Commentary
Assessing the right-wing terror threat in the United States a year after
the January 6 insurrection
Daniel L. Byman

On January 6, 2021, Pro-Trump supporters and far-right forces flooded
Washington DC to protest Trump's election loss. Hundreds breached the U.S.
Capitol Building, aproximately 13 were arrested and one protester was
killed. (Photo by Michael Nigro/Sipa USA)

This piece is part of a series titled �Nonstate armed actors and illicit
economies in 2022� from Brookings�s Initiative on Nonstate Armed Actors.

The last year saw advances and setbacks in the fight against American white
supremacist, anti-government, and other violent right-wing groups. The good
news is that the number of deaths from terrorism and other extreme forms of
violence was low, but the bad news for 2022 is that violent rhetoric and
threats are becoming normalized in everyday politics.

Let�s start with some good news. According to statistics from the New
America Foundation, 2021 saw zero deaths in the United States from right-
wing terrorist attacks. As discussed below, other forms of right-wing
violence remained a problem, but there was no high-profile attack in 2021
like the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting or the 2019 El Paso Walmart
attack, which killed 11 and 22 people respectively.

In a shift that will have positive long-term consequences, the Biden
administration has made right-wing terrorism a priority. In June, the
administration released a strategy for countering domestic terrorism,
attempting to lay out both the different facets of the threat and how
various security agencies should respond. The federal government has also
launched an ambitious set of investigations, focusing on the January 6
insurrectionists and bringing hundreds of them to trial. Simply paying
attention to the problem makes arrests and other forms of disruption more
likely and scares many of those who might organize for violence, limiting
their activities.

Although white supremacy and other right-wing extremist causes have many
supporters, the groups themselves are disorganized, and the movement is
riven by infighting. They disagree on which targets to prioritize and who
should lead, and many of them are unskilled in clandestine operations,
making them easy prey for law enforcement when it decides to focus on the
problem. Perhaps most heartening, their violence usually backfires,
decreasing public support and making it more likely that the government
will crack down.

Yet a narrow focus on terrorism and other high-profile forms of violence
against civilians misses much of the problem. In 2021, political violence
and the threat of violence appeared increasingly common � even if terrorist
attacks, narrowly defined, were not. The year began, of course, with an
insurrection at the U.S. Capitol to prevent the certification of the
election of Joe Biden as president.

Five people died in the fracas. Police officers killed Ashli Babbitt, whom
many Trump supporters later portrayed as a martyr, as she was climbing
though a broken window of a barricaded door that led to the Speaker�s
Lobby, where police officers were evacuating members of Congress. The day
after the insurrection, Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, whom rioters
had assaulted and pepper sprayed, died of a stroke. Three others died from
being trampled, a heart attack, and a stroke. Several officers who
responded to the insurrection later killed themselves.

Dishearteningly, many Republican elected officials refused to join efforts
to investigate the violence, playing down the danger and obscuring the
facts. Threats of political violence continued in different incarnations,
with Donald Trump supporters threatening election officials who certified
votes for Biden and members of school boards that pushed for COVID-19-
related restrictions also facing threats. These and similar causes have
found many supporters, and they are often able to spread, and even amplify,
their messages on social media, which often favors extreme right-wing
content.

As these examples illustrate, much of the danger is in the relationship
between mainstream American politics and its extremist edges: The Capitol
insurrection involved small numbers of organized white supremacists and
anti-government extremists, but also QAnon adherents and large numbers of
ordinary Trump supporters. As extremism expert Seamus Hughes notes, �There
was absolutely a spectrum of support. In many ways, Jan. 6 was a bug light.
It brought extremists from all areas. And they all came with different
skill sets.�

In the past, Presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan denounced racist
figures like Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke when they tried to enter
mainstream politics. In contrast, President Trump often uses the rhetoric
of the far right, supports or at least condones its anti-government
protests, and has called on it to protect him in response to imaginary
threats. Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar is an open advocate of white
supremacist and other far-right fringe groups, and Republicans refused to
join Democrats and condemn him even after he posted on social media a
photoshopped anime video showing him killing liberal Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Biden.

Not surprisingly, American politics have radicalized. According to one
recent poll, 30% of Republicans agree with the statement, �Because things
have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to
violence in order to save our country.� This figure is especially high
among those who believe Trump�s false claim that President Biden and the
Democrats stole the 2020 election.

Unfortunately, things may get worse before they get better. As the 2022
midterm elections approach, gerrymandering has encouraged both sides to
play to their political bases, fueling extreme rhetoric and discouraging
centrists who would criticize extremes within their own parties. A small
number of individuals may find encouragement, conducting extreme acts of
violence, while for larger numbers threats and violent rhetoric become
normalized, making politics a dangerous (or at least miserable) business
and creating the risk of a cycle of violence, where one violent act spawns
another or a broader crackdown, further increasing radicalization.

The Biden administration and others concerned about the danger of right-
wing terrorism should take several steps. The first is simply to continue
prioritizing right-wing terrorism by resourcing the relevant intelligence
and law enforcement agencies and continuing robust investigations into the
January 6 insurrectionists and others who might use violence to undermine
U.S. institutions. This will make it hard for the most violent individuals
to organize to attack minorities, overthrow the government, or otherwise
use violence.

In addition, the military and law enforcement must remain committed to
civil rights and other democratic values. The efforts to better screen
members of the military, begun by Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III,
should continue. Ideally, more would be done to ensure that local law
enforcement is suitably screened and that any bad apples who slip through
are promptly fired.

The most important step, but the one that for now appears least likely, is
for politicians to openly shun those who embrace white supremacist ideas
and violent conspiracy theories. Republican leaders did so in the past,
helping reduce the spread of hateful ideas and their political influence.
An open rejection would in turn change the media environment by
marginalizing extreme voices, creating a benign circle that would create a
safer America.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/assessing-the-right-wing-terror-threat-
in-the-united-states-a-year-after-the-january-6-insurrection/