially on their own.”312 Economic sabotage in the name of
environmentalism has a long history, perhaps stretching back to the 1950s,313 and has been called
“monkeywrenching,” a term taken from a 1975 novel, The Monkey Wrench Gang by Edward
Abbey. The book depicts such activity.314 A guidebook that describes monkeywrenching offers
what can be interpreted as a call to arms for would-be extremists:
It is time for women and men, individually and in small groups to act heroically in the
defense of the wild, to put a monkeywrench into the gears of the machine that is
destroying natural diversity. Though illegal, this strategic monkeywrenching can be safe,
easy, and—most important—effective.315
The guidebook also defines monkeywrenching as nonviolent by stressing that it should never
target people or “other forms of life.”316
Arson and Explosive Devices
Federal officials are especially concerned about the use of incendiary devices and explosives by
animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists. In congressional testimony from 2005, then-ATF
308 ELF, “FAQs.” 309 NAALPO, “History.” A section of The ALF Primer describes both economic sabotage and live liberation as
legitimate strategies. See Thurston, The ALF Primer, p. 2. 310 Conn and Parker, The Animal, p. xvii. 311 See North American Animal Liberation Press Office, communiqué, July 13, 2007. 312 ELF, “FAQs.” 313 Bron Taylor, “The Tributaries of Radical Environmentalism,” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, vol. 2, no. 1
(2008), p. 45. 314 Edward Abbey, The Monkey Wrench Gang, 3rd ed. (Salt Lake City, UT: Dream Garden Press, 1985). 315 Dave Foreman, “Strategic Monkeywrenching,” in Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching, ed. Dave
Foreman and Bill Haywood, 3rd ed. (Chico, CA: Abzug Press, 1993), p. 8. Hereinafter: Foreman, “Strategic
Monkeywrenching.” Foreman was a founder of Earth First! See Anti-Defamation League, Ecoterrorism. 316 Dave Foreman, “Strategic Monkeywrenching,” p. 9.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 43
Deputy Assistant Director Carson Carroll stated that the “most worrisome” trend regarding
animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists was their “willingness to resort to incendiary and
explosive devices.”317
This pronouncement came on the heels of two related incidents that occurred near San Francisco,
CA, and involved explosive devices. An entity called the Revolutionary Cells of the Animal
Liberation Brigade claimed responsibility for both attacks, which the FBI has also linked to a man
named Daniel San Diego. In August 2003, two ammonium nitrate pipe bombs exploded at the
campus of the biotechnology firm Chiron but caused little damage and no injuries. In October
2003, a reputed 10-pound ammonium nitrate bomb damaged the offices of Shaklee, a health,
beauty, and household product company. No one was injured. The perpetrator(s) believed that
both companies did business with Huntingdon Life Sciences (the same firm targeted by SHAC
and discussed above). A related communiqué stressed that, “all customers and their families are
considered legitimate targets.”318
One commentator has suggested that the combination of “fire” as a tactic and instilling “fear” as a
goal ensures ecoterrorists will continue to warrant the terrorist label.319 Both animal rights
extremists and ecoterrorists have histories of using incendiary devices to damage or destroy
property—the Vail, CO, fire (mentioned elsewhere in this report) setting a prominent example for
extremists. In fact, one of the hallmark publications circulated in extremist circles is a handbook
on how to fashion incendiary devices titled Arson Around with Auntie ALF.320 A recent example
underscores this focus on arson.
In January 2012, NAALPO issued a communiqué in which “unnamed activists”
claimed responsibility for setting fires that damaged 14 tractor trailer rigs at the
Harris Ranch, a cattle feedlot in Coalinga, CA. The perpetrators used containers
of accelerant, kerosene-soaked rope, and digital timers to set the blazes.
According to the communiqué, the fires apparently embodied a reaction to “the
horrors and injustices of factory farming.”321
317 Statement of Carson Carroll, p. 43. 318 Stacy Finz, “Militants Say They Planted Shaklee Bomb,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 1, 2003,
http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-10-01/bay-area/17512148_1_pipe-bombs-shaklee-chiron; Stacy Finz, Bernadette
Tansey, “2 Bombs Shatter Biotech Firm’s Windows,” August 29, 2003. The FBI assessed that the devices may have
been intended to harm people. The second Chiron bomb was timed to explode after the first, “an apparent strike at first
responders,” while the Shaklee bomb was wrapped in nails, “to significantly increase its lethality to anyone in the area
at the time of the detonation.” See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Statement of
John E. Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Eco-Terrorism
Specifically Examining Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (“SHAC”), 109th Cong., 1st sess., October 26, 2005, 109-1005
(Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 7. In April 2009, the FBI placed Daniel San Diego on its Most Wanted Terrorists List for
his involvement in the bombings. See Heimbach, press conference. The Bureau also tied him to SHAC. He had slipped
away from FBI surveillance in October 2003. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, “New Most Wanted Terrorist,”
April 21, 2009. Hereinafter: FBI, “New Most Wanted”; “Daniel Andreas San Diego,” America’s Most Wanted. 319 Grubbs, “Saving Lives,” p. 370. 320 Auntie ALF, Uncle ELF, and the Anti-Copyright Gang, Arson-Around with Auntie ALF: Your Guide for Putting the
Heat on Animal Abusers Everywhere, 2001. Hereinafter: Arson-Around. 321 See North American Animal Liberation Press Office, communiqué, January 10, 2012; Henry K. Lee, “14 Cattle
Trucks Burned in Arson at Harris Ranch,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 11, 2012. For other examples, see Peter
Young, “Fire and Explosions Rock Oregon Mink Farm,” July 28, 2010, North American Animal Liberation Press
Office; J.M. Brown, “A Year after Firebombings, No Arrests, Though Awareness Remains among Scientists,” Santa
Cruz Sentinel, August 2, 2009; John Coté, “Firebombings Suggest New Tactic for Animal Activists,” San Francisco
Chronicle, August 5, 2008; Shanna McCord, “FBI to Take Over Santa Cruz Firebombs Case,” Monterey County
Herald, August 4, 2008; Anti-Defamation League, ‘“Justice Department’ Claims Responsibility for Threats against
UCLA Animal Researcher,” December 3, 2010. Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, ‘“Justice Department.’”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 44
Some ELF adherents have focused on targets they perceive as emblematic of urban sprawl322 or
the excesses of industrialized society. Since 2000, a number of ELF actions have involved the
torching of housing developments as well as activities such as the damaging and destruction of
sports utility vehicles and other emblems of industrialized society and urban sprawl.323 Between
August and October 2002, three individuals tied to the ELF damaged construction vehicles and
sports utility vehicles, and vandalized fast food restaurants in Virginia. In one incident, these
individuals vandalized two homes under construction, spray painting “sprawl” on one of the
structures. In November 2005, the ELF claimed responsibility for fires set in five townhomes
under construction in Hagerstown, MD.324 Similar activity has occurred on the West Coast.325
Guidelines
Both the ALF and the ELF have established guidelines and posted them on the web for cells or
lone wolves to follow. The guidelines are straightforward and short for both movements (see
Figure 1). A key point in the guidelines for both the ALF and the ELF is to avoid harming any
animal, human and non-human.326 The ALF also stipulates that individuals professing affiliation
with the movement must be vegetarians or vegans.327
Interestingly, the ALF employs a number of caveats in its understanding of violence. On the one
hand, it supports intimidation as a tactic. On the other, the movement does not see intimidation as
potentially involving violence.328 The ALF also views arson as “violence against property,” not
people.329 Beyond this, ALF does not greatly elaborate on its notion of violence.
322 Brad Knickerbocker, “Firebrands of ‘Ecoterrorism’ Set Sights on Urban Sprawl,” Christian Science Monitor,
August 6, 2003. Hereinafter: Knickerbocker, “Firebrands.” 323 Anti-Defamation League, “Radical Environmentalist Group Suspected in San Diego Arson,” August 8, 2003;
Knickerbocker, “Firebrands”; Chris Dixon, “Arrest in Vandalism of S.U.V.s,” New York Times. 324 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorism 2002-2005, http://209.235.0.153/publications/terror/
terrorism2002_2005.htm. 325 “Activists Topple Towers, Claim Dangers of AM Radio Waves,” CNN.com, September 4, 2009,
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-04/justice/washington.towers.terrorism_1_elf-radio-station-radio-waves?_s=
PM:CRIME; “Officials: No Explosive Devices Found at Scene of Seattle-Area House Fires,” Fox News, March 4,
2008; Debera Carlton Harrell, Aubrey Cohen, and Paul Shukovsky, “‘Street of Dreams’ Houses Torched; Eco-
Terrorists Suspected,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 4, 2008; “Camano Island Mansion Fire Ruled Ecoterrorist
Arson,” KOMO News.Com, January 20, 2006. 326 For ALF guidelines, see http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/alf_credo.htm. For ELF guidelines, see
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/ELF/elf_faq.pdf. 327 Ibid. 328 Ibid. 329 See North American Animal Liberation Front, “Frequently Asked Questions about the North American Animal
Liberation Press Office.”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 45
Figure 1. ALF and ELF Guidelines
Source: CRS graphic based on ALF and ELF guidelines.
Notes: For ALF guidelines, see http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/alf_credo.htm. For ELF guidelines,
see http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/ELF/elf_faq.pdf.
Exceptions
Some animal rights extremists support violence. For example, in February 2012 Meredith Lowell
was arrested for allegedly using a Facebook page she created (under an assumed name) to solicit
a hit man to kill “someone who is wearing fur.”330 In the investigation, the FBI used an
undercover employee to pose as a hit man and communicate with Lowell online. She was arrested
before anyone could be harmed. 331
An animal rights extremist entity named the “Justice Department” has argued for the efficacy of
violence against humans.332 Founded in the United Kingdom in 1993, the “Justice Department”
has been described as an offshoot of the ALF.333 In 1999, the first incident claimed in its name on
U.S. soil involved the mailing of more than 80 envelopes containing razor blades allegedly
positioned to cut recipients. Some of the razors may have been covered in rat poison. The letters
were received by animal researchers, hunting guides, and others in the United States and
Canada.334 In November 2010, individuals asserting ties to the “Justice Department” mailed two
communiqués to NAALPO. The missives claimed that “Justice Department” extremists had
mailed AIDS-tainted razors to two scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles.335 One
of the communiqués read:
330 James Ewinger, “Cleveland Heights Woman Charged with Using Facebook to Hire Killer,” Cleveland Plain Dealer,
February 21, 2012, http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/02/heights_woman_charged_with_usi.html. 331 Ibid. 332 North American Animal Liberation Press Office, “Liberationist Group ‘Justice Department’ Increasingly Vocal on
Animal Abuse,” press release, November 23, 2010. Hereinafter: NAALPO, “Liberationist Group.” 333 Anti-Defamation League, ‘“Justice Department.’” 334 Ibid; Southern Poverty Law Center, “Eco-Violence: The Record,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law
Center, no. 107 (Fall 2002). 335 NAALPO, “Liberationist Group.”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 46
We are the past generation of animal liberationists, but we will now be the future, striking
at the heart of the vivisection industry, and if we have to go back to egg timers and
insence [sic] sticks then we will. Mark our words, we will destroy all who fall into our
focus.336
Presumably, allusion to egg timers and incense sticks suggested timing devices and fuses for
explosive or incendiary devices.337
“Paper Terrorism”: Liens, Frivolous Lawsuits, and Tax Schemes
Sovereign citizens have committed nonviolent crimes based on their ideological underpinnings.338
These are often bundled under the concept of “paper terrorism.”339 This concept can include
forging documents (fake money orders and bad personal checks, for example), failing to pay
taxes, phony tax filings, and presenting sham legal arguments in court. Sovereign citizens have
filed fraudulent property liens against their foes.340 Some sovereigns hold illegal courts and target
officials with fake criminal indictments. They can also “issue warrants for judges and police
officers.”341
Retaliatory Filings
While these acts may not be violent, they are frequently “designed to intimidate or defraud
targeted individuals, private institutions, or government entities.”342 Thus, some sovereigns saddle
their opponents with time-consuming legal efforts to wipe out sham retaliatory court filings. As a
result, sovereign foes incur court fees and their credit ratings potentially suffer. In some cases,
these proceedings arise from what most citizens might consider fairly mundane run-ins with law
enforcement authorities. Some sovereigns do not necessarily see violations like parking tickets
and trespassing arrests as run-of-the-mill. They can react to such encounters with police by
challenging the very authority and jurisdiction of U.S. law enforcement and by harassing officials
with dubious liens, for example.
336 Ibid. 337 Arson-Around, pp. 16-17 describes assembly of an incendiary device incorporating incense sticks as a fuse. Incense
sticks have been used as fuses for incendiary devices by ELF and ALF activists. See Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Terrorism 2000-2001, 2004, p. 4, for an example of an ELF incident. For additional examples involving the cell known
as “The Family” active with both the ALF and the ELF, see U.S. v. Dibee et al. Kitchen timers are discussed in William
Rodgers and Stanislas Meyerhoff, Setting Fires with Electrical Timers: An Earth Liberation Front Guide, May 2001,
pp. 15-17. Although the document lists no authors, DOJ believes that Rodgers and Meyerhoff wrote it. They were
members of “The Family” which also used kitchen timers in its incendiary devices. See United States v. Joseph Dibee
et al, Indictment, CR 06-60011-AA, District Court, District of Oregon, January 19, 2006. 338 Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Sovereign Citizen Group Calls for
Removal of U.S. Governors, March 29, 2010, p. 2. Hereinafter: “Sovereign Citizen Group Calls.” 339 For an example of the use of this oft-used term, see Department of Justice, “Member of Anti-Government
Movement Pleads Guilty to Laundering Money for FBI Undercover Agents,” press release, March 25, 2011. 340 One source has defined a lien as “a claim encumbrance or charge on property for payment of a debt or obligation.”
Liens can be consensual or nonconsensual. They can be statutory or derive from common law. An example of a
nonconsensual common law lien is “when a mechanic refuses to return a car until repairs are paid for.” See Robert
Chamberlain and Donald P. Haider-Markel, “‘Lien on Me’: State Policy Innovation in Response to Paper Terrorism,”
Political Research Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 3 (September 2005), p. 450. 341 Ibid.; Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Sovereign Citizen.” See also Christopher A. Young, “Minnesota Has New
Weapons in the Fight Against ‘Paper Terrorism,’” Hennepin Lawyer, August 28, 2007,
http://hennepin.timberlakepublishing.com/article.asp?article=1148. 342 “Sovereign Citizen Group Calls,” p. 2.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 47
In November 2011, Kenneth W. Leaming, from Spanaway, WA, was arrested for
allegedly issuing billions of dollars in frivolous liens to intimidate public officials
enforcing laws against sovereign citizens. Reportedly, he had been tied to other
sovereign citizen adherents and groups. Also, he purportedly planned to harass
the children of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. 343
In 2013,
Leaming was convicted of “three counts of filing false liens against federal
officials and one count of harboring federal fugitives and being a felon in
possession of firearms.”344
Redemption
Sovereign citizen guru Roger Elvick is the reputed founder of “redemption,”345 a concept that
blurs the line between sovereign citizen ideology and pure scam. Redemption suggests that when
the United States left the gold standard during the Great Depression, the nation found a way to
monetize people. According to the theory, each child who is born in the United States and has a
birth certificate also has a U.S. Treasury account “valued from $630,000 to more than $3
million”346 viewed as collateral against the nation’s debts. Redemption supporters hold that by
filing certain forms with state or federal authorities, people can draw money from these accounts.
To do so, they occasionally attempt to pass bogus checks.347
On a broad level, redemption can be viewed as an ideologically driven tactic meant to illegally
wrangle money from the U.S. government via the IRS. According to DOJ, in some instances this
involves the filing of “a series of false IRS forms, including tax returns, amended returns, and
Forms 1099 (including Form 1099-OID) or Forms W-2, to request fraudulent tax refunds based
on phony claims of large income tax withholding.”348
In addition, DOJ describes some redemption adherents as scammers who dupe customers into
filing false IRS forms to redeem money via the purported secret accounts the government holds
for its citizens.349 One guru recently pled guilty to money laundering charges.350 In another case,
343 Levi Pulkkinen, “FBI: Spanaway ‘Sovereign Citizen’ Planned to Track Down Justice’s Children,” Seattle Post-
Intelligencer, November 28, 2011; Anti-Defamation League, “Little Shell Pembina Band,” http://www.adl.org/learn/
ext_us/little_shell.asp?learn_cat=extremism&learn_subcat=extremism_in_america&xpicked=3&item=little_shell. For
other examples, see Rick Montgomery, “Sovereign Citizens: Crackpots, Crooks, or Defenders of Liberty?” Kansas City
Star, November 26, 2011. Hereinafter: Montgomery, “Sovereign Citizens.” 343 Marnie Eisenstadt, “Fringe Group Terrorizes Small-Town Officials with False Liens,” The Post Standard, May 23,
2011; Montgomery, “Sovereign Citizens;” Marnie Eisenstadt, “Fringe Group Terrorizes Small-Town Officials with
False Liens,” The Post Standard, May 23, 2011; “Two Admit Scheme to Defraud Public Employees,” Daily Freeman,
January 14, 2011, http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2011/01/14/blotter/doc4d2fb54d3189f270459164.txt; Michael
Virtanen, “NY Man’s Sentencing Put Off in Liens Case,” Associated Press, July 12, 2011. 344 Department of Justice, “Four Convicted in Sovereign Citizen Investigation,” press release, March 7, 2013. 345 “His ‘Straw Man’ Free, a Scammer Finds the Rest of Him Isn’t,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center,
Issue 118, (Summer 2005). Hereinafter: Southern Poverty Law Center, “His Straw Man Free.” 346 FBI Counterterrorism Analysis Section, “Sovereign Citizens.” 347 Elvick promoted his ideas in the 1980s, and was jailed for much of the 1990s as well as in the next decade because
of passing bad checks, forgery, extortion, and corruption. See Ibid.; Southern Poverty Law Center, “His Straw Man
Free”; For a description of redemption, see Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Investigating Terrorism, pp. 70-
71. 348 Department of Justice, “Government Files Seven Lawsuits Nationwide to Block Alleged Scheme Involving
Fraudulent Tax-Refund Claims,” press release, October 28, 2009. 349 Ibid. 350 Carri Greer Thevenot, “Idaho Man Pleads Guilty to Money Laundering,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, March 25,
(continued...)
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 48
in December 2009 Audie Watson received a 14-year prison sentence for his involvement in an
immigration benefit fraud scheme that sold membership in the Pembina Nation Little Shell Band
to illegal aliens. Watson and co-conspirators charged individuals $1,500 and couples $2,000.
They conned clients into believing that membership could be used to avoid removal from the
United States. 351
In March 2011, DOJ announced that the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri had permanently barred Gerald A Poynter “from preparing
tax returns for others and from promoting” a redemption scam.352 Poynter
informed his customers that he could obtain tax refunds for them, charged them
for his services, and then produced fraudulent IRS forms claiming $64 million in
refunds for 165 customers.353
The Internet and Domestic Terrorists
In the counterterrorism world, there has been much concern regarding violent jihadist use of the
Internet and social media.354 However, domestic terrorists also are computer savvy and active
online. A web presence may help extremist groups—some relatively small, with rosters in the
100s or fewer—educate their existing membership and forge a group identity. Also, in many
instances they can use websites to focus on outsiders to propagandize, socialize, and recruit new
adherents.355 A few domestic terrorists also have exploited the web to harm their targets.
White supremacists have long been using computer technology to communicate and interact. As
one study has suggested, white supremacists “were among the very early users of the electronic
communication network that eventually evolved into the Internet.”356 Among a variety of
findings, the study indicated that white supremacist extremist websites were possibly an effective
recruiting tool that the groups exploited. Membership forms are available on some sites. Others
exhibit multimedia material, and some actually retail items such as music and video games. 357
(...continued)
2011. 351 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “South Florida Man Sentenced to 14 Years in Prison for Immigration
Fraud,” press release, December 8, 2009. 352 Department of Justice, “Federal Court Shuts Down Missouri Tax Preparer Who Promoted Tax Scam,” press release,
March 28, 2011. For the injunction, see http://www.justice.gov/tax/Poynter_Injunction.pdf. 353 Ibid. 354 For example, see J.M. Berger, “The Social Apocalypse: A Forecast,” Intelwire, August 31, 2016; Edna Erez,
Gabriel Weimann, and A. Aaron Weisburd, “Jihad, Crime, and the Internet: Content Analysis of Jihadist Forum
Discussions,” October 31, 2011, Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice in fulfillment of requirements for
Award Number 2006-IJ-CX-0038; Akil N. Awan, “The Virtual Jihad: An Increasingly Legitimate Form of Warfare,”
CTC Sentinel, vol. 3, no. 5 (May 2010), p. 11; Gilbert Ramsay, “Relocating the Virtual War,” Defence Against
Terrorism Review, vol. 2, no. 1 (Spring 2009), p. 34; Tim Stevens, “Regulating the ‘Dark Web:’ How a Two-Fold
Approach Can Tackle Peer-to-Peer Radicalisation,” The RUSI Journal, vol. 154, no. 2 (April 2009), p. 29; Gabriel
Weimann, Terror on the Internet: The New Arena, the New Challenge (Washington, DC: United States Institute of
Peace Press, 2006); Maura Conway, “Terrorism and Mass Communication: Nitro to the Net,” The World Today, vol.
60, no. 8/9 (Aug/Sep 2004), pp. 19-22, http://doras.dcu.ie/513/1/nitro_to_net_2004.pdf. 355 Jeffrey Kaplan, Leonard Weinberg, and Ted Oleson, “Dreams and Realities in Cyberspace: White Aryan Resistance
and the World Church of the Creator,” Patterns of Prejudice, vol. 37, no. 2 (2003), pp. 149-150. 356 Phyllis B. Gerstenfeld, Diana R. Grant, Chau-Pu Chiang, “Hate Online: A Content Analysis of Extremist Internet
Sites,” Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, vol. 3, no. 1, (2003), p. 29. Hereinafter: Gerstenfeld et al., “Hate
Online.” 357 Ibid.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 49
The Internet allows individuals and groups to connect with one another and to disseminate
ideology.358 It also enables groups to manage how others perceive them. Many white supremacist
sites claim that their sponsoring groups are nonviolent and not even racist.359
Some white supremacists may be unwilling to affirm their views in public spaces such as work,
school, or in street demonstrations. To them, the virtual realm is an important antidote. As one
study has suggested, “free spaces” in both the real and virtual worlds—where conflict with non-
believers will be minimized—are important for adherents. In them they can “meet, articulate, and
support their views.”360 Supremacists can turn to virtual free spaces to receive indoctrination into
movement culture, key narratives outlining movement grievances, adopt ideologies, and “talk of
violence against ‘racial enemies.’”361 A 2016 study found that Americans espousing white
supremacist ideals on the social-media platform Twitter outnumber the supporters of the foreign
terrorist organization known as the Islamic State by many measures:
On Twitter, ISIS’s preferred social platform, American white nationalist movements have
seen their followers grow by more than 600% since 2012. Today, they outperform ISIS in
nearly every social metric, from follower counts to tweets per day.362
Much of this online ideological activity involves constitutionally protected speech. A number of
examples stand out.
The ALF and the ELF have their long-established guidelines posted on the web
for independent groups or individuals to follow.363 Movement websites virtually
connect like-minded individuals. As mentioned elsewhere in this report, key
ideological texts are also made available online.364 The websites of animal rights
extremists and ecoterrorists also post press releases publicizing crimes
perpetrated on behalf of the movements.365
Reverend Donald Spitz administers the Army of God’s website.366 Among other
things, the site includes lists of people who support “violent opposition to
abortion” as well as listing people incarcerated because of anti-abortion crimes
they committed.367
358 See Josh Adams and Vincent J. Roscigno, “White Supremacists, Oppositional Culture, and the World Wide Web,”
Social Forces, vol. 84, no. 2 (December 2005), pp. 759-778. 359 Gerstenfeld et al., “Hate Online,” pp. 33-41. 360 Pete Simi, Robert Futrell, “Cyberculture and the Endurance of White Power Activism,” Journal of Political and
Military Sociology, vol. 34, no. 1 (Summer 2006), p. 117. Hereinafter: Simi and Futrell, “Endurance.” 361 Ibid., 122-126, 131. Some free spaces exist in the real world. Examples include the privacy of the home,
supremacist events such as conferences, isolated compounds or communities, and ideologically-focused musical
concerts. 362 J.M. Berger, “Nazis vs. ISIS on Twitter: A Comparative Study of White Nationalist and ISIS Online Social Media
Networks,” George Washington University Program on Extremism, September 2016. 363 See http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/alf_credo.htm; ELF, “What Is the Earth?” 364 Anti-Defamation League, Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements.
Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, Ecoterrorism. 365 See http://www.animalliberationfront.com/; http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/; and
http://www.earthliberationfront.org/. 366 Jefferis, Armed for Life, p. 53. 367 Ibid., p. 77.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 50
The National Socialist Movement sponsors its own social networking site, the
“New Saxon Social Network.”368
Some domestic terrorists also engage in cyberattacks. According to DOJ, an animal rights
extremist cell (SHAC USA, Inc.) active between 2001 and 2004 listed online the personal
information—names, addresses, phone numbers—of workers at a firm it was targeting. (The
business uses animals in its research.) The extremist cell likely devised the list to help focus the
activities of the group’s online followers. In some cases, the published information included the
names of spouses and children of employees, license plate numbers, churches attended by the
employees, as well as the schools their children attended. The websites used by the extremist cell
also posted suggestions for action by supporters—including what it described as the “top 20 terror
tactics.”369 Supporters across the United States vandalized victims’ homes and automobiles and
engaged in cyberattacks against the research firms and other companies tied to it, among other
activities.370
A Decentralized Threat
Domestic terrorism can be described as a decentralized threat. As this report has already
suggested, domestic terrorism suspects generally operate on their own or in small, independent
cells. In other words, they do not necessarily belong to organizations with cohesive, well-
articulated leadership structures or cadres.
However, independently acting domestic terrorism suspects are not necessarily isolated, adrift,
and cut off from any outside contact or influence. Some take ideological cues from broader
movements or groups espousing extremist ideas. These groups or movements publicly disavow
violent criminal behavior and engage in constitutionally protected activities. This dynamic—the
interplay between above-ground groups or movements proffering extremist dogma or ideology
(protected speech) that is then consumed and acted upon by independent underground groups or
cells who commit crimes—is a critical feature of domestic terrorism.
Leaderless Resistance
Within the domestic terrorism realm, the notions of decentralized activity received attention in the
1980s and early 1990s when white supremacist Louis Beam circulated his theories of “leaderless
resistance.”371 He saw leaderless resistance as a means to transform the white supremacy
movement. Beam described it as a means of avoiding law enforcement infiltration of white
supremacist groups, and he suggested two levels of leaderless movement activity. First, on an
368 See http://newsaxon.org/. 369 Department of Justice, White Paper, p. 60; United States v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc., et al,
Superseding Indictment, CR 04-373, District Court, District of New Jersey, n.d. Hereinafter: Department of Justice,
United States v. Stop Huntingdon. The “top 20 terror tactics” included activity such as: “demonstrations at one’s [a
target’s] home using a loudspeaker; abusive graffiti, posters and stickers on one’s car and house; invading offices and,
damaging property and stealing documents; chaining gates shut, and blocking gates; physical assault including spraying
cleaning fluid into one’s eyes; smashing the windows of one’s house while the individual’s family was at home;
flooding one’s home while the individual was away; vandalizing one’s car; firebombing one’s car; bomb hoaxes;
threatening telephone calls and letters including threats to kill or injure one’s partner or children; e-mail bombs in an
attempt to crash computers; sending continuous black faxes causing fax machines to burn out; telephone blockades by
repeated dialing to prevent the use of the telephone; and arranging for an undertaker to call to collect one’s body.” 370 According to the superseding indictment in the case, the cell also placed reports of intimidation and vandalism on its
websites to encourage its followers. See Department of Justice, United States v. Stop Huntingdon. 371 He was a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and Aryan Nations activist.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 51
operational level, militant, underground, ideologically motivated cells or individuals (lone
wolves) engage in movement-related illegal activity without any centralized direction or control
from an organization that maintains traditional leadership positions and membership rosters.
Second, on another level, the above-ground public face (the “political wing”) of the movement
propagandizes and disseminates ideology—engaging in protected speech. In this system,
underground cells or lone wolves would be responsible for their own actions, and the public face
of the movement would not be held accountable.372
Online comments from the leadership of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement (NSM) offer
a specific example of an above-ground movement avoiding violence and the terrorist label. The
NSM’s leader has posted the following statement on the group’s website:
I want it made perfectly clear to all of our members, supporters, prospective members,
readers, etc. that the National Socialist Movement condemns illegal actions and in such
we do not endorse any acts of violence or terrorism. The NSM is a White Civil Rights
Movement that adheres to Political activism, and a legal means to restore America to its
former glory. Acts of violence or terrorism against America, or its Citizens is
unacceptable, and not tolerated within the ranks of the National Socialist Movement.373
“The Turner Diaries”
One of the key texts read by neo-Nazis and anti-government extremists is The Turner Diaries, a
1978 novel by William Pierce, the deceased founder of the neo-Nazi group National Alliance.374
This book can be seen as an above-ground product that motivates underground cells or
individuals to commit crimes. The book has partly inspired a number of violent acts by white
supremacist extremists and anti-government extremists.
The Turner Diaries predates the widespread acceptance of the “leaderless resistance” concept.
However, its lasting place in the neo-Nazi and anti-government extremist movements highlights
how leaderless resistance works. Pierce’s book has been described as “the most widely read book
among far-right extremists.”375 The novel reflects the author’s own racist religious
philosophies.376 Perhaps 500,000 copies of the book have been sold.377 In it, Pierce emphasized
372 Paul Joosse, “Leaderless Resistance and Ideological Inclusion: The Case of the Earth Liberation Front,” Terrorism
and Political Violence, vol. 19, no. 3 (September 2007), pp. 351-368. Hereinafter: Joosse, “Leaderless Resistance.”
Fred Burton, “The Challenge of the Lone Wolf,” STRATFOR, May 30, 2007; Hereinafter: Burton, “The Challenge.”
Southern Poverty Law Center, “Louis Beam,” http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/louis-
beam; Anti-Defamation League, “Louis Beam,” http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/beam.asp?xpicked=2&item=beam.
Beam secretly discussed leaderless resistance among white supremacists and anti-government extremists as early as
1983. See Wright, Patriots, p. 87. Forms of leaderless resistance likely have a long history. For example, late-
nineteenth-century anarchists can be seen as having engaged in a type of leaderless resistance in their rejection of
organized authority. See Jean-Marc Flükiger, “The Radical Animal Liberation Movement: Some Reflections on Its
Future,” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, vol. 2, no. 2 (2009), pp. 112. Hereinafter: Flükiger, “The Radical.” See
also Ramón Spaaij, “The Enigma of Lone Wolf Terrorism: An Assessment,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 33,
no. 9 (2010), p. 859. Hereinafter: Spaaij, “The Enigma.” 373 Jeff Schoep, “CDR Jeff Schoep Denounces Violence & Domestic Terrorism.” 374 Renee Brodie, “The Aryan New Era: Apocalyptic Realizations in The Turner Diaries,” Journal of American
Culture, vol. 21, no. 3, (fall 1998), pp. 13-22. 375 Anti-Defamation League, “The Turner Diaries,” 2005, http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/turner_diaries.asp. 376 See Brad Whitsel, “The Turner Diaries and Cosmotheism: William Pierce’s Theology,” Nova Religio: The Journal
of Alternative and Emergent Religions, vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1998), pp. 183-197. Hereinafter: Whitsel, “The Turner
Diaries.” 377 Freilich, Chermak, and Caspi, “Critical Events,” p. 505. Another estimate dating back to 2001 places the number
sold at 300,000. See Rob McAlear, “Hate, Narrative, and Propaganda in The Turner Diaries,” The Journal of American
(continued...)
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 52
that the current racial order of things had to be cataclysmically destroyed and reborn in
accordance with white supremacist ideals.378 To convey this message, he devised his book as the
edited diaries of neo-Nazi character Earl Turner. As such, Turner’s story is annotated by a
fictionalized editor, one Andrew Macdonald. The novel describes Turner leading a terrorist group
whose actions trigger a race war that results in the overthrow of the government—controlled by
Jews in Pierce’s construction. Turner also initiates a nuclear war that wipes out earth’s non-white
human inhabitants. The atomic apocalypse allows for the rebirth of a revitalized white race.379
The book has informed the activities of domestic terrorists. In September 1983, white supremacist
Robert Mathews formed a small underground group known as The Order. Its inspiration came
from passages in The Turner Diaries. The group planned for and engaged in what it viewed as a
revolution.380 Over the next 15 months, The Order went on a violent crime spree. Among other
crimes, it robbed banks, armored cars, electronic stores, a truck stop, and a video store, and
allegedly gave some of the spoils to Richard Butler, who was at the time the leader of the WSE
group Aryan Nations. The Order also bombed a synagogue and murdered a Jewish talk show
host, Alan Berg, before it was dismantled by federal law enforcement.381
Anti-government extremist Timothy McVeigh, an avid reader of the book, had passages from the
Turner Diaries with him when he was arrested. The 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah
federal building in Oklahoma City mimicked one described in the novel and involved a small cell
of underground conspirators.382 Sales of the book allegedly rose after the bombing.383
The ALF, the ELF
The concept of leaderless resistance has been mirrored by other extremist movements in the
United States. Both the ALF and the ELF have rejected recognizable leadership structures or
hierarchies and follow a leaderless resistance model instead, making their activities more difficult
for law enforcement to investigate.384 According to the model, above-ground elements in the
movements provide guidelines and an ideological platform that underground individuals (lone
wolves) or independent cells can draw upon to motivate their own criminal actions. Exercising
First-Amendment rights, the above-ground components of the ALF and the ELF lawfully
communicate shared identities largely via websites. As one scholar has suggested for the ELF,
this possibly creates a broad consensus focused on a very specific cause and avoids internecine
(...continued)
Culture, vol. 32, no. 3 (September 2009), p. 192. Hereinafter: McAlear, “Hate, Narrative.” 378 George Michael, “The Revolutionary Model of Dr. William L. Pierce,” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 15,
no. 3 (Autumn 2003), p. 75. 379 Whitsel, “The Turner Diaries,” p. 185; Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, “The Turner Diaries: Neo-Nazi
Scripture,” PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 30, no. 4, (December 1997), pp. 717-718. McAlear, “Hate,
Narrative,” p. 196. 380 Wright, Patriots, pp. 87-88; Anti-Defamation League, “Richard Scutari,” http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/
scutari.asp?xpicked=2&item=scutari. Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, “Scutari.” Zeskind, Blood and Politics, pp.
96-100. 381 Balch, “The Rise and Fall,” 87, 109; Wright, Patriots, pp. 86-89. 382 McAlear, “Hate, Narrative,” p. 192; Wright, Patriots, pp. 6, 10. 383 Freilich, Chermak, and Caspi, “Critical Events,” p. 505. 384 Ackerman, “Beyond Arson,” p. 151.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 53
conflicts over ideological fine points.385 Much like the NSM, the above-ground elements of the
ALF take pains to distinguish themselves from criminal activity. For example, NAALPO states:
Disclaimer: The Animal Liberation Press Officers do not engage in illegal activities, nor
do they know any individuals who do. Rather, the Press Office receives and posts
communiqués from anonymous parties and provides comment to the media.386
Additionally, the above-ground literature of both the ALF and the ELF suggests that independent
cells avoid communication with one another.387 This leaderless format is followed to avoid law
enforcement infiltration and is based on models used by other domestic terrorists. As one scholar
has suggested, this parallels franchising in the business world.388
Lone Wolves
Some domestic terrorists are “lone wolves.” This can be seen as a form of leaderless resistance.
One scholar has offered a succinct conceptualization:
Lone wolf terrorism involves terrorist attacks carried out by persons who (a) operate
individually, (b) do not belong to an organized terrorist group or network, and (c) whose
modi operandi are conceived and directed by the individual without any direct outside
command hierarchy.389
Lone wolves have committed crimes in the names of a number of domestic terrorism movements.
For example, according to the FBI, when it comes to violence attributed to white supremacist
extremism, lone wolves play a prominent role. Lone wolves filter in and out of WSE groups.
They can either get dismissed from these groups because of their “violent tendencies” or
voluntarily leave because they find the organizations too passive.390 There is little research on the
lone wolf phenomenon and no universally accepted definition of the term.391
The above definition stresses how lone wolves operate. Just as critical is what they believe. Lone
wolves can hew to broader ideological causes and use them to justify their actions.392 This
suggests that lone wolves potentially adopt the ideas of broader terrorist movements while not
claiming formal membership in them. Divining exactly what “formal membership” constitutes
leads to debate regarding whether or not some individuals acted as lone wolves or part of larger
movements. For example:
On January 29, 2010, Scott Roeder (also discussed above) was convicted of first-
degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault for killing abortion provider
George Tiller.393 Roeder allegedly had “connections with militant abortion foes
but few formal ties with known groups.”394 Some supporters of abortion rights
385 Joosse, “Leaderless Resistance,” pp. 352, 354. 386 NAALPO, “History.” 387 Thurston, The ALF Primer, p. 1. See also United States v. Joseph Dibee et al, Indictment, CR 06-60011-AA,
District Court, District of Oregon, January 19, 2006; Leader and Probst, “The Earth Liberation Front,” pp. 37-58. 388 Flükiger, “The Radical,” pp. 111-119. 389 Ibid., p. 856. 390 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, p. 8. 391 Spaaij, “The Enigma,” pp. 855-856. 392 Ibid. 393 Sylvester, “Scott Roeder.” 394 Judy L. Thomas, “Was Suspect in Tiller Case a Lone Wolf?” The Kansas City Star, June 14, 2009. Hereinafter:
Thomas, “Was Suspect?”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 54
consider his contacts among anti-abortion adherents as evidence of possible
conspiracy.395 Meanwhile, some anti-abortion activists have stressed that Roeder
was a lone wolf.396 He remains the only person convicted in Tiller’s murder.
Described as a neo-Nazi and white supremacist, James von Brunn reportedly shot
and killed a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in
Washington, DC, in June 2009. In January 2010, the 89-year-old von Brunn died
in federal prison before he could be tried.397
Because lone wolves are not plugged into terrorist organizations, distinguishing them from
individuals who commit hate crimes can also be difficult.398 In these cases, as mentioned above,
the FBI likely attempts to determine whether the motives involved were personal (hate crime) and
not focused on broader ideologies (domestic terrorism).
The Law Enforcement Challenges Posed by Lone Wolves
Lone wolves present particular challenges to law enforcement. Because lone wolves, by
definition, operate alone, it can be difficult for law enforcement to assess exactly which
radicalized individuals intend to turn their beliefs into action and pursue terrorist activity. One
former FBI counterterrorism official has said:
The lone wolf is arguably one of the biggest challenges to American law enforcement.
How do you get into the mind of a terrorist? The FBI does not have the capability to
know when a person gets up in middle America and decides: “I’m taking my protest
poster to Washington or I’m taking my gun.”399
Aside from intent, it is also hard to assess the operational capability of potential lone wolf
terrorists—knowledge of explosives, familiarity with firearms, or experience in surveillance, for
example.400 Lone wolves do not participate in terrorist networks or training camps that can be
infiltrated or whose communications can be traced. They do not rehearse their schemes or
practice their criminal skills with conspirators who can potentially act as cooperating witnesses.
To attempt to overcome these issues, the FBI asserted in 2009 that it was “beginning an extensive
study on identified lone offenders to come up with indicators and behavior predictors that
investigators can use to assess suspects.”401
Not all of the news for law enforcement regarding lone wolves is necessarily dire. They have
weaknesses. Their lack of tradecraft may make it harder for lone wolves to engage in large-scale
attacks. Likewise, lone wolves do not necessarily experience the reinforcement of a closely knit
395 Amanda Robb, “Not a Lone Wolf,” Ms. Magazine, vol. 20, no. 2 (Spring 2010), pp. 26-31. 396 Thomas, “Was Suspect?” 397 Anti-Defamation League, “James von Brunn: An ADL Backgrounder,” http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/
von_brunn_background.htm. 398 Eric Boehlert, “Terrorism or Hate Crime?” Salon.com, April 17, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/
04/17/terrorist_act/index.html. 399 Gary Fields and Evan Perez, “FBI Seeks to Target Lone Extremists,” Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2009,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124501849215613523.html. 400 Scott Stewart and Fred Burton, Lone Wolf Lessons, STRATFOR, June 3, 2009. Hereinafter: Stewart and Burton,
Lone Wolf. See also Steven M. Chermak, Joshua D. Freilich & Joseph Simone Jr., “Surveying American State Police
Agencies About Lone Wolves, Far-Right Criminality, and Far-Right and Islamic Jihadist Criminal Collaboration,”
Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 33 no. 11 (2010). 401 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism.”
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 55
terrorist social network. They cannot rely on others to assist them in any type of complicated
plot.402
Regardless, apparent lone wolf attacks can be lethal. For example, in March 2017, James Harris
Jackson, allegedly acting alone, used a two-foot-long sword to stab to death Timothy Caughman,
an African American individual who Jackson is said to have encountered while trolling New York
City for victims. According to New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., Jackson “prowled the
streets of New York for three days in search of a black person to assassinate in order to launch a
campaign of terrorism....”403 Jackson, who reportedly espoused white supremacist beliefs, faces
state-level murder and terrorism charges.404 Aside from the 2016 shooting by Gavin Long, the
2010 actions of Scott Roeder, and the 2009 shooting involving James von Brunn (described
above), other evidence suggests the lethality of lone wolf violence:
According to one scholarly examination, between 1990 and April 2009, “far-
rightists” were responsible for the deaths of 42 law enforcement officers—most
from state and local agencies in the United States. Most of the incidents involved
firearms, and most of the assailants acted alone.405
Richard Poplawski shot and killed three Pittsburgh police officers in April 2009.
He has been described as a “white supremacist” lone wolf.406 He had posted anti-
government messages on racist websites.407
On January 21, 2009, Keith Luke allegedly shot and killed two Cape Verdean
immigrants and raped and shot a third. Police arrested him before he could attack
a synagogue, as he planned.408 Luke purportedly informed police that he had
decided to go on his spree after reading about “the demise of the white race” on a
neo-Nazi website.409 He reputedly said that he was “fighting for a dying race”
and that he had been planning the attack for six months.410
Lone wolves do not necessarily have to focus on gun-related crimes. Kevin Harpham’s case
illustrates as much. On March 9, 2011, law enforcement officers arrested Kevin Harpham
402 Stewart and Burton, Lone Wolf. 403 Daniella Silva, “White Supremacist James Harris Jackson Charged with Terrorism for Killing Black Man in NYC,”
NBC News, March 27, 2017. 404 Ibid. See also Jean Marbella, “A Baltimore Man’s Inexplicable Path from Quaker School to Army to Rikers Island
Cell,” Baltimore Sun, April 14, 2017; Ashley Southall, “White Suspect in Black Man’s Killing Is Indicted on Terror
Charges,” New York Times, march 27, 2017; Colleen Long and Jennifer Peltz, “Police: White Sword Killer Went to NY
to Attack Black People,” Associated Press, March 22, 2017. 405 START, “Background Information: Far-Right Attacks on U.S. Law Enforcement,” press release, April 2009. The
scholars who developed the information in the press release defined “far-right ideology” as “principles such as fierce
nationalism, anti-globalization, suspicions of centralized Federal authority, support for conspiracy theories, and
reverence for individual liberties (including gun ownership.” 406 McNulty et al., “Jury Decides.” See also Anti-Defamation League, “Richard Poplawski.” 407 Hamill, “Man Accused.” 408 John Ellement, “DA Says Racism Drove Brockton Killings, Rape,” Boston Globe, January 23, 2009. 409 Phillip Martin, “Man Will Face Charges After Police Standoff,” WGBH, April 4, 2011, http://wwe.wgbh.org/
articles/-2503. 410 Maureen Boyle, “Prosecutor: Suspect in double slaying in Brockton hatched an ‘Evil Plan of Mass Murder and
Rape,’” Brockton Enterprise, January 22, 2009, updated June 9, 2010. The shootings perpetrated by Roeder and von
Brunn had been described by the federal government as terrorist acts. It is unclear whether the Poplawski and Luke
cases are considered as such. Both von Brunn and Roeder were included in the National Counterterrorism Center’s
open-source Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) database (now unavailable) that compiled worldwide
terrorist incidents between 2004 and early 2012. Poplawski and Luke were not.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 56
(discussed elsewhere) and charged him in connection to a bomb concealed in a backpack and
placed along the route of a Martin Luther King Jr. Day March in Spokane, WA. In September
2011, Harpham pled guilty to committing a federal hate crime and attempting to use a weapon of
mass destruction.411 Media reports and watchdog groups have indicated that Harpham had ties to
white supremacists. Allegedly, he was a member of the neo-Nazi National Alliance in 2004. The
group denied that he was still a member. Harpham had also been in contact with Paul Mullet,
leader of a white supremacist group active in Athol, ID. Mullet said that he and Harpham spoke
many times but that the latter never joined Mullet’s group.412 Harpham reportedly made postings
on white supremacist websites and read The Turner Diaries.413
Also, lone wolf activity is not solely the domain of purported white supremacists. Another case
illustrates the kind of attack a domestic lone wolf animal rights extremist can commit:
In November 2010, Walter Bond pled guilty to two felonies stemming from an
April 2010 arson that destroyed a store known as the Sheepskin Factory in
Glendale, CO.414 Speaking from jail, Bond condemned the business, which sold
sheepskin products, as engaging in “blood trade” and drawing profits “from the
death and exploitation of suffering animals.”415 Bond worked alone. A web
posting claimed the arson “in defense and retaliation for all the innocent animals
that have died cruelly at the hands of human oppressors.”416 Apparently, Bond
strongly identified with the notion of being a lone wolf. The ATF, working with a
confidential informant, recorded Bond discussing the fire and the fact that he
actually used the nickname “Lone Wolf.”417 In a jailhouse letter, Bond stated, “I
used the name ‘ALF Lone Wolf’ in the media to convey to my ALF brothers and
sisters worldwide (whoever they are) the power of acting alone.”418
411 Department of Justice, “Attempted Bomber Pleads Guilty to Federal Hate Crime and Weapons Charge,” press
release, September 7, 2011; Department of Justice, “Attempted Bomber Arrested,” press release, March 9, 2011. 412 See Southern Poverty Law Center, “Spokane Bombing Arrest Details Emerge,” March 9, 2011. Hereinafter:
Southern Poverty Law Center, “Spokane Bombing.” Thomas Clouse and Meghann M. Cuniff, “White Supremacist
Arrested in MLK Bomb Plot,” Spokesman-Review, March 10, 2011. Hereinafter: Clouse and Cuniff, “White
Supremacist.” Joel Millman and Evan Perez, “Suspect Is Arrested in Spokane Bomb Case,” Wall Street Journal, March
10, 2011. Hereinafter: Millman and Perez, “Suspect Is Arrested.” 413 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “MLK Parade Bomber,” press release, January 13, 2012; Jessica Robinson, “Court
Documents Reveal Evolution Of MLK Day Bomber’s Racist Beliefs,” Northwest News Network, December 1, 2011,
http://kuow.org/northwestnews.php?storyID=143023416; Department of Justice, “Colville, Wash., Man Indicted for
Federal Hate Crime in Attempted Bombing of the MLK Unity March,” press release, April 21, 2011; “FBI: Bomb
Found on MLK March Route,” MSNBC, January 18, 2011. 414 Yesenia Robles, “Vegan Activist Pleads Guilty to Torching Sheepskin Factory,” Denver Post, November 19, 2010.
Hereinafter: Robles, “Vegan Activist.” 415 “Suspect in Arson at Sheepskin Factory in Glendale Decries Animal ‘Blood Trade,’” Denver Post, August 6, 2010. 416 Robles, “Vegan Activist.” 417 United States v. Walter Bond, Criminal Complaint, MJ-01120-MJW, District Court, District of Colorado, July 23,
2010. Hereinafter: U.S. v. Walter Bond. 418 Walter Bond, “I Am the ALF ‘Lone Wolf,’” December 4, 2010, (North American Animal Liberation Press Office).
He was also convicted for two other arsons. See “Walter Bond Sentenced to 7 years for two ALF Arsons,”
http://www.animalliberationfrontline.com/walter-bond-sentenced-to-7-years-for-animal-liberartion-front-arsons/; Scott
Stewart, Escalating Violence from the Animal Liberation Front,” STRATFOR, July 29, 2010. See also U.S. v. Walter
Bond.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 57
Scoping the Threat Remains Difficult for
Policymakers As this report suggests, at least three factors may make it hard for policymakers to form a
baseline evaluation of the domestic terrorism threat from publicly available information. First,
federal agencies employ varying terminology to describe the threat. Second, the federal
government lacks a public and official method for either designating specific domestic groups as
terrorists or formally and openly describing particular extremist movements as threats. Finally,
there is no clear sense of how many domestic terrorism plots and attacks the government has
investigated in recent years.
Terminology
The federal government has used broad conceptualizations to describe domestic terrorism. DOJ
discusses the issue in terms of a handful of general “threats” such as animal rights extremists,
ecoterrorists, anarchists, and anti-government extremists—not specific groups. Additionally,
terms such as “terrorism” and “extremism” appear to be used interchangeably. Presumably, using
the term “extremist” allows lawyers, policymakers, and investigators the flexibility to discuss
terrorist-like activity without actually labeling it as “terrorism” and then having to prosecute it as
such. However, this may lead to inconsistencies in the development and application of the law in
the domestic terrorism arena. For example, policymakers may ponder why a specific terrorism
statute covers ideologically motivated attacks against businesses that involve animals,419 while
there are no other domestic terrorism statutes as narrow in their purview covering a particular
type of target and crime.
Designating Domestic Terrorist Groups
The federal government lacks a process for publicly designating domestic terrorist organizations.
In other words, there is no official open-source roster of domestic groups that the FBI or other
federal agencies target as terrorist organizations. The lack of such a designation may spring partly
from First Amendment concerns. Such a list might discourage speech and expression related to
the ideologies underpinning the activities of named groups. Regardless, this stands in stark
contrast to the world of international counterterrorism, where the United States maintains a well-
established—legally and procedurally proscribed—regimen regarding the identification of foreign
terrorist organizations (FTOs).420
Official FTO designation benefits counterterrorism efforts in a number of ways. Most
importantly, it facilitates the prosecution of those who provide material support421 to listed foreign
terrorist groups. Arguably, because there is no domestic terrorism equivalent of FTO designation,
it is more difficult to press material support charges against domestic terrorists. In 2010, one
419 The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374). 420 Department of State, “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” 421 As described in U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, 2339A and 2339B. For more information, see CRS
Report R41333, Terrorist Material Support: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. §2339A and §2339B, by Charles Doyle. DOJ
has used material support charges as a key component in its prosecutions against foreign terrorist organizations. See
CRS Report R41416, American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat, by Jerome P. Bjelopera, for a
discussion of a number of these cases targeting homegrown jihadists.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 58
scholar was unable to identify any material support cases involving “a domestic terrorist group or
its supporters.”422 According to the Department of State, FTO designation has other effects. It
1. Supports [U.S.] efforts to curb terrorism financing and to encourage other nations to do
the same. 2. Stigmatizes and isolates designated terrorist organizations internationally. 3.
Deters donations or contributions to and economic transactions with named
organizations. 4. Heightens public awareness and knowledge of terrorist organizations. 5.
Signals to other governments our concern about named organizations.423
This description suggests that the absence of a designation regimen for domestic terrorist groups
makes it harder for the federal government to discredit such groups and simultaneously
strengthen public understanding of the domestic terrorist threat. Likewise, the lack of a list might
make it more difficult for the federal government to communicate exactly what the threat is to its
own agencies, let alone local or state entities.
While there is no official designation process for domestic terrorist organizations, as it stands,
DOJ and the FBI have publicly named and discussed domestic terrorism threats—such as animal
rights extremism or anarchist extremism—without illuminating exactly how they arrive at these
categories. Federal lawmakers may opt to consider the feasibility of officially formalizing this
process and/or opening it up to greater oversight. An attempt to render this process less
bureaucratically opaque might simultaneously (1) enhance federal efforts to combat domestic
terrorism and (2) help protect civil rights and civil liberties. For example, such a list may
potentially offer agencies outside of DOJ—including relevant players at the state and local
level—formal opportunities to provide input into ranking domestic terrorism threats while
enshrining mechanisms by which individuals who believe in the philosophies undergirding a
designated threat could petition to have that threat “de-listed.”424 On the other hand, making this
process more open may take away the FBI’s flexibility to rapidly adapt its domestic terrorism
priorities, especially if threats quickly mutate.
A Public Accounting of Plots and Incidents
A publicly available official accounting of domestic terrorist plots and incidents may help
policymakers understand the scope of the threat in lieu of a regimen designed to name domestic
terrorism organizations. However, the federal government does not produce such a document. The
National Counterterrorism Center’s (NCTC) Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) had
provided an official record of terrorism incidents around the globe, including the United States.
This was a publicly accessible database active from 2004 to early 2012. It included basic
information regarding terrorist incidents. Prior to the advent of WITS, the FBI used to publish
regular reports on terrorist activity in the United States.425
The lack of a publicly available federal accounting of domestic terrorism plots and attacks makes
it especially difficult to determine the scope of this diverse threat, which, for example, can be
investigated and prosecuted at the state, local, or federal level. Also, the lines between domestic
terrorism and other forms of criminality such as tax fraud or hate crimes can be blurry. A fuller
422 Heller, “Designating Domestic,” p. 70. It may be possible to use 18 U.S.C. 2339A to prosecute an individual
engaged in domestic terrorism. This statute “restricts aid to perpetrators of terrorism in general.” See Benjamin Yaster,
“Resetting Scales: An Examination of Due Process Rights in Material Support Prosecutions,” New York University
Law Review, vol. 83, no. 4 (October, 2008), p. 1364; and ibid. 423 Department of State, “Foreign Terrorist Organizations,” https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm. 424 The FTO designation process has such provisions. See ibid. 425 For example, see http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005.
Domestic Terrorism: An Overview
Congressional Research Service 59
accounting of domestic terrorism plots and attacks may reveal the instances in which FBI
investigated individuals as domestic terrorists but DOJ did not prosecute them as such. This could
offer policymakers a clearer sense of the domestic terrorism threat.
Better Sense of Scope May Assist Policymakers
A better sense of domestic terrorism’s scope publicly proffered by the federal government may
assist policymakers. It may be of policymaking value for executive branch agencies to release
annual statistics on domestic terrorism prosecutions, naming individuals and movements
involved. Congress may also consider requesting an even more detailed annual public report that
counts and describes the domestic terrorist plots dismantled; the number of attacks investigated;
and the federal, state, and local agencies involved. The lack of such an accounting makes it
difficult for policymakers to exercise oversight by comparing the levels of domestic terrorist
activity against items such as homegrown violent jihadist activity and other threats to the
homeland. A regular public accounting could also help policymakers assess the effectiveness of
the government’s response to the domestic terrorist threat. It may also assist policymakers who
wish to compare one domestic terrorist threat against another. It can help inform the allocation of
resources to specific federal counterterrorism efforts, such as those designed to keep people from
radicalizing and becoming violent extremists in the first place. Finally, without a clear, publicly
available understanding of the domestic terrorist threat, it may be difficult to measure how much
federal funding is allocated to this issue.
Author Contact Information
Jerome P. Bjelopera
Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism
jbjelopera@crs.loc.gov, 7-0622