[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CONFRONTING VIOLENT WHITE SUPREMACY
(PART VI): EXAMINING THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION'S COUNTERTERRORISM
STRATEGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-879 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Katie Porter, California Pete Sessions, Texas
Cori Bush, Missouri Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Andy Biggs, Arizona
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Peter Welch, Vermont Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Scott Franklin, Florida
Georgia Jake LaTurner, Kansas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Pat Fallon, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Byron Donalds, Florida
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Mike Quigley, Illinois
Russ Anello, Staff Director
Devon Ombres, Subcommittee Staff Director
Amy Stratton, Deputy Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Chairman
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Pete Sessions, Texas, Ranking
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Minority Member
Robin Kelly, Illinois Jim Jordan, Ohio
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts Andy Biggs, Arizona
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Columbia Scott Franklin, Florida
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Byron Donalds, Florida
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Danny K. Davis, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 29, 2021............................... 1
Witnesses
Mr. John D. Cohen, Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department
of Homeland Security
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Mr. Timothy R. Langan, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism
Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Oral Statement................................................... 10
Mr. Brad Wiegmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National
Security Division, Department of Justice
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* CSIS, article, ``The Military, Police, and the Rise of
Terrorism in the United States''; submitted by Rep. Wasserman-
Schultz.
* Brennan Center, a study, ``Countering Violent Extremism in
the Trump Era''; submitted by Rep. Pressley.
* CSIS, ``The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United
States''; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* The New York Times, article, ``How Trump's Focus on Antifa
Distracted Attention From the Far-Right Threat''; submitted by
Rep. Norton.
* The Washington Post, article, ``The Rise of Domestic
Extremism in America''; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* The New York Times, article, ``Efforts to Weed Out Extremists
in Law Enforcement Meet Resistance''; submitted by Rep. Ocasio-
Cortez.
* PBS News Hour, ``FBI Warned of White Supremacists in Law
Enforcement 10 Years Ago. Has Anything Changed?''; submitted by
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.
* The Guardian, article, ``The FBI Has a History of Targeting
Black Activists. That's Still True Today''; submitted by Rep.
Tlaib.
* The Post and Courier, article, ``Police Connect Vandalism at
Nancy Mace's Home to Incident at Bishop England High School;
submitted by Rep. Mace.
* The Wall Street Journal, article, ``Cities Reverse Defunding
the Police Amid Rising Crime''; submitted by Rep. Mace.
* The New York Times, article, ``Why Charges Against Protesters
are Being Dismissed''; submitted by Rep. Mace.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
CONFRONTING VIOLENT WHITE SUPREMACY.
(PART VI): EXAMINING THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION'S COUNTERTERRORISM
STRATEGY
----------
Wednesday, September 29, 2021
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, and on Zoom. Hon.
Jamie Raskin (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Raskin, Maloney, Mfume, Wasserman
Schultz, Kelly, Pressley, Norton, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Davis,
Mace, Comer, Higgins, Sessions, and Donalds.
Also present: Representatives Lawrence (waived on).
Mr. Raskin. The committee will now come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
This is the Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties. Before we get started, I want to acknowledge
Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina. The representative
of Charleston is our new ranking member, and I want to
congratulate her on being the new ranking member. And I am
going to ask unanimous consent that we recognize her as the new
ranking member.
And without objection, we will do that.
Ms. Mace has had a fascinating career. She is an active
legislator and she is a great writer, whose memoir, In the
Company of Men: A Woman at the Citadel, tells the story of her
being the first woman ever to graduate from The Citadel. She
has a great interest in civil rights and civil liberties, and
we have already spoken about her specific interest in mental
health services for the prison population. So, Congresswoman
Mace, I very much look forward to working with you in the
months ahead, and congratulations on being our new ranking
member.
Also, without objection, Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence and
Congressman Glenn Grothman shall be permitted to join the
hearing today and be recognized for the purpose of questioning
the witnesses.
Hearing no objection, they will be waived on for those
purposes.
This is the sixth hearing in our subcommittee's series on
the crisis of violent white supremacy, something the members
know we have been following closely for several years. For more
than two years, we have worked to explore various aspects of
this worsening crisis in American democracy and to urge the
Federal Government to prioritize a robust and comprehensive
response. I want to play a quick video that sums up our prior
hearings, particularly the need for an executive-branch-wide
strategy to address the rise in domestic violent extremism. I
am relieved that we can finally have the hearing today to
discuss exactly what that strategy is now, and this strategy
incorporates many of the recommendations that our subcommittee
has been working for in prior hearings. Please play that video
if you would.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Raskin. So good morning, everyone, and I want to thank
our witnesses for joining us today, and I want to thank all the
members who have come to participate in this critical hearing.
As you just saw in the video compilation, the hearing is sixth
in a series about the Nation's crisis with violent white
supremacy and the need for the government to mount an effective
and comprehensive response to this fundamental threat to the
safety of the American people and the security of the American
republic. This is not just an important, but today's is an
historic hearing because for the first time, an Administration
has answered our call to set forth a comprehensive whole-of-
government strategy to deal with the threat.
The Biden Administration took power only two weeks after
the January 6th insurrection. That day, the whole world watched
the storm troopers of violent white supremacy act as the
vanguard of a mass violent political insurrection against the
Government of the United States that smashed our windows,
invaded our Capitol, wounded and injured more than 140 Capitol
Police officers and Metropolitan Police Department officers,
and left several people dead. The protest that turned into a
riot and an insurrection had been promoted and incited by then-
President Donald Trump.
The well-trained battalions of domestic violent extremists
consisted of Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, Q-Anon
followers, Aryan Nations, Boogaloo Boys, armed militiamen,
white Christian nationalists, and other violent extremists.
They rallied behind the banner of Donald Trump's Big Lie:
asserting that he had won the 2020 Presidential election and
that it was being stolen from him. In fact, Joe Biden received
more than 7 million votes more than Donald Trump and won by a
margin of 306 to 232 in the Electoral College. And yet Trump's
Big Lie unified these disparate violent groups into a mass
street movement to ``stop the steal'' and storm the Capitol to
interrupt the counting of Electoral College votes for the very
first time in the history of the United States, nearly toppling
the peaceful transfer of power in our country.
Although warning signs had been popping up everywhere for
weeks before the insurrection, Federal law enforcement never
produced a formal threat assessment about the risks of violence
on that day. That indicates a systematic failure to grapple
with the magnitude of the threat facing the republic. And let's
be clear that the most dangerous domestic terror threat facing
America today comes from the forces that attacked our
government on January 6th. In October 2020, President Trump's
own acting Secretary of Homeland Security singled out white
supremacist extremists as ``the most persistent and lethal
threat in the homeland.''
Just two days after being sworn in, President Biden ordered
Federal law enforcement and intelligence officials to study the
threat of domestic violent extremism. He understood that a
post-9/11 counterterrorism framework, set up primarily to
combat international threats, like al-Qaeda and ISIS, was not
designed to address the domestic terrorist violence that
threatens us today. The results of their review became public
on June 15th when the President released the first-ever
National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.
The strategy outlined four main pillars to guide Federal
agencies. First, the strategy calls for more analysis and
information sharing related to domestic terror threats. Second,
it asks agencies to determine how to better prevent domestic
terror recruitment and mobilization of violence. Third, it
tasks the government with disrupting and deterring domestic
terror. And fourth, it calls on the government to confront
long-term contributors to domestic terror, including racism.
This strategy offers exactly the kind of coordinated
governmental response that members of this subcommittee have
been asking for for more than two years.
During our prior hearings, we were warned over and over
again by witnesses with years of counterterror experience and
Federal law enforcement experience that the Trump
Administration had no cohesive plan to confront the enormous
problem facing us. We learned that the Federal Government was
not devoting sufficient personnel or resources to monitor or
confront the white supremacist threat of violence spreading
across the globe. In fact, we heard from Trump Administration
officials themselves that the Administration, frankly, lacked
any strategic plan to prevent or combat white supremacist
violence.
With the release of this new strategy, the Administration
has finally ensured that the U.S. has a blueprint to defend
ourselves. The strategy calls for more resources to boost
state, local, tribal, and territorial efforts to tackle the
threat. This includes more information sharing, more analysis,
and data-driven guidance on potential indicators of violence.
It also lays out a new public health-focused framework for
terror prevention that will enlist all sectors of government
and society to work together as a bulwark against violence and
provide an off ramp for those who are caught up in the clutches
of hate. These sweeping objectives will require enormous
implementation efforts, coordination, and oversight. I hope we
can use this hearing to explore how these efforts are already
under way and what Congress can do to help.
We should also take this opportunity to discuss how the
Administration's strategy will balance its urgent investigative
and enforcement priorities with the constant need to uphold the
civil right and civil liberties of all Americans. I am
confident that the witnesses before us today will be able to
clarify how these counterterror efforts will respect the rule
of law and democracy, the democracy that we, in fact, are
seeking to protect against terrorist violence.
We are facing an unprecedented situation in which political
leaders, up to and including a former President, have been
actively promoting corrosive anti-democratic messages that
circulate paranoia, cynicism, and violence. This cesspool of
conspiracy thinking is activating unstable individuals
predisposed, because of a mixture of ideological grievances and
personal disappointments, to commit violence. This is a problem
that demands the attention of all of us and, indeed, everyone
in the country who believes in the constitutional order.
On January 6th, we saw a glimpse of a post-democratic,
chaotic America. In that violent mob which stormed the Capitol
of the United States, there was no room for civil rights or
civil liberties for anyone, either for the marchers, or for the
officers who were being beat up, or the American people, or the
Congress. There was no room for equal justice under law. There
was no room for meaningful dissent. Our government has finally
woken up to the need to combat, comprehensively and
effectively, white supremacists and militia-based violent
extremism. I hope that this hearing will bring more clarity and
exposure to the Biden Administration's strategic plan and help
illuminate what Congress can do to ensure that it is both
effective and, of course, respectful of the civil rights and
civil liberties of the people. We must all work together to
defend our democracy and our freedom.
And with that, I will invite our new ranking member to
provide an opening statement of her own.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Chairman Raskin. And, first of all,
thank you for the introduction this morning. It is an honor to
be here and an honor to work on the Civil Rights and Civil
Liabilities Subcommittee with you on Oversight.
Americans of all color, races, nationalities, and religions
deserve to live in a country where they can sleep safe at
night, knowing our law enforcement personnel at all levels of
government are working around the clock to thwart attacks in
our communities, not just white communities, but communities of
all colors all across the country. Every citizen, regardless of
the color of their skin, their zip code, the amount of money
they make, what they look like, what their religion is, or
where they are from deserve to live in safe communities.
Whether motivated by racism or white supremacy, radical
Islam, fascism, anarchy, or antifa, terrorists from across the
spectrum and across the world should be warned that the United
States will not bend to their will, and we will not succumb to
fear. My own district in South Carolina's First Congressional
District has witnessed the horrors of domestic terrorism. Six
years ago this summer, a Nazi-worshiping white supremacist by
the name of Dylann Roof killed nine Black church members at
Mother Emanuel. This horrific experience, trauma, horrific
event, this tragedy inspired me and countless others in untold
ways to work to root out the worst evils in our community. In
Charleston and our state of South Carolina, we decided to root
out the evil, and there is no room for racism in Charleston, in
South Carolina, or our country.
Mother Emanuel not only illustrates the tragedy of domestic
terrorism in the United States, but also illustrates the
difficulty that law enforcement face when confronting such
threats. A recent threat assessment by the intelligence
community notes the difficulty of disrupting lone offenders who
radicalize independently and mobilize without direction from
any movement or organization. Yet the domestic terror threat is
not only a threat we face today. More Americans are falling
victim to violent crime every year with over 20,000 murders
occurring in 2020 alone. In 2021, year to date so far, we are
up 10 percent over last year, and murders jumped 30 percent
from 2019 to 2020, according to FBI statistics.
Additionally, the threat of international terrorism grows
by the day. The Biden Administration's own officials have noted
that al-Qaeda may reconstitute in the Taliban-controlled
country of Afghanistan within as little as one to two years.
And by all accounts, what we have all witnessed over the last
several weeks in Afghanistan, how we botched the exit, that may
become a reality sooner than we ever could have anticipated or
imagined because of how we exited from Afghanistan, giving
billions of dollars of equipment and military arms and
artillery to the Taliban, selling that equipment to Iran. And
God knows how much money they have in the banks to use against
us today. The threats we face today, whether or foreign, are
real, and we must ensure adequate oversight of our government's
plans to detect and disrupt all of these threats.
The Biden Administration published its plan to combat
domestic terrorism this summer. This new focus builds upon the
prior Administration's efforts to combat domestic terrorism,
which led to a record number of domestic terrorism charges
filed by the Department of Justice prosecutors in 2020. I
wholeheartedly support this effort to combat domestic terrorism
threats. At the same time, we must ensure we are not myopically
or singularly focused on threats from within to the detriment
of efforts to deter threats from without. It is also essential
that any effort to combat domestic terrorism be focused on
targeting and disrupting violent behaviors, and that our
government not target individuals solely because of their
ideologies or beliefs. We must ensure any plan to combat
domestic terrorism includes protections of fundamental rights
and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.
I look forward to hearing about these issues and more today
from three career civil law enforcement witnesses. I especially
look forward to hearing about their efforts, in collaboration
with partners at the Federal, state, and local level, to
detect, disrupt, and prosecute terrorist threats, whether
foreign or domestic. Their service, and that of the men and
women in law enforcement working for them, is a testament
against the irresponsible, reckless, and dangerous defund the
police rhetoric we continue to hear from some on the left
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Representative Mace, for your
very thoughtful statement. And I neglected to thank
Representative Sessions, wherever he is, for his service to the
subcommittee before he made his move.
I now am delighted to recognize the chairwoman of the full
Oversight Committee, Representative Carolyn Maloney, for five
minutes, for her opening statement. And she has been such a
great leader in defending civil rights, civil liberties, and
democracy against violent white supremacy.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you, Chairman Raskin. I am
pleased to be here today examine the Biden Administration's
comprehensive strategy for addressing the threat posed by
violent white supremacy and domestic terrorism. This
subcommittee, under Chairman Raskin's leadership, has long
warned of the need for the Federal Government to address
domestic terrorism, and on January 6th, many of us in this room
witnessed this terror firsthand.
On that day, militia groups and other violent extremists
led an attack on our Capitol, and the battle flag of the
Confederacy, the symbol of white supremacy, was brought into
the halls by force for the first time in American history. That
threat did not arrive unannounced. In recent years, domestic
terror attacks by white supremacists, anti-Muslim, and anti-
government extremists on the far right have surged. Yet during
the same time period, the FBI have arrested fewer, not more,
domestic terrorists. During the Trump Administration, top
officials focused on the threat posed by far-left extremism,
while a right-wing insurrection against the Capitol was planned
in plain sight on social media, in the newspaper, on the
airwaves. I commend the Biden Administration for recognizing
the gravity of this threat and meeting it head on.
Many of the proposals in this National Strategy represent a
sea change from the previous Administration and are long
overdue. Confronting domestic terrorism and white supremacist
violence requires a whole-of-government approach, pulling from
all the resources of the Federal Government, as well as state,
local, and tribal partners. I encourage the Biden
Administration to forge meaningful partnerships with community
leaders to support mental health services, restorative justice
initiatives, bystander intervention programs, and more. With
this shift in strategy must also come a renewed commitment to
effective oversight. Over the last 2 decades, our domestic
national security strategy has far too often targeted
communities of color, and Muslim communities in particular.
We must ensure that the Federal Government does not fall
back on flawed tools or faulty shortcuts in the name of
national security. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today about how we can achieve these new investigative
priorities, the safeguards that will protect the civil rights
and civil liberties of all Americans. Thank you, Chairman
Raskin, for calling today's hearing and each of our witnesses
for joining us here today, and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you so much, Chair Maloney. And I am now
delighted to recognize the ranking member of the full Oversight
Committee, Mr. Comer, for five minutes for his opening
statement.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, and let me begin by
thanking Representative Sessions for his leadership as ranking
member of this committee. I think everyone knows Representative
Sessions took a job in a new position on the Financial Services
Committee, so I want to now congratulate Representative Mace
for her rise as the ranking member of this subcommittee. I know
she is going to do a tremendous job.
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing here today. The
men and women of the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, work tirelessly to keep Americans safe from
terrorist attacks. As we continue to hear harmful defund the
police rhetoric from some on the left, I am reminded of the
bravery of law enforcement officers who put their lives on the
line every single day to keep us safe from threats, both
foreign and domestic.
Crime is on the rise in the United States. At the same
time, we face terror threats from within and without. Now more
than ever, it is essential that our law enforcement have the
tools they need to combat these ever-growing threats, and it is
equally essential that we recognize their sacrifice and
service. Law enforcement in this country is not systematically
racist or irredeemable beyond reform, as some of my colleagues
would assert. In fact, we will likely hear from witnesses today
what they were doing to protect Americans, especially racial
minorities, from racially motivated violent extremist plots.
That isn't to say law enforcement need not respect the bounds
of the law or protect the civil rights and civil liberties that
we hold so dear.
Our country is a country ruled by law, and the Constitution
is the supreme law of the land. That document guarantees many
of the fundamental freedoms we take for granted in our country:
the freedoms of religion, of speech, of peaceable assembly, of
association. It is essential that any strategy to combat
domestic terrorism keep in mind the goal of preventing violent
terrorist attacks. At the same time, we must safeguard our
fundamental freedoms and not allow prejudice against religion
or ideology to cloud our responses. Our strategy to combat all
violence must be focused on that violence and be completely
neutral as to ideological motivations, no matter how repugnant.
We must target dangerous people because of their violent
actions and not their protected beliefs.
I hope that today's hearing will demonstrate to the Biden
Administration that Congress is providing oversight over their
plans to combat domestic terrorism, and I look forward to
hearing from witnesses today what safeguards are in place to
ensure that civil rights and civil liberties are protected. It
is unfortunately a rare occurrence in this Congress for the
majority to invite Biden Administration witnesses. I hope the
majority will continue this trend and finally begin to hold the
Biden Administration accountable for the crisis on the southern
border and the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal.
Once again, I thank the witnesses for appearing today, and
I look forward to hearing about the work they are doing to keep
Americans safe from terrorist attacks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. And, Mr. Comer, thank you very much for your
thoughtful remarks. And now I get to introduce three
extraordinary witnesses. I am not going to be able to go into
detail on their bios, but let me quickly introduce the three of
them before we get started.
Our first witness is John D. Cohen, who is the coordinator
for counterterrorism at the Department of Homeland Security. He
has more than 3 decades of experience in law enforcement,
counterintelligence, and homeland security. He has studied mass
casualties and is currently studying the impact of internet-
based communications technologies on crime and homeland
security. Then we will hear from Timothy Langan, who is the
assistant director for the Counterterrorism Division at the
FBI. He first joined the FBI back in 1998, was assigned to the
Dallas Field Office, later Washington. He has investigated
counterterrorism, Mexican drug trafficking, and violent crimes.
Prior to joining the FBI, he served in the Marine Corps and was
a police officer and undercover narcotics detective. And
finally, we will hear from Brad Wiegmann, who is the deputy
assistant attorney general for the National Security Division
at the Department of Justice. Most of his career over the last
25 years has been focused on national security, including
counterterrorism, intelligence, counterproliferation, cyber
policy, and law enforcement.
So I want to welcome all three of our witnesses. The
witnesses will be please unmuted so we can swear you in. Please
raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give
is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Raskin. Let the record show that the witnesses have all
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
Without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record.
And with that, Mr. Cohen, you are now recognized for your
five minutes of opening testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN COHEN, COORDINATOR FOR COUNTERRORISM,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Cohen. Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, thank you
very much. It is an honor to be here. It is an honor to be with
the members of the committee, and Chairwoman Maloney and
Ranking Member Comer. You will find in my opening statement
that I actually agree with much of what was said in the opening
statements that were made previous to me.
As mentioned, in June of this year, the Biden-Harris
Administration released its National Strategy for Countering
Domestic Terrorism. The strategy notes that the domestic
terrorism threat is not a new threat within the United States,
but it does, for the first time, at least in my experience,
offer a comprehensive whole-of-government approach in
combatting that threat. Chairman Raskin, you have already gone
through the elements of the strategy, so I won't repeat that,
but I will say is that the Department of Homeland Security
worked closely with the FBI, the Justice Department, the White
House, and the rest of the Federal interagencies to develop the
strategy, and we continue to work closely with those
organizations, as well as state, local, tribal governments, the
private sector, community leaders, civil society organizations,
advocacy groups, as we seek to implement the strategy.
I'd like to take a few minutes, if I can, to describe our
underlying understanding of the threat that we face currently
within the country because I think it will provide some context
to our discussions today about what the Department is doing.
While we certainly are facing a threat that has an
organizational dynamic that involves groups of individuals that
coalesce around and even engage in violent and destructive
behavior in furtherance of extremist or a blend of extremist
beliefs, it is important to remember that it is also a threat
that is very individualized in nature. As repeatedly assessed
by DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, when looked at
from a lethal perspective, the most significant terrorism-
related threat facing the U.S. today comes primarily from lone
offenders, individuals who engage in violent activity inspired
by extremist beliefs or a blend of extremist beliefs, or a
blend of extremist beliefs and personal grievances that are
most often cultivated through the consumption of online
content.
This is a trend that began several years ago and has
continued to evolve. And while, as we look back at past
attacks, the specific motives behind these attacks vary,
analysis and research tells us that many of the attackers share
common behavioral characteristics. In particular, these are
people who tend to be angry, socially disconnected, seeking a
sense of life meaning. They spend significant time online, and
ultimately self-connect with a cause or grievance to justify
the use of violence as a way to express their anger and achieve
a sense of social connection and self-worth.
It is a threat that does not often fit into traditional
terrorism-or extremism-related definitional categories. In
fact, this is one of the primary challenges in trying to define
and investigate these types of threats. Those who engage in
violence often self-connect with a combination of extremist
beliefs or a blend of extremist beliefs and personal
grievances. Terms of art like ``salad bar extremism'' and
``hybrid ideologies'' are references to the fact that attackers
adapt a blend of ideological beliefs and grievances.
This is a threat that manifests itself both in the physical
and digital environments. Online content, disinformation, false
narratives, and conspiracy theories spread by foreign nation-
states, international terrorist groups, and extremist thought
leaders fuel much of the violence we are experiencing in the
country today. Domestic and foreign threat actors purposely
seek to exploit the fractures in our society, the anger and
discord in our political discourse to sow discord and inspire
acts of violence.
In addressing this threat, we have to understand a few
things. From an intelligence perspective, we need to think
differently about how we look at information. Pre-incident
indicators may be apparent through public actions or
communications. Covert collection may not be necessary to
capture valuable intelligence, but analysts need to be able to
distinguish between constitutionally protected speech and
threat-related activity.
Preventing acts of violence. Joint terrorism task forces
have for years kept our communities safe through
multijurisdictional investigations into potential terrorism
threats. Community-based prevention programs are needed to
complement the efforts of the JTTF.
The threat posed by high-risk individuals who do not meet
the investigative threshold necessary for terrorism-related
investigations. This means providing grant funding, training,
technical assistance to local communities so that law
enforcement, mental health professionals, social service
providers, educators, and community groups can work together to
identify those individuals who are traveling down the path of
violence and develop strategies to manage those folks.
Let me close by saying real quickly that we recognize that
we are facing a broad, complex, and diverse threat environment.
We're dealing with an evolving foreign terrorism threat. We're
dealing with a multiyear trend of increased violent crime.
We're dealing with disinformation and other covert actions by
foreign intelligence services. We're dealing with a broad range
of cyberthreats. We need, at the Department, to be able to deal
with all of those threats effectively as well as the threat
posed by domestic terrorists, violent extremists, and targeted
violence. Let me also say finally that it is not our job to
police thought. It is not our job to infringe on the
constitutional rights of Americans. It is our job to prevent
violence, and the men and women of DHS work closely with law
enforcement across the country to do that.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr.
Cohen. And, Mr. Langan, you are now recognized for your
testimony. Five minutes.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY LANGAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Mr. Langan. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, and members
of the subcommittee. I am honored to be here today representing
the dedicated men and women of the FBI's Counterterrorism
Division, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here to
discuss the FBI's role in implementing the National Strategy
for Countering Domestic Terrorism.
Preventing acts of terrorism is the FBI's No. 1 priority.
The great terrorism threat facing our homeland is that posed by
lone actors or small cells who typically radicalize online and
look to use easily accessible weapons to attack soft targets.
We see this threat within both home-grown violent extremists,
or HVEs, who are inspired by foreign terrorist groups and
domestic violent extremists, or DVEs, whose inspiration stems
from domestic influences.
Domestic terrorism has been and continues to be a top
priority for the FBI. Although the strategy is new and is the
first national strategy focused entirely on mitigating domestic
strategy, this is not the first time domestic terrorism has
been included in our Nation's counterterrorism strategy,
largely due to the FBI's focus on this threat. The FBI
participated heavily in the development of the strategy and is
the leading agency for the domestic terrorism threat. We have a
key role in working with our partners to implement the
strategy. The strategy outlines four strategic pillars that
guide the U.S. Government's collective response to domestic
terrorism. These pillars require the FBI to fully leverage our
partnerships with Federal, state, and local law enforcement,
the private sector, academia, and our foreign counterparts.
Pillar one calls for us to understand and share domestic
terrorism-related information. The FBI has already bolstered
our analytical resources focused on this threat. We continue to
disseminate intelligence products to our partners to identify
actionable intelligence, trends on domestic terrorism threats,
and tactics and tradecraft used by DVEs. Many of these
intelligence products are produced jointly with the National
Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security
in the form of joint intelligence bulletins. We also look to
strengthen our two-way exchange of information with our state
and local law enforcement partners as they are often in the
best position to identify important facets of a threat.
The second pillar calls upon the government to prevent
domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization of violence. To
this end, the FBI is supporting our Federal partners to
highlight available resources related to prevention. We are
working with NCTC and DHS to update the Homegrown and Violent
Extremist Mobilization Indicators Guide, which in 2021 will,
for the very time, articulate potential indicators of DVE
mobilization to violence. We also are working with DHS and the
Department of Justice to research and share best practices for
curbing prison radicalization.
Pillar three looks to disrupt and deter domestic terrorism
activity. Internally, the FBI has prioritized key domestic
terrorism threats at the same level as certain international
terrorism threats, such as ISIS and HVEs. The FBI is
destructing domestic terrorism plots and actors, often in close
coordination with state and local law enforcement within the
FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force framework. The final pillar
seeks to confront long-term contributors to domestic terrorism,
which is a goal that is not specific to just the FBI, but a
shared responsibility among the American people.
The FBI takes seriously its mission to both uphold the
Constitution and to protect the American people. Regardless of
a person's ideology, the FBI will actively pursue the opening
of FBI investigations when an individual uses or threatens the
use of force, violence, or coercion in violation of Federal law
and in furtherance of social or political goals. Thank you and
I look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Langan, thank you very much for your
thoughtful testimony. And finally, we will recognize Mr.
Wiegmann for your five minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRAD WIEGMANN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Wiegmann. Good morning, Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member
Mace, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Department of
Justice.
The terrible tragedies arising from domestic terrorist
attacks in the United States in recent years are unfortunately
all too familiar. In 2015, as Ranking Member Mace mentioned, a
white supremacist shot and killed nine Black men and women
during a Bible study at a church in Charleston. In 2017, a man
with neo-Nazi views drove his car into a crowd of peaceful
protestors in Charlottesville, murdering one and injuring many
more. In 2018, a man espousing antisemitic views shot and
killed 11 Jewish worshippers at their synagogue in Pittsburgh.
In 2019, 23 people, most of whom were Latino, were gunned down
by a white nationalist while shopping at a Walmart in El Paso.
There are also many others who have been arrested and
prosecuted before they had a chance to do harm: a white
nationalist convicted last year in Maryland, was stockpiling
assault weapons and planning attacks on minorities and elected
officials; a man sentenced earlier this year for plotting to
blow up a synagogue in Colorado; six men charged with
conspiring to kidnap the Governor of Michigan. And as you know,
the Department of Justice and the FBI are now engaged in a
massive investigation in response to the violent attacks on the
U.S. Capitol on January 6th in which more than 600 people have
been arrested. We continue to face an elevated threat. The FBI
has more than doubled the number of domestic terrorism
investigations over the last several years. As has been alluded
to earlier in the hearing, the top threats we face are from
those we categorize as racially or ethnically motivated violent
extremists, as well as anti-government or anti-authority
violent extremists.
As the Attorney General said earlier this summer, the
first-of-its-kind National Strategy for Countering Domestic
Terrorism is designed to provide a principled path for the
Federal Government's efforts to counter this heightened threat
using all available tools. It's the culmination of an effort
undertaken at the President's direction by agencies across the
Federal Government, from the Justice Department to the
Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State, Health and
Human Services, and others. There are four pillars that have
already been mentioned today, so I won't go through them again
in detail, but just to say, in general, what we're doing at the
Department of Justice in order to implement this strategy.
This includes dedicating more resources to counter this
threat--we've included a request for $100 million more to
address domestic terrorism--increasing our focus on domestic
terrorism in the intelligence we collect; ensuring we can share
as much information as we can with Federal, state, local,
tribal, and territorial partners; deepening our collaboration
with our foreign partners and allies to explore links to
international counterparts of domestic extremists. And that's
something I would characterize as new in this strategy is we
are seeing connections around the world, and that's something
that this strategy recognizes and calls on us to focus on.
Ensuring that we are working with the tech sector, since so
much radicalization occurs online. That's a big focus of this
strategy as well. And ensuring that we have sufficient training
both at the state and Federal level.
Finally, I want to just mention two other points that are
embodied in this strategy and that the other witnesses have
mentioned today as well as the members of the committee, but
that are crucial to this whole effort. First is that this
strategy recognizes that merely espousing an extremist ideology
is not a crime, nor is expressing hateful views and associating
with hateful groups. Any steps to counter domestic terrorism
must be focused on violent acts or true threats of violence so
as to safeguard Americans' civil rights and civil liberties.
There are longstanding guidelines that prohibit the FBI from
engaging in investigative activities solely for the purpose of
monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or other
constitutional rights, and this is a core value for the
Department of Justice and the FBI.
Second is the strategy also recognizes, as others have
alluded to today, it is absolutely critical that we condemn and
confront domestic terrorism regardless of the particular
motivating ideology. The definition of ``domestic terrorism''
in U.S. law makes no distinction based on political views, be
they left, right, or center, and neither should we.
In closing, I want to note that this strategy is not just a
document that we've written to put on a shelf. Actively, work
is being done to implement it. That's under way and will be
ongoing for months and years to come. So thank you for the
invitation to testify today, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
Mr. Raskin. I want to thank all of the witnesses for their
excellent testimony today, and I will recognize myself for my
five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Wiegmann, let me start with you, picking up on that
last point. It seems to me that we have a very difficult
problem because so much of the domestic violent extremist
activity that takes place is motivated, and inspired, and
incited by speech online. So what does it mean to say that the
government wants to disrupt and deter domestic terror activity
when that activity, as Mr. Cohen testifies, often arises from
lone actors, individuals who get inspired by disinformation and
propaganda that they read online?
Mr. Wiegmann. Yes, and thank you for that question. If your
question is--what are the rules that we have around online
activity and how we investigate that? Is that your question?
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Wiegmann. Yes. So, again, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, we cannot collect information solely on the basis of
hate speech or First Amendment protected activity. So if
someone is online saying they hate a particular religious group
or ethnic group, that in and of itself is not enough to
initiate investigative activity, but if it is coupled with any
kind of indications of violence, that would be something that
we could investigate. We have a whole set of detailed rules,
both in the Attorney General guidelines that were developed in
the 1970's in response to the abuses from the 60's and 70's
that were identified in the Church Committee Report, and then
the FBI has an extensive manual, which I actually brought with
me today. It's called the Domestic Investigations and
Operations Guide. I don't know if you all can see that on the
video, but it is a very thick, kind of the size of a phone
book, set of rules that we have for the different phases of an
investigation, when you can initiate an investigation, and it
talks about the First Amendment constraints. It talks about
freedom of association. It talks about freedom of speech,
freedom of religion. And the FBI has lawyers that are actively
involved in all investigations, but, in particular, in domestic
terrorism investigations, to ensure that will that we are
walking that line.
It is a reasonable set of rules. I don't want to over
emphasize. I think we can still investigate the activities as
we see fit. It is just that you need more than speech alone in
order to investigate. I don't know if that answers your
question.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, thank you. Mr. Cohen, let me come to you.
I think most of us who experienced January 6th would consider
the government's advance threat assessment and planning to be
woefully inadequate. What has been learned from what took place
on January 6th, and, you know, are there lessons that will
correct the kind of inadequate response that the government
had?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. We
learned several lessons. One, as I alluded to in my opening
statement, we, from an intelligence perspective, have to look
differently at information that comes to our attention. You
know, there is a traditional thought process within the
intelligence community that ascribes a greater level of
credibility to information that has been collected through
covert or sensitive collection platforms. But as we can all
agree, there was a substantial amount of information on public-
facing social media and online platforms that describe the
intent of individuals to come to Washington, DC. and engage in
destructive and even violent behavior in response to their
belief that the election had been compromised, or had been
rigged, or had been stolen.
As I compare what happened prior to January 6th and what
happened recently on September 18th when we were seeing similar
traffic on public-facing websites, is there was a much greater
level of security preparations by local authorities, Federal
authorities, and others. There was a much higher level of
information-sharing between DHS, the FBI, and Federal agencies,
as well as state and locals.
We have to also understand and become better aware at
understanding what narratives that are being promoted on
threat-related platforms are more likely to be an indicator of
potential violence and use that information to inform physical
security measures that could actually serve as a disincentive.
One of the things that we observed between January 6th and
January 20th was that those who were calling to come back to
Washington during the Inauguration and continue, from their
perspective, the fight against what they viewed as a stolen
election, they saw that there were security preparations in
place, and they made the decision and were disinclined to come
to Washington as a result.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, and I will now yield to
the ranking member for her five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was preparing for
this hearing, and being on a subcommittee chaired by Mr.
Raskin, you got to be prepared, I was actually kind of shocked
to discover there was not a lot of good data out there that I
could find on domestic terrorism. So I have a few questions
that I would like to try to quantify some of this. And this is
the sixth hearing on white supremacy in this series, so I would
be interested to hear from Mr. Cohen first. Understanding that
statistics might be difficult to quantify, are you able to sort
of give us an estimate on the number of casualties due to
domestic terrorism overall in the U.S. over the last 10 or 20
years? I read somewhere in one study it was around 250. That
seems kind of low to me, not accurate. Are we talking hundreds,
thousands, tens of thousands? Do we know the number of
casualties due to domestic terrorism?
Mr. Cohen. So thank you for that question, Ranking Member.
As we had discussed yesterday, I went back and started trying
to pull some of those same statistics in preparation of the
hearing, and as you point out, it is difficult. In some cases,
it is typical to ascribe the motive of a mass casualty attack
or an act of targeted violence directly to a single extremist
motivation. In other cases, it is a combination of an extremist
ideological belief and personal grievances. In other cases, it
may be ascribed to someone's behavioral health or mental health
status.
I think that if you look strictly at the issue of events
from a prosecutorial perspective that can be ascribed to a
white supremacist belief, I would have to defer to the FBI from
the perspective of Federal charges. But, again, the capturing
of statistics in this is complicated, but it is certainly
something that we need to be able to do better if we are going
to tell a convincing narrative about why this is a significant
problem facing the country.
Ms. Mace. Yes. I feel like we ought to know the number, the
answer to that. My next question is for Mr. Wiegmann. Many of
the atrocities and mass shootings we have seen have not only
been perpetrated by racists and racist ideology and extremists,
but also by individuals experiencing a mental health crisis.
How would or how does the Department of Justice distinguish
between individuals who are committing acts of violence due to
mental health crisis versus those who are domestic extremists
motivated by a racist or political ideology?
Mr. Wiegmann. So if they have committed a crime, it doesn't
matter whether it is due to a particular ideology or mental
health conditions. As the other witnesses have alluded to
today, it could be a combination of those things, a combination
of different ideologies and mental health problems. Many of
these people do have mental health problems, so they can be
prosecuted regardless of that. And I think the FBI tries to
keep statistics about the ideology, but it can be challenging
because it can be a mix of different motivations that are
involved.
Ms. Mace. OK. And then, Mr. Langan, the FBI works to
prevent both international and domestic terrorism threats. Are
you able to give me a breakdown of the caseload? What
percentage is domestic terrorism versus foreign terrorism
threats of the cases that we work on?
Mr. Langan. Yes. Yes. For domestic terrorism threats,
currently we are approximately over 2,700 threats, and for the
international terrorism threats, we are under 1,000. And I did
have some information on homicides and deaths for the last five
years, but not for last 10 if you are interested in those.
Ms. Mace. Yes, I would love that.
Mr. Langan. As far as international terrorism-related
deaths, from 2015 to 2020, there were 80 recorded deaths in the
homeland, and for that same time period for DT attacks, there
were 83 deaths in that five-year period.
Ms. Mace. Thank you. And then another question, Mr. Langan.
I read an article in The New Yorker this week about, I am
calling it ``intelligence sabotage,'' an environmental activist
advocating to blow up pipelines, not going as far as kidnapping
people. But does the FBI consider environmental intelligence
sabotage domestic terrorism?
Mr. Langan. Any threats to human life are considered
terrorism by the FBI. The ideology is various, but we take any
threats that would be toward violent acts to be serious.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you. And we
will now go to Ms. Wasserman Schultz for her five minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
decision by the Biden Administration to release the National
Strategy document explicitly focused on fighting domestic
extremism was an unprecedented decision made in response to
what was clearly an alarming surge in domestic terror threats.
I would like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, these
statistics from the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, especially in light of the ranking member making a
reference to there being a lack of data[SA1], which is not
accurate. The number of----
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much. The number of
domestic terrorist plots has been on the rise in recent years,
and in 2020, that figure reached its highest level in at least
a quarter century. Ninety percent of those plots were
committed, as you can see, by domestic extremists, 67 percent
by far-right groups. Only five percent were inspired by violent
jihadist ideologies. Nevertheless, as recently as 2018, the
Trump Administration's national counterterrorism strategy
emphasized that international jihadist organizations were the
top terrorism threats and devoted only a few sentences to
domestic threats. In announcing this strategy, Attorney General
Merrick Garland promised to, and I quote, ``respond to domestic
terrorism with the same sense of purpose and dedication that
previous Administrations have devoted to foreign-based
terrorist threats.''
Mr. Wiegmann, you are the principal deputy assistant
attorney general tasked with implementing the strategy, and I
commend you. What work is the Department of Justice already
doing to implement the changes called for in the strategy, and
what still needs to be accomplished to better respond to the
rise of violent white supremacists and other forms of violent
extremism?
Mr. Wiegmann. Thanks for that question. So as I alluded to
in my opening testimony, there is a whole range of activities
that we are undertaking under Attorney General Garland's
leadership to address domestic terrorism. In addition to the
January 6th investigation, which I mentioned, obviously we have
our ordinary cases that we are pursuing all across the country.
The FBI has more than doubled the number of domestic terrorism
investigations, so that reflects the increased threat level
that we are seeing. But as I also mentioned in my opening
testimony, there are a whole range of other policy initiatives
that we have launched at DOJ. This includes reinvigorating the
Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, which is an
information-sharing and policy oversight forum that the
Department of Justice chairs that includes elements of the
interagency.
We have broadened our approach so that we are working more
with other parts of the government, be it HHS or the
intelligence community, to focus on this threat. We have asked
for more resources to deal with the increased caseload that we
are seeing. We are focused also on prevention efforts, so we
are on our toes on that issue as to how we can work to, when we
do identify people that are posing a threat of domestic
terrorist attack, but maybe not yet committed a crime----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Wiegmann [continuing]. Or Federal charges would not be
appropriate, as to what other mechanisms we can develop to
ensure----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Wiegmann. I have got
another question I wanted to ask you about.
Mr. Wiegmann. Sure.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am a founder and co-chair of the
congressional Caucus on Black-Jewish Relations, and so I am all
too familiar with how real these threats are, and especially
those targeting Black and Jewish communities. We clearly have
to have a counterterrorism effort that acknowledges the extent
to which minority communities are under attack. Can you explain
how the strategy will directly address the dangers posed to
racial and ethnic minorities?
Mr. Wiegmann. Yes. So the strategy is ideology neutral, but
obviously recognizes that the most lethal attacks that we have
had in recent years, including some of the ones I mentioned in
my opening statement, have been from racially motivated violent
extremists, including targeting synagogues and Jewish
worshippers, African Americans, Latinos, other ethnic groups.
So because that is the No. 1 threat, it is inherent in the
strategy that that is going to be a key focus of ours. I don't
know if that answers your question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I would like to
underscore the significance of what we are discussing here.
Since 9/11, the Federal Government has overwhelmingly focused
its counterterrorism mission on combating foreign terrorist
organizations and their potential presence in the United
States. This document represents a blueprint for a Federal
Government that is hopefully more reactive to the threat
landscape that we actually face today. Mr. Cohen, as the
counterterrorism coordinator for the Department of Homeland
Security, what do you see as the biggest shifts in the threat
landscape in the two decades since 9/11, and do you see this
strategy as a long-overdue shift away from a post-9/11 paradigm
focused primarily on foreign sources of terrorism?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you for the question. I think that from a
shift perspective, our counterterrorism strategies in the past
focused on combating activities of foreign-based organizations
who sought to introduce operatives into the U.S. to carry out
attacks. What we are dealing with now, as we have discussed,
has more to do with lone individuals who self-connect with
ideological beliefs that they acquire through their online
activity. They will act on behalf of an ideological belief or
even a terrorist group but operate independent of that group.
So many of the tools and resources that we have used, such as
those of our intelligence community, our military, and other
counterterrorism capabilities, don't necessarily apply to a
significant part of the threat. We have to use new tools. We
have to work with communities more closely in order to identify
high-risk individuals and take steps to manage the threat they
pose.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I know
I am at a time, but if I could enter into the record, since I
don't have time to make reference to it, this last slide that
would show that we have domestic terrorism investigations that
have more than doubled since 2017, from 1,000 to 2,700 cases.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection, we will enter that.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, for your
questions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I appreciate that, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. And I am now delighted to go to Representative
Sessions, the former ranking member, but we are delighted still
to have you with us, Mr. Sessions.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I want
to thank this panel for being there. Mr. Cohen and Mr.
Wiegmann, are there any cities that do not fully participate
and share information with you about criminal activity that
occurs within their jurisdiction?
Mr. Cohen. I cannot, as we are sitting here, think of any
cities. In fact, I would have to say that over the last 10
months, we have dramatically expanded our information sharing
with state, local, tribal governments, and the private sector
to the point where we are having biweekly meetings to discuss
emerging threats and operational issues.
Mr. Wiegmann. I am not aware. I defer to the FBI on that
question.
Mr. Sessions. OK. Mr. Langan?
Mr. Langan. Yes, sir. Thank you. We have 56 field offices,
and every one of our field offices has a joint terrorism task
force that consists of over 200 joint terrorism task forces and
hundreds of state and local law enforcement officials. I am not
aware of direct information related to any particular cities or
localities that are not sharing, and we concentrate, again, on
those enhanced relationships and partnerships through our
JTTFs.
Mr. Sessions. Yes. Thank you. And sure you do, and I would
expect that that relationship would be shared. So in other
words, you are saying that if there were a cartel member or a
person that was picked up for being arrested, let's say in
Seattle, for anything, if there was a link to violence or
terrorism, you would then have access to that information, know
who that person was. I hear you saying that, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Look, I left the Department in 2014 after a
stint in the Bush Administration and then the Obama
Administration. I came back in 2021. I have to say that I was
somewhat disappointed at the state of information sharing upon
my return. Some of the information sharing relationships the
Department had forged over years had atrophied, and that is why
it has been such a big priority for us to reestablish those
lines of communication, the lines of communication, the trust,
and the technology that we use to exchange information. So I
can't sit here today and say to you that over the last several
years there were not instances in which information that was
gathered by the Federal Government or information that had been
gathered by state and locals was shared effectively. I can tell
you that it is a top priority for the Department under
Secretary Mayorkas to reestablish those lines of communications
on a very tactical, granular, and operational level.
Mr. Sessions. Well, what I would ask all three of you, if
you could please provide information to me or to our
subcommittee chairman about any jurisdiction that has expressly
made a decision that they will not share information that was
gathered or garnered on a local basis with, as you suggest, the
task forces or with Federal law enforcement. I think it is
important to note that in Texas, we have had, over our past, a
number of people, including those that have been what I would
call mass murderers, who have done things that may have been
minor, but they came to the attention of local people. They
were criminal violations, and I would like to make sure that no
matter where in the United States, that that information would
be available so that if they reappeared somewhere, we had
information where we could quickly make sure we knew who they
were. And so I would ask all three of you, please, on a
positive basis, to send either to the committee chairman or to
myself, Congressman Pete Sessions, information that you would
certify, you know, send me if there is any location, or locale,
or state, or city that does not actively share because of their
own decisionmaking that they made.
I want to thank all three of you. I think that what the
chairman is doing by having this hearing is important. We need
to identify, we need to know who these people are, we need to
understand about them, and I applaud all three of you. But my
address is Rayburn 2204, and I would appreciate hearing from
all three of you as to that question.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. Thank you very much.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you so much, Mr. Sessions, for your
questioning. I am happy now to go to Representative Mfume for
his five minutes. Before, though, I do want to remind all the
members of the committee, please wear a mask in accordance with
the Oversight Committee rule that we are supposed to be wearing
masks when we are not asking questions. So thank you all for
modeling good behavior here. And, Representative Mfume, the
pride of Baltimore, we come to you.
Mr. Mfume. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want
to thank you and the ranking member for deciding to hold this
hearing and then to bring it into existence. I appreciate your
leadership of this committee obviously. I have two points I
know that I want to make here as I try to muddle through this.
I mean, so much of this is subjective, and then there is a lot
of it that is objective. And both of you, or all three of you,
are in agencies now that are trying, as I understand, to make
sure that we maximize our efforts. And I will grant to you that
it is a tough, tough job.
One of the things that I do want to go back to was, the
gentlewoman from Florida raised a point that I was looking at
making earlier, and that is that since 2017, domestic violence
cases and threats have more than doubled. And so, if that is
taking place, can any of you, or all three of you talk about
how your efforts are matching the doubling, if not the
tripling, of those threats in those instances?
Mr. Cohen. I can go first, Congressman. This is John Cohen.
This year, we identified domestic violent extremism as a
priority in the FEMA Grant Program, meaning that a portion of
those grants have to be dedicated to activities at the state
and local level intended to address the threat posed by
domestic violent extremists. We just awarded an additional $20
million in what I call innovation grants, grants that are going
to localities across the country that are intended to fund the
evaluation of community-based violence prevention programs,
which I alluded to in my opening statement, which we see as a
tool in helping communities to be better able to detect, assess
the risk posed by individuals, and to manage the threat that
they pose through the use of mental health support, social
service support, and other multidisciplinary threat management
strategies.
We have expanded the number of people that we have focusing
on conducting analysis in the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, which I also run now. More analysts are focusing on
the threat posed by domestic violent extremists, domestic
terrorists, homegrown violent extremists. We have also expanded
our efforts to analyze and evaluate online content,
particularly that content that is present on platforms or
communities that we know are associated with international
terrorists and domestic violent extremists. That is just a
snapshot of some of the things that we are doing at the
Department or have started doing in the Department since the
release of the strategy.
Mr. Mfume. Anyone else want to----
Mr. Langan. Yes, sir. At the FBI, we have surged our
resources to reflect the increased number of cases and threats
that we are seeing in the DT space. At one time after January
6th, we increased our resources over 260 percent to address
those threats. In addition, in 2019, we created a Hate Crimes-
DT Fusion Cell. So we continue to evaluate the threat in all 56
field offices individually to make sure that we are allocating
the appropriate resources regarding the threats and where they
are in each of our field offices, and then collaborating that
back here at headquarters.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much. I know it was alluded to
earlier about whether or not the level of interagency
cooperation was adequate or not. I want to go back to that, and
on the record here, can you give me, either of you or all of
you, some specific sense of how your agencies are working
together to improve interagency cooperation, which I think, and
I am sure all of you would agree, is absolutely essential in
terms of dealing with this problem?
Mr. Cohen. I speak weekly with the deputy director of the
FBI. Every call or briefing that we do with state and local
authorities or the private sector, we conduct in coordination
with the FBI. In particular, as we are in the process of
developing a public education campaign for school-age children
focusing on online resilience, we are working with the
Department of Education. We are working with the Justice
Department. We are working with the FBI. We have prevention
coordinators who are assigned across the country to work with
local communities. Most of those prevention coordinators are
co-located within the U.S. attorneys' offices for the
jurisdictions that they are operating within.
I would say that the level of coordination and cooperation,
particularly between the Justice Department, the FBI, and the
Department of Homeland Security, is probably the strongest that
I have seen in the many years that I have worked in government.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, my time has
expired. I want to thank you again for holding this hearing,
and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you for your questioning, Mr. Mfume.
I am going to come now to Mr. Donalds for his five minutes. I
just do want to restate that the committee rule about masks and
tell fellow members that on Monday, I had a call from the
Capitol physician--I was in a committee meeting; I don't know
if it was this committee or another--from the prior week where
a member of came down with COVID-19, and I had to go and be
tested. So it continues to be a real threat in the halls of
Congress.
Mr. Donalds, you are recognized for your five minutes.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad you are
healthy. I hope the other member that tested positive is
healthy as well. That member was vaccinated. Well, obviously
that is another issue for another day. Let's just get right to
it. Thanks for holding this hearing.
Obviously domestic terror in the United States is something
that is very important. We must take it seriously. There can be
no quarter for terrorism from anywhere, whether it is around
the globe or here at home, against anybody in our Nation. And I
think we all share that same vow of obligation to do everything
we can to stop it in its tracks, period, full stop. But I do
want to dig into some of the details. Mr. Langan, in the
domestic terrorist assessment, the March 2021 assessment, it
says domestic violence extremists are motivated by a range of
ideologies. At the FBI, do you actually have the ability today
to actually quantify the range of ideologies that exist?
Mr. Langan. Thank you, sir. We categorize them in five main
categories for domestic violence, and that is racially or
ethnically motivated violent extremists, anti-government/anti-
authority violent extremists, animal rights and environmental
violent extremists, abortion-related violent extremists, and
then a catch-all category are our overall categories that we
capture the domestic violent extremists in.
Mr. Donalds. OK. So you guys quantify them to specific, I
guess I will say, probably specific categories of politics, but
not political ideology?
Mr. Langan. Not politics, sir, but ideology that would
represent one of those. For example, within racially/ethnically
motivated, we could have subcategories for white supremacist-
driven or other ethnic groups that would be driving that. So
there is a way for us to capture it and we do.
Mr. Donalds. OK. My last point, and it is really an
important question for you. We are discussing white supremacy,
so I do want to bring up something or bring up somebody who was
deemed the black face of white supremacy, Mr. Larry Elder. He
was actually dubbed that by a columnist at the Los Angeles
Times. Ironically, while Mr. Elder was walking through a
neighborhood, he was attacked by a white person wearing a
gorilla mask who assaulted Mr. Elder. Does the FBI consider
that to be domestic terror and/or white supremacy?
Mr. Langan. Sir, I have to look at the specifics of the
case. So, in general, any acts of violence that are committed
against an individual----
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Langan, it was a very specific case.
Everybody saw it. Well, let me bring that back, Mr. Langan. I
apologize. Not everybody saw it----
Mr. Langan. It may be investigated locally.
Mr. Donalds. It actually wasn't really reported that
widely, so I will explain this scene, if you will. If there is
a Black man walking down the street who is running for the
Governor's mansion in the state of California, and a white
person in a gorilla mask assaults him on the street, does the
FBI consider that white supremacy and/or domestic terror?
Mr. Langan. So, again, any act of violence that would be
committed against an individual as a result of an ideology of
the individual. So we would have to look at the motivation of
that individually or possibly also a hate crime. We work with
the Department of Justice to identify the particulars.
Initially, on a case like that--again, it may be pursued right
now by the local officials--we would work heavily with our
local officials initially on identifying the fact patterns of
the investigation, again, as I mentioned, through our JTTFs and
quickly determine if we would be able to apply Federal law
against the individual on the investigation, and at least
provide investigative assistance.
Mr. Donalds. I appreciate that. I appreciate your candor.
And, you know, I really do want to thank you, the FBI, the
Department of Justice, and Homeland for your efforts to,
frankly, keep all Americans safe. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Donalds. I am coming
to my friend, Ms. Kelly, Robin Kelly, the distinguished
representative from Illinois.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations to
Ranking Member Mace. Congratulations to you.
In touting this counterterrorism strategy as a reset for
Federal counterterrorism policy, Administration officials have
often cited the fact that they will be taking a ``public health
approach to violence prevention'' that will involve a whole-of-
government and whole-of-society approach. The strategy states
that this will involve not only efforts from DHS and other
Federal law enforcement, but also ``community-facing
components'' of the Department of Justice, Health and Human
Services, and Education. Mr. Cohen, you have been an
instrumental player in formulating this new public health
approach to counterterrorism. What does the Administration mean
when it says it is taking a public health approach to
counterterrorism?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much for that question. It is an
important question. What the public health approach refers to
is that it brings together, on a multidisciplinary basis,
resources from across the community so that individuals who may
pose a risk to that community, based on behavioral health
issues, based on family issues, based on educational issues,
but they pose a risk of violence all the same, those
individuals can take part in services that address the
underlying issues that are perhaps responsible for them
traveling down the path of violence.
I will contrast it to the approach of countering violent
extremism back in 2012--2013 timeframe, which is an effort that
I was a part of, but as I look back in retrospect, I find that
we probably had some flawed assumptions that went into the
development of that strategy. And we certainly underestimated
the level of distrust that existed between communities of
color, in particular, Arab-American and Muslim communities and
government. And I think that strategy focused on the belief
that attackers came from specific communities, so we needed to
work with specific communities in order to have them support
efforts to prevent attacks by those people.
This approach recognizes that those who are engaging in
violence come from a broad cross-section of racial, ethnic,
socioeconomic elements of our community. It is not limited to a
specific community, and that oftentimes non-law enforcement
intervention strategies--mental health support has been
mentioned several times--that is a key part of this public
health strategy. But providing access to inpatient and
outpatient mental health support is an example of the type of
threat prevention activities that can be applied at the
community level.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. I agree that prevention programs that
focus more on increased access to social services and public
health are necessary steps toward a more effective Federal
response. Given that other agencies will be involved, what is
the precise role that DHS will play in helping to set up these
public health prevention programs that involve other non-law
enforcement agencies?
Mr. Cohen. A great question. So our primary role comes in
several areas. One is providing financial support through our
grant programs so that planning activities and the types of
activities that we were just discussing that are proven to be
effective in reducing the risk posed by individuals or groups
of individuals can leverage grant funds provided by the
Department. We also work closely with the Justice Department
and the FBI through the Behavioral Analysis Unit. We work with
the Secret Service through the National Threat Assessment
Center. We work with representatives from various, you know,
mental health-related organizations to provide training and
technical assistance in the area of threat assessment and
threat management, making sure that local communities have the
ability to bring together, on a multidisciplinary basis, the
right skill sets to assess whether somebody who is exhibiting
behavioral characteristics associated with threat-related
activity, to assess whether they pose a risk, and then to
develop a plan to assess that risk.
Ms. Kelly. Let me just interrupt you----
Mr. Cohen. Sure.
Ms. Kelly [continuing]. Just quickly because my time is
running out. What do you say to some of the criticism that you
are getting as far as mixing law enforcement agencies or
intertwining these with public health agencies?
Mr. Cohen. I think it is a valid concern, and we work very
hard to, one, make sure that we have the right interagency
partners that can come together to help develop these
solutions. But also we are very focused on reestablishing or
rebuilding, or, in some places, establishing for the first
time, trust between the Department, and community
organizations, and community members that may not have a lot of
trust or not be willing to communicate with the Department.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. I am out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Representative Kelly, thank you so much for
questioning. I go now to my friend, Mr. Higgins from Louisiana.
Mr. Higgins. I thank the chairman and the ranking member
for convening this hearing today, and I am going to ask the
chairman to perhaps consider engaging in my line of
questioning, if I have time. I am happy to yield time, or
perhaps he could use his authority as chair to comment because
it may surprise America to know that that you, Chairman Raskin,
and I have cultivated a very respectful friendship over the
course of five years, and we have had many deep and meaningful
discussions regarding our Constitution and the rights and
freedoms of the citizenry that we serve. And today we have
before us, Chairman, the Department of Homeland Security, the
FBI, and the Department of Justice to inquire regarding the
Biden Administration's National Strategy to Combat Domestic
Terrorism.
And I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that in this era of
enhanced scrutiny that the citizenry is subject to, as
government attempts to further secure our Nation and our
homeland, which is indeed a righteous role, I am concerned
about oppression, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, Americans face
many, many levels and types of government intrusion into our
lives, and that is a debate for another day, regarding the
vaccination mandates, restrictions on assembly, and freedom to
travel the land, public condemnation, public shaming. It
doesn't really reflect, to many of us looking upon this and
witnessing this and feeling this, it doesn't feel like America.
We actually feel an oppressive government boot upon our throat,
and America has the right to express strong national views
So, Mr. Wiegmann, the President's strategy, the National
Strategy to Combat Domestic Terrorism, states that the
Administration will respect that civil rights, and civil
liberties, and privacy protections are constitutionally
guaranteed protections and freedoms. However, we have seen over
the years, with the implementation of the PATRIOT Act, that
data collection and usage of that data can sometimes be very
shady, and we do indeed feel that that our privacy has been
infringed upon and our constitutional rights and protections
have been trod upon. So how does the Department plan to
increase its scrutiny? We have heard ``threat assessment,'' as
it has been described, as a main focus of this strategy to
target Americans that may express strong national views, and we
have the right to express strong national views. So, Mr.
Wiegmann, how does your Department plan to balance this?
Mr. Wiegmann. So as I mentioned earlier, it is a core
aspect of both the strategy and the Department's policy that we
need to and must, as we try to protect Americans from the
threats that we have all talked about today, that we do so in a
way that that respects privacy and civil liberties. I know the
Attorney General is committed, and all of us at DOJ and FBI are
committed, to upholding the rights of all Americans as we try
to fight domestic terrorism, and that means that there are
limits on how we conduct our investigations. We as----
Mr. Higgins. Right, good sir. If I may interject in the
interest of time, our founders intended as Article III was
drafted that the innocence of every citizen should be the
primary focus. And indeed, it was clearly stated during the
founders' debates as our Constitution was born and the actual
writ was determined, they acknowledged that they would rather
see a guilty man walk free than an innocent man be convicted
and incarcerated. How does your policy, as you intend to
implement it, increase scrutiny and surveillance of American
citizens? How can you balance that? How can you guarantee that?
We cannot sit by as a Congress and as constitutionalist
servants to the people and allow our Nation to become a
surveillance state, so you have a very delicate balance to
maintain, a thin line. Please address my question, sir.
Mr. Wiegmann. Well, you are right. It is a balance. It is a
balance that we are striking every day at DOJ as we undertake
our investigations, as we determine whether a search is
appropriate, as we determine whether opening an investigation
is appropriate, and what I can tell you is that it is a core
value at DOJ and FBI. I can't say that we are always perfect in
how we strike that balance, but it is something that we work on
very hard every day to make sure that we are following the
rules that we have set forth, both in the statutes that
Congress has given us to investigate criminal activity and in
the policies that we have adopted, over and above that, to make
sure that we are respecting fundamental privacy rights and
constitutional rights. So that is a critical issue for us. You
are right to raise it, and it is something that we have to work
out on a daily basis.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, good sir, for your response. Mr.
Chairman, thank you for your kindness and your accommodation.
My time is expired. I yield.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Higgins, for your very
thoughtful questioning. I know you speak for millions of
Americans across the political spectrum in wanting to ensure
that Americans civil rights and civil liberties are not
sacrificed by the government in the creation of a surveillance
state, at the same time that we are doing everything we can to
protect ourselves against terrorist violence. So we have had a
staff briefing for both the majority and minority staff with
the FBI on the need for oversight on their assessment
investigations, so this is a matter that we clearly are all
focused on. And we have been in touch with the ranking member,
Ms. Mace, about pursuing this very question. OK. Thank you.
And I will now come to Ms. Pressley, the gentlelady from
Massachusetts, for her five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairman Raskin. I really
appreciate your continuing the series of hearings on how we
confront violent white supremacy. The Federal Government
certainly has a significant role to play in deterring and
ending domestic terrorism at the hands of violent white
supremacists. And confronting this threat, I believe, requires
law enforcement agencies to recognize how they have contributed
to the harm, destabilization, and trauma of Black and brown
communities.
In recent years we have seen white supremacists commit
massacres that target people of color, religious minorities,
and others, from Charleston, South Carolina, to Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, to El Paso, Texas, to the city of Winthrop in my
own home state of Massachusetts. The surge of violent organized
white supremacy knows no bounds and has claimed the lives of
far too many of our neighbors. Moreover, Federal law
enforcement has a well-documented history of attacking these
same communities. The truth is racial and religious profiling
and counterterrorism has disproportionately targeted
marginalized communities, including Muslims, Sikhs, immigrants,
and Black people. As the Biden Administration is crafting a
more effective domestic counterterrorism policy, we have to not
lose sight of the fact that the victims of these violent
incidents come overwhelmingly from marginalized communities.
Mr. Langan, the FBI is responsible for tracking these
domestic terrorism threats across the country. Would you agree
that as we see a rise and domestic terrorist incidents, that we
also see an increase in the surveillance and the targeting of
communities of color being targeted? Yes or no.
Mr. Langan. So I agree we have definitely seen a rise of
those domestic terrorism cases, and as such, we continue, as we
brought up on the last point, also continue to be very focused
on ensuring that we are addressing the civil rights needs. It
is part of a two-part process, a two-mission----
Ms. Pressley. I am sorry. Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Langan.
I am sorry. I just want to make sure you understand my
question. I am just going to reclaim my time, and it is just a
``yes'' or ``no'' question. As we see an increase in domestic
terrorist incidents, do we also see an increase in the
targeting and the surveillance of communities of color? Yes or
no?
Mr. Langan. No, I am not seeing that as far as my data is
showing me.
Ms. Pressley. Without objection, I would like to enter into
the record, Mr. Chair, a study from the Brennan Center titled,
``Countering Violent Extremism in the Trump Era,'' which
estimates that 85 percent of countering violent extremist
grants and over half of the programs targeted minority groups.
[No response.]
Ms. Pressley. Mr. Chair?
[No response.]
Ms. Pressley. OK. I assume that is accepted without
objection.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. [Presiding.] Without objection, it is
accepted.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Ms. Pressley. In the district I represent, the
Massachusetts 7th, Somali immigrants living in Roxbury are
directly targeted. Across the country, we see Muslims, Black
Lives Matter activists, LGBTQ folks, refugees, and others that
are also targeted and subjected to heightened surveillance.
These communities are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic
terrorism, not the perpetrators. Mr. Cohen, how will the new
Federal strategy encourage DHS to emphasize the protection,
rather than the surveillance, of these marginalized
communities?
Mr. Cohen. So, Congresswoman, let me just first say, as I
alluded to earlier, I agree that there were issues with the CVE
Program, and in many respects, one of the big issues that we
found is that we underestimated the amount of distrust between
communities of color, and, in particular, Arab-American and
American Muslim communities and law enforcement. There was a
perception that the CVE Program, which was started with good
intentions, was mainly a subterfuge to facilitate surveillance
of communities of color, Arab-American and Muslim communities.
That is why we have done away with it. That is why the approach
that we are taking in the Biden Administration is antithetical
to the approach that we took as part of the Countering Violent
Extremism Program.
To the second part of your question, we have work to do. I
spend a lot of my time each week reaching out and working with
state and local law enforcement, but I probably spend an equal
amount of time meeting with groups like the Brennan Center,
civil rights/civil liberties organizations, advocacy groups,
faith-based organizations----
Ms. Pressley. Excuse me. I am sorry. I am running out of
time. I am going to reclaim my time for a moment. Mr. Cohen, as
we close here, can you share an example, since you are having
those broader discussions, of how the counterterrorism strategy
has been altered because of feedback that you have received
directly from community stakeholders who have traditionally
been targeted?
Mr. Cohen. Yes. We have been asked to specifically focus on
funding community-based programs that are organized and managed
at the community level versus having them organized from
Washington or by law enforcement organizations.
Ms. Pressley. Well, it is good to hear about those efforts
to engage with those vulnerable communities, and nevertheless,
these same communities who are targets of domestic terrorism,
they do still appear to be the main focus of many intrusive
Federal efforts. It is unacceptable for communities of color to
bear the brunt of white supremacist violence at the hands of
domestic terrorists, and to then be disproportionately targeted
by Federal law enforcement in response to domestic terrorism.
So, you know, I look forward to these ongoing conversations as
you are recalibrating a strategy here. And thank you for, you
know, a commitment to recognize that violent white supremacy is
a systemic threat to our Nation, to our democracy, and
specifically to marginalized communities.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, and I yield.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, and the chair now
recognizes Representative Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to yield
the balance of my time to the distinguished ranking member, Ms.
Mace.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Congressman Comer. Mr. Langan, earlier
this morning when Congressman Donalds was speaking, you
mentioned in the FBI and domestic terrorism, there are these
subcategories of domestic terrorism: racial, anti-government,
animal, environmental, abortion, and catch-all. I think those
are what I heard. Under the anti-government category or
subcategory of domestic terrorism, would that include groups
like antifa or Black Lives Matter folks who commit violence or
acts of domestic terrorism?
Mr. Langan. Well, we don't identify groups, but
individuals' action. So if individuals are committing actions
that would be in furtherance of anti-government or anarchist
ideals, then they would fall into that category.
Ms. Mace. So would you quantify antifa as an anarchist
group then under that subcategory? I mean, it is an anarchist
group, right, or related?
Mr. Langan. There are individuals--I think the director
previously described them as a movement--and there have been
individuals that have associated or identified with antifa that
have conducted violent acts that we would categorize as
anarchist.
Ms. Mace. How many acts of violence or domestic terrorism
has antifa committed over the last two years?
Mr. Langan. Since we don't categorize antifa, nor do we
collate information regarding antifa, that movement, we don't
have that, but we could provide you information on anarchist
threats and cases in general.
Ms. Mace. How many open cases of anarchist violence and
domestic terrorism have occurred over the last two years?
Mr. Langan. Can you hear me now?
Ms. Mace. Yes.
Mr. Langan. OK. So we have as far as arrest activities for
the anti-government, anti-authority, we have 75 total arrests,
and within that would be the anti-government, 36 being of anti-
government and 21 being militia violence. That is all part of
our anti-government authority.
Ms. Mace. OK. Interesting. I mean, antifa is real. It is
not a myth. I have been a victim of some of the anarchist
antifa type of activity, violence, whatever you want to call
it. I even had my house spray painted this summer. Democrats
told me it wasn't Antifa. It was anarchy. I don't really know
the difference. I have one more question at the end for Mr.
Cohen, and really appreciate all of your testimoneys this
morning, and I want to thank each and every one of you for
being here today, but discuss the importance of working with
Federal, state and local, tribal, and territorial law
enforcement partners and agencies. This partnership is
immensely critical to protecting all of our communities from
terrorism, domestic and foreign, racially motivated or
otherwise. But I am dismayed by the recent push by many on the
left to defund the police and slash law enforcement budgets and
personnel at a time when crime is clearly on the rise. Mr.
Cohen, do you believe defunding state, local, tribal, and
territorial partners, law enforcement agencies is going to help
solve our domestic terrorism problem? Yes or no?
Mr. Cohen. I mean, I was a police officer. I am proud of my
profession. I think law enforcement has a critically important
role to play in protecting our communities, whether it be from
crime or terrorism. Law enforcement agencies also have to
behave in a non-discriminatory manner to be----
Ms. Mace. Mr. Cohen, do you believe that defunding state
and local police funding is going to help solve domestic
terror? Yes or no?
Mr. Cohen. No, we need police.
Ms. Mace. Is there any scenario where defunding the police
would prevent the next Dylann Roof?
Mr. Cohen. I would just go back to what I said before. I
think law enforcement plays a critical role in preventing acts
of domestic terrorism.
Ms. Mace. I believe the answer is no. I want to thank you
all for your time today. Mr. Chairman, I am shocked by the few
arrests that we have in cases open regarding antifa. I would
like to request unanimous consent that the following documents
be entered into the record: the first, an article from the Post
and Courier detailing vandalism committed at my home by
anarchists and antifa-related individuals allegedly based on
the symbolism and the comments made on my home at the time; an
article from The Wall Street Journal showing $840 million in
cuts to police budgets last year; an article from The New York
Times explaining that there were 300 Federal protest cases
involving mostly arson or assaulting police officers.
Mr. Raskin.[Presiding.] Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Ms. Mace, and we were, of
course, very sorry to learn about the vandalism that took place
at your home. And I want to submit for the record and, I think
in answer to some of the questions you are raising, a 2020
report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
which will reflect the number of political murders committed in
the country[SA3][SA4] The report reflects that since 1994, far-
right domestic extremists murdered 329 Americans in violent
attacks. The report reflects no murders committed by antifa
during that 25-year timeframe. Since the report was released,
though, we did find one killing linked to antifa, the
perpetrator of which--his name is Michael Reinoehl--was killed
by law enforcement shortly after the murder took place. But
without objection, we will enter that one into the record.
Mr. Raskin. And I am delighted now to go to the
representative of the District of Columbia, Representative
Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this
important series of hearings. As we discuss the
Administration's decision on domestic terrorist threats, it is
important to look at what kind of domestic violent extremism
most threatens Americans. I would, therefore, Mr. Chairman,
like to enter into the record this New York Times report from
February 2021. It details how the Trump Administration's
obsession with antifa hindered Federal law enforcement's
attempts to counter the rising tide of right-wing violence.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Norton. This is a question for Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen,
the report details how personnel and other resources were
diverted from investigations into white supremacist and far-
right anti-government groups to satisfy President Trump's
desire to target so-called antifa activists. May I ask you, Mr.
Cohen, how does the Biden Administration's new strategy help to
better equip the Federal Government in its fight against white
supremacist and other far-right violence? Specifically, I am
interested in how this strategy seeks to address the
intelligence and information-sharing failures that preceded the
insurrection.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think it seeks to
address it in several ways. One, the guidance is very clear.
Our responsibility is to work with Federal, state, and local
organizations to prevent acts of violence. We shouldn't be
prioritizing one over the other simply because of the political
beliefs or the ideological beliefs associated with those who
are in elected service. We should be focusing, in an objective,
threat-based way, on those individuals and groups, regardless
of their ideological belief system, that are planning acts of
violence.
What the strategy also does is it builds a toolbox that can
be used not only at the national level, but it expands the
toolbox that can be used at the community level in order to
address emerging threats within those communities that are
posed by those who embrace extremist ideological beliefs. It
also prioritizes the sharing of information not only between
Federal authorities and state and local authorities, but also
with community organizations, educators, others, and the tech
sector, and those who conduct analysis and research into
emerging trends in the online space, because, as we talked
about before, the fuel for a lot of this violence comes through
the consumption of online content that's specifically placed
there by individuals who are seeking to inspire acts of
violence.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. In this hearing, I think it has
already been clear that the preeminent terrorist threat facing
our country comes from white supremacist extremists and far-
right militia extremists. This really shouldn't be a
controversial notion. So I would like to introduce this data
analysis by The Washington Post, which shows that since 2015
the number of terrorist plot that is by far-right groups dwarfs
those by left-wing groups, 267 to 66. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Langan, in March, the FBI director,
Christopher Wray, reiterated that there is no evidence that
left-wing groups were linked to the attack on the Capitol, but
said that the individuals there were tied to white supremacy
and right-wing militia extremism. Mr. Langan, has any evidence
come to light in the intervening months to change that
assessment?
Mr. Langan. Well, ma'am, we continue to investigate the
actions and the crimes of January 6th. As of today, there have
been over 600 arrests made and over 1,400 investigations into
it. And we look at the individual actors as that, individuals
for each of those occurrences, and don't overlay one baseline
over any one of those individual subjects on what their
motivation is. And it requires an investigation into each one
to determine what their individual ideology was to motivate
them toward the act of violence or to commit Federal crimes.
Mr. Raskin. And, Representative Norton, a technical snafu.
You actually were given a couple extra minutes, but in
deference to you, I will give you one more question if you
would be willing to take that.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is
really for Mr. Cohen. I am sorry, Mr. Langan. Mr. Langan, do
you agree with the director of national intelligence's March
2021 conclusion that white supremacist extremism and military
extremists are our ``most lethal'' threats? Mr. Langan?
Mr. Langan. You know, as I said earlier, the most lethal
threat is that posed by lone actors that have an ideology that
both support HVEs and DVEs. Regarding the issues, regarding
military, you know, we work closely with our partnerships on
identifying individuals within any positions of trust, to
investigate vigorously individuals that may be radicalizing
their views and those positions. So as far as the racially
motivated violent extremists of the white supremacist
categories, we have the most investigations and the most amount
of subjects involving that categorization.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
expired. Thank you, Ms. Norton, and I come now to the vice
chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chairman Raskin. You
know, in a 2006 bulletin, the FBI detailed the threat of white
nationalists infiltrating police departments, a coordinated
effort. This bulletin came during a time when a neo-Nazi gang,
formed by members of the L.A. Sheriff's Department, were found
harassing Black and brown communities. And while this was about
15 years ago, according to recent reporting from The New York
Times in addition to PBS, it is found that despite those
efforts, it doesn't look like things have improved. And I would
like to submit both of these documents to the record.
Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Police officers have been dismissed
across the United States, including Virginia, Texas, Florida,
Michigan, Nebraska, and Louisiana, for having ties to the Ku
Klux Klan. And we also know that more than 30 active or retired
police officers joined the January 6th attack on the Capitol,
and at least seven are facing charges connected to that day.
Director Langan, I take it you are familiar with this 2006
bulletin, correct?
Mr. Langan. I may have to review that bulletin, ma'am, to
recall it exactly.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. No worries. To your knowledge, what do
we know about the radicalization efforts among certain officers
already in police departments and the effort to recruit white
nationalists joining police departments across the United
States?
Mr. Langan. Yes, ma'am. Well, as I mentioned before,
individuals that are in positions of trust, and have
radicalized ideas, and gravitate toward hate and violence are
very concerning as they have always been. We work with our
local partners very closely to help identify and to educate
their departments on proper vetting and on standards of
acceptance, so we are constantly working to try to make sure
that that does not exist. I can speak that an overwhelming
amount of law enforcement interactions that we have with the
FBI are positive, and that does represent a very, very small
amount of law enforcement, but an amount that can never be
tolerated.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. One aspect of the Biden
Administration's counterterrorism strategy is the focus on
detecting these insider threats; that is, ensuring that no one
in state or Federal law enforcement abuses their position by
engaging in domestic terrorism-related activities of any kind.
Now, what happens when the FBI does find instances of white
nationalists in local law enforcement? What does the FBI do?
Mr. Langan. Well, if the individuals are part of an ongoing
or conducting or plan to conduct any type of criminal actions,
we would, along with the U.S. Attorney's Office, try to open
investigation and determine whether or not there are charges.
If the individual is showing that they have memberships of a
group that may be deemed to be a racist or a group that is
focused on hate, that becomes the departmental issue on how
they will proceed with that employee.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. So it sounds like there isn't a
protocol for what to do when a police officer is found to be
part of a white supremacist organization.
Mr. Langan. No, ma'am, there is no central method to notify
the FBI about violent extremism, again, stressing the
importance of partnership between local law enforcement and the
FBI and DHS.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. Perfect. That is something that I
just would like the committee to note, that there is no
currently existing protocol of what to do when a member of law
enforcement is discovered to be part of an organization like
the Ku Klux Klan, but this is very important information. I
thank you for your candor. Now, during a briefing in March of
this year, the FBI did promise to provide this subcommittee
with information on how we could set up a reporting structure
that would give Federal law enforcement capability to track
white supremacist threats between state and local police. Now,
despite multiple efforts to followup, we have yet to receive a
reply. Can we get a commitment to securing that answer on this
as quickly as possible from the Department?
Mr. Langan. Ma'am, I will look into that and get back with
your office. I recently took this post, but I will look into
those requests----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Sure.
Mr. Langan [continuing]. And get back with your office.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, Mr. Cohen, the committee is
currently investigating an incident of CBP's response to a
massive Facebook group of thousands of CBP officers where many
posted violent racist content, including mocking the deaths of
migrants and threatening Members of Congress. Just last week,
we saw agents violently confronting and whipping Haitian
migrants. So, in light of this latest incident, how does
Secretary Mayorkas plan to accelerate efforts to root out
incidents of violent racism within DHS' ranks?
Mr. Cohen. So the Secretary has instructed the Office of
Security as well as the Human Capital Office and others to do
several things: one, to evaluate, through the Insider Threat
Program, whether there are open investigations into domestic
violent extremist behavior by our employees, to review our
hiring practices and our employee practices to ensure that
domestic violent extremists' ideological beliefs are not
influencing the decisionmaking of personnel working within the
Department of Homeland Security. And I would say as someone who
spent 35-plus years in law enforcement and homeland security,
the exercise of law enforcement responsibilities have to be
free from discriminatory practices. Decisionmaking can't be
based on implicit or unconscious biases of individuals or the
organization, quite frankly. And even the perception that
individuals who are holding positions of public trust,
particularly those who enforce our laws, even the perception
that they hold racially biased or extremist attitudes can
undermine faith and confidence in those organizations. So it is
a significant concern for the Department, and the Secretary has
instructed a very aggressive effort to address it.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much.
Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady yields back. Let's see. Is Mr.
Biggs present? He is not. OK. I am going to go to the
gentlelady from Detroit, Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, for your five
minutes of questioning.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman. My first question
is to Assistant Director Langan. Do you have any evidence that
antifa formally exists as an organization?
Mr. Langan. Ma'am, we do not look into domestic
organizations, so I don't have further data----
Ms. Tlaib. So there is no evidence that antifa is an
organization in our country.
Mr. Langan. I can't speak to that, ma'am.
Ms. Tlaib. OK. Now that I got that a little bit clearer
here, I am very concerned about an exception that gives way for
systemic, I think, targeting, I believe, in black Muslim and
immigrant communities, which I believe is dangerous and can
pull resources away from real dangers in our country. The
strategy document produced by the Biden Administration
maintains an exception in 2014 through the Department of
Justice's guidance that permits racial or ethnic profiling in
cases of ``national security'' or ``border investigation.''
We know that hundreds of documents show that the Department
of Homeland Security used its powers to collect information of
Black Lives Matter activists for years since the protests in
Ferguson, Missouri after the murder of Michael Brown. Just last
summer, DHS used aircraft to monitor Black Lives Matter
protests in at least 15 cities across the country. Isn't that
right, Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Congresswoman, I wasn't at the Department at
that time, so I have no insights regarding those activities.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, I think it is racist, unacceptable, and
must end. I would like to turn to another element of the
strategy document that deeply concerns me and concerns many
civil liberties attorneys as well as advocates: the focus on
how suspected potential domestic terrorists increasingly
utilize social media and other internet forums to organize.
Under existing rules, the FBI may conduct online surveillance
assessments without a factual predicate or something of
criminal wrongdoing. So this invasive type of what they call
proto-investigation has been used by the FBI to target black
civil rights activists. And given the FBI's lax attitude toward
white supremacist infiltration of our law enforcement that my
good colleague from New York brought up, it raises very serious
civil liberties concerns.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit an article, this
article by former FBI Agent Michael German explaining----
Mr. Raskin. Yes, indeed. Without----
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, without objection.
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. Explaining how the FBI has abused
its investigative powers. I would like to add that in just the
past few years, you all, FBI, conducted an intelligence
operation called ``The Iron Fist'' that prioritized
surveillance of so-called ``black identity extremists'' over
increasingly active and violent white supremacist groups. I am
going to repeat that. They are using more resources to go
toward a so-called Iron Fist Program of some sort against black
identity extremists over active violent white supremacist
groups in our country. So, Mr. Langan, yes or no, has Iron Fist
or similar programs used to target black activists for
surveillance been totally dismantled under the current
Administration? Yes or no.
Mr. Langan. Ma'am, I have to look into the aspects of that
investigation, but as far as when it comes to First Amendment
freedom of activity, the FBI vehemently defends the civil
liberties of Americans. And it is part of our dual-pronged
approach of both protecting Americans and also protecting their
rights.
Ms. Tlaib. So Assistant Director, is the FBI currently
conducting any surveillance right now of the Black Lives Matter
movement?
Mr. Langan. Ma'am, for one, I can't speak to current
ongoing investigations, but we only would focus surveillance on
individuals that we believe are going to be involved in or
promoting violence against other individuals.
Ms. Tlaib. So you don't know if the Iron Fist is still
active, this so-called Iron Fist program of some sort. Is that
active right now at the FBI?
Mr. Langan. I can look into it, ma'am, and we will
definitely get back to your office.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may, the FBI's action
in this so-called black identity extremist program at best
indirectly aided white supremacy in our country and put many of
us in danger and continues to endanger our country. So time and
time again, we give the FBI another chance to right its wrongs,
and time and time again, it proves itself incapable of acting
as an organization without racial bias. The failure, really,
truly, specifically, to address these issues in this strategy
document itself requires Congress to consider whether it must
act on its own to codify safeguards to prevent a reoccurrence
of this kind of discriminatory overreach we saw in prior errors
of counterterrorism.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this critically important
hearing, and I yield.
Mr. Raskin. I thank the gentlelady for her remarks. We will
go to Mrs. Lawrence, who is recognized for five minutes, for
her questioning.
[No response.]
Mr. Raskin. Is Mrs. Lawrence there?
[No response.]
Mr. Raskin. I think you have to unmute, Mrs. Lawrence.
[No response.]
Mr. Raskin. Do we need to unmute her?
Mrs. Lawrence. I am unmuted. Thank you. Thank you for your
patience. Thank you so much for this hearing, and I have a few
questions. When we talk about the investigations, I want to
followup on the questions that my colleague, Representative
Tlaib, just mentioned. I want to ask, when you say you don't
know if it is ongoing or if it is happening, given the FBI's
most recent data release on hate crimes, how is the Department
of Justice working to resolve hate crimes, some of which
qualify as acts of domestic terrorism? Can you either of you
speak to what is being done to address the rise in hate crimes,
because all the data is pointing to that?
Mr. Langan. For the FBI, ma'am, I can address that to an
extent. In 2019, the FBI created a Hate Crimes-Domestic
Terrorism Fusion Cell because of the overlap with domestic
terrorism ideologies that also incorporate hate and hate crimes
against individuals. Hate crimes alone is under our Criminal
Investigative Division, but being that we are exceptionally
concerned about the rise in hate crimes and the influence that
individuals with ideologies have to promote hate crimes and
continue, that is one way that we are actively and proactively
trying to mitigate that threat from the Bureau.
Mrs. Lawrence. So, when we talk about hate crimes, and we
know that some of them are actually acts of domestic terrorism,
does the FBI send that somewhere else? What happens when you
see that connection?
Mr. Langan. Yes, ma'am. So several things happen. The FBI
would start the investigation, and then we, of course, try to
determine the scope and extent of the investigation, if there
are others involved, the motivation of the individuals that
act. And there is nothing that keeps us from having a
categorization that captures it both as a domestic terrorism
act and also a hate crime as well. As far as if it falls on the
crime side, it is more particularly motivated by that
offender's bias toward a person, and the domestic terrorism
side, more along social-political goals and views. Again, we
see that sometimes those overlap, and the important thing is
that the FBI never lets that victim fall through the cracks.
They are covered by multiple layers of investigative resources
and then in the outcome with what the United States Attorney's
Office feels is the best charge aging mechanism, and then
follows up on that.
Mr. Wiegmann. If I could just jump in on that. That is
absolutely right from the Department of Justice perspective. We
in the National Security Division work very closely with our
colleagues in the Civil Rights Division who oversee hate crimes
charges. Some acts, for example, the Dylann Roof attack in
Charleston several years ago, was both an act of domestic
terrorism and qualified as a hate crime. I believe it was
prosecuted under hate crimes charges because those are deemed
the most effective way of addressing the threat. So we just
decide on a charge based on what is going to be most effective
in dealing with the threat. I also want to mention that the
Attorney General has appointed a hate crimes coordinator to
centralize all those efforts----
Mrs. Lawrence. Oh, that's fantastic.
Mr. Wiegmann. All of the Department's efforts to combat
hate crimes, and starting October 1, so just in a few days, the
FBI is elevating hate crimes and criminal civil rights
violations to its highest national level threat priority. And
we have also launched a national anti-hate crimes campaign
involving FBI field offices all across the country to encourage
reporting of hate crimes and hate crimes incidents. So I wanted
to give you some updates on what we are doing in that area.
Mrs. Lawrence. Just to give a personal analysis, for me,
being an identifiable black woman in America, hate crimes are
often, to me, not identified so, but when it is done for
religious or other groups, it is immediately identified as a
hate crime. And I would love to have some conversations with
the new appointee on hate crimes. The last question is how can
the Federal Government law enforcement work with community
partners to combat white supremacy and hate crimes? To give you
an example, our faith-based organizations often are immediately
involved when there are hate crimes and when there are
synagogues, and churches, or temples, because we are uniquely
connected to our community. How can you better work with these
community partners and give us some input on how we can combat
white supremacy and hate crimes.
Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady's time has expired, but please
answer the question.
Mr. Langan. Ma'am, I will answer it quickly. From the FBI
standpoint, the building of trust between our government and
communities that are affected by these horrible crimes is of
utmost concern to the FBI. I know in every one of our field
offices, we have community outreach specialists and extremely
robust programs that conduct outreach to those exact groups
that you are talking about, faith-based organizations,
organizations that focus on at-risk individuals. And we have
direct communication and contact with and strategies on how to,
one, bolster that trust and also how to strengthen those
relationships and reporting mechanisms. So it is of great
concern, and I agree with you. Those are the avenues that we
need to take to combine our efforts of government efforts along
with social efforts.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your questioning, Mrs.
Lawrence. And I come now to Congressman Davis and recognize him
for his five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for
holding this very important hearing. And I also want to thank
certainly all of the witnesses for their testimony. I have been
listening intently, and I can tell you that I think the
information and concepts that are being shared are very
important, and so I consider this to be a very important
hearing.
Racism and white supremacist ideologies are a cancer on our
society and a clear threat to the Nation's security. Racism
underlies much of the domestic terrorism that we face each and
every day. I am deeply concerned that racially motivated
extremists and militia and anti-government extremists are
becoming inextricably intertwined into a form of ethno-
nationalistic extremism that this country has not seen since
the fall of Jim Crow. I am pleased that combatting racism is
one of the central tenets of the National Strategy for
Countering Domestic Terrorism, specifically the fourth pillar
which states, and I will quote, ``Tackling the threat posed by
domestic terrorism over the long-term demands substantial
efforts to confront the racism that feeds into aspects of that
threat.''
And so, Mr. Cohen, I hope you can provide some clarity on
the Department's efforts to confront racism as part of the
national strategy. Let me ask you what efforts, if any, has the
DHS made to prioritize rooting out racism and bigotry in its
programs and policies, and has DHS developed any programs to
combat racism through education and research? And if so, how
does this plan expect to be measured?
Mr. Cohen. Thanks, Congressman. Very difficult question
that you just asked. So a central element of our efforts to
deal with domestic terrorism focus on the work of our Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties Office that works with communities
across the country in order to identify ways the Department can
improve, one, the way it operates to ensure that we carry out
our mission in a non-discriminatory manner. We also work
closely with communities of color across the country to
understand their concerns, to address their needs, to establish
lines of communication, to start rebuilding a relationship of
trust between the Department, the Department's operational
elements, and those communities. One other way, real quickly,
is the work that we are doing with regard to online activity.
In today's age, much of the fuel that drives the spread of
racist ideological beliefs occurs online, and building
resilience, particularly amongst our young people, to those
hateful messages of racism is another part of the efforts under
way at the Department.
Mr. Davis. Well, let me ask you quickly, are there other
agencies inside the government that DHS is working with to help
facilitate movement of these plans and actions?
Mr. Cohen. On confronting racism, it is a discussion that
is being driven by the White House through the Domestic Policy
Council. We work with the rest of the government. What I would
like to be able to do, with your indulgence, is to get back to
your office with some more specificity on how exactly we are
doing that.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate your
testimony. I appreciate your answers. And, Mr. Chairman, again,
I do think this is a very important hearing, and I thank you
very much for your leadership.
Mr. Raskin. Well, and, Mr. Davis, thank you for your very
thoughtful questioning and for your comments. I just have a few
final questions I would like to ask Mr. Cohen, and I am happy
to yield to the ranking member of she had any lingering
questions she wanted to clean up.
First of all, Mr. Cohen, in May, we as a subcommittee
requested documents and information from the Department of
Homeland Security about how it has analyzed the threat of far-
right militia extremism, including its connection to white
supremacist groups. We still have not heard back on this
inquiry. I am wondering if you could commit to working with us
to get a response as quickly as you could.
Mr. Cohen. Yes. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raskin. I appreciate that. And then I wanted to ask you
a final substantive question, which is, I guess all of you
witnesses have remarked upon the linkage between disinformation
and propaganda and the incitement of terrorist activity and
violence. And I am just wondering if you would speak to the
problem of mainstream political leaders, or leaders identified
with the mainstream of American political culture, trafficking
in disinformation or propaganda that gives aid and support to
the movements of violent white supremacy.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, that is an important question, and
if you will indulge me for a moment I would like to place my
answer into context. As I look at the threat environment after
spending over 35 years working in this field, I equate it to a
perfect storm. On the one hand, we are a Nation that has become
deeply divided, polarized. People tend to view those who hold
opposing opinions to their own as the enemy. We have far too
people who are angry about their plight in life or angry about
how they view the state of the Nation, and we have far too many
people in this country who view violence as a legitimate way in
which to express that anger. The fractures in our country run
deep, whether it is on immigration, our response to COVID,
issues of race, the role of government, the integrity of our
election process, and credibility in our government. These are
issues that our Nation is deeply divided about.
Our adversaries know this, and they seek to exploit those
fractures in our society by spreading false narratives,
conspiracy theories, disinformation in an effort to sow
discord, inspire acts of violence, undermine confidence in our
government structure, weaken our relationship with our friends
and allies abroad, and destabilize our Nation. So when public
figures, and this is really important because these narratives
are typically introduced on discreet, small platforms, whether
it is by a foreign intelligence service, an international
terrorist group, or domestic terror organization. They will
introduce these narratives onto small platforms in discreet
discrete communities in the hopes that they will be amplified
and eventually introduced into the mainstream ecosystem.
So when public figures, whether they be in the media, or
they are elected officials, or former elected officials,
amplify and spread those narratives, they validate them. And
when they validate them, they increase the potential that an
individual who is vulnerable to being influenced, vulnerable to
being influenced to commit an act of violence, will see this as
a legitimate rationale for committing an act of violence. So in
a sense, when these disinformation narratives are amplified by
public figures, it not only supports our adversaries, but it
brings more volatility to the threat environment.
Mr. Raskin. I appreciate very much the lucidity of your
response there. I assume there is not too much that you as law
enforcement officials can do about that, but you are at least
blowing the whistle on a really important and disturbing trend.
If I am reading you correctly, we do have foreign adversaries
who try to exploit political and social fractures in our
country by injecting disinformation and propaganda that then
can be picked up, and further deepen and exacerbate those
conflicts. I appreciate that. And I don't know, Ms. Mace, if
you had any final questions you wanted to ask?
Ms. Mace.[Inaudible.]
Mr. Raskin. Well, with that then, I want to thank all of
our witnesses for a really tremendous hearing, and I want to
thank all the members of the committee for participating.
Members will have, let's see, how many days? Without
objection, all members have five legislative days within which
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the
chair, and we will forward them to the witnesses for their
response. We ask you to respond as quickly as you can if you
would.
And I just want to thank you all for your service to the
country. At this moment of democracy under threat in many
different ways, your work is absolutely essential, and we look
forward to continuing to work closely with you in the future to
further fortify and solidify America's democratic institutions.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]