[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      CONFRONTING WHITE SUPREMACY
                      (PART VII): THE EVOLUTION OF
                    ANTI-DEMOCRATIC EXTREMIST GROUPS
                       AND THE ONGOING THREAT TO
                               DEMOCRACY

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                                 OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                               AND REFORM

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                           DECEMBER 13, 2022
                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-111
                               __________

      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
                    
50-155 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                              
                             
                             
                   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                Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia         Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois        Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland               Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California                Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan              Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California             Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri                  Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio               Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois             Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida    Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont                 Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,      Pat Fallon, Texas
    Georgia                          Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California            Mike Flood, Nebraska
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts

                      Russ Anello, Staff Director
               Devon Ombres, Subcommittee Staff Director
                   Melanie Mpanju, 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               Nancy Mace, South Carolina, 
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida        Ranking Minority Member
Robin Kelly, Illinois                Jim Jordan, Ohio
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts       Andy Biggs, Arizona
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of   Scott Franklin, Florida
    Columbia                         Byron Donalds, Florida
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Danny K. Davis, Illinois


                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on December 13, 2022................................     1

                               Witnesses

Eric Ward, Senior Advisor, Western States Center
Oral Statement...................................................     6
Oren Segal, Vice President, Center on Extremism, on behalf of 
  Anti-Defamation League
Oral Statement...................................................     8
Alejandra Caraballo, Clinical Instructor, Cyberlaw Clinic, on 
  behalf of Harvard Law School
Oral Statement...................................................     9
Asra Nomani, Senior Fellow in the Practice of Journalism, 
  Independent Women's Network
Oral Statement...................................................    11
Amanda Tyler, Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee for 
  Religious Liberty
Oral Statement...................................................    13
Mary McCord, Executive Director, Institute for Constitutional 
  Advocacy and Protection, on behalf of Georgetown University Law 
  Center
Oral Statement...................................................    14

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

                              ----------                              

  * Use of Force Handout; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Search and Seizure Handout; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Search and Seizure Bibliography Handout; submitted by Rep. 
  Biggs.

  * Home Safety Handout; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
  * Firearm Safety Handout; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * FBI Response to Raskin QFR; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Constitution Handout; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Citizens Posse Pinal County Description; submitted by Rep. 
  Biggs.
  * AZ Central article; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Tweets Docs for the Record; submitted by Rep. Mace.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                      CONFRONTING WHITE SUPREMACY
                     (PART VII): THE EVOLUTION OF
                   ANTI-DEMOCRATIC EXTREMIST GROUPS
                       AND THE ONGOING THREAT TO
                               DEMOCRACY

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, December 13, 2022

                   House of Representatives
                  Committee on Oversight and Reform
           Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
                                            Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, and via Zoom; Hon. 
Jamie Raskin (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Raskin, Wasserman Schultz, Kelly, 
Norton, Tlaib, Mace, Biggs, and Donalds.
    Mr. Raskin. The committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time.
    I just--I want to thank all of the distinguished members of 
this committee who are appearing both in person and on Zoom for 
their great, hard work over the course of the 117th Congress on 
matters of fundamental importance to the American people.
    It's been a great pleasure to work with Representative 
Nancy Mace of South Carolina, the ranking member, who is a 
model of industry and seriousness and commitment to her 
constituents and to the country.
    So, it's been an honor to get to serve with you, Ms. Mace. 
I got to read your book before we got started, and I continue 
to recommend it to everybody, ``In the Company of Men,'' about 
her experience as one of the first women graduates of The 
Citadel.
    Well, I want to recognize myself for an opening statement. 
I want to thank our excellent witnesses for joining us today. 
This is our seventh. And it is our final of several years' 
worth of hearings that we've conducted on the problem of 
violent White supremacy, a traditional and pernicious enemy of 
the voting rights, the civil rights, and the civil liberties of 
the American people.
    In prior hearings over the last three years, long before 
violent insurrectionists bearing confederate battle flags 
overran the Capitol on January 6, 2021, we found that violent 
White supremacy and its partner, antidemocratic extremism, 
today constitute the most serious domestic terror threat facing 
our people.
    Indeed, these same authoritarian and racist movements pose 
a similar danger to people living in many democratic societies 
on Earth. Just last week German authorities arrested dozens of 
far-right extremists, including members of a royal house in 
Germany seeking restoration of the Second Reich, an active-duty 
German soldier, former members of the German police and elite 
special forces units, and neo-Nazi activists for allegedly 
participating in a violent right-wing plot to topple the German 
Government and seize power.
    The coup plotters, many of whom were heavily armed when 
arrested, were inspired by the American insurrection of January 
6 and are followers of deranged online QAnon conspiracy 
theories. They profess that the democratic German government is 
an imposture of corporate subsidiary of the United States, run 
by the American deep state. The insurrectionists planned to 
disrupt the German power grid and take parliament by force, to 
impose a new authoritarian and anti-Semitic government.
    The German people and democracy around the world are 
fortunate that their law enforcement and intelligence agencies 
acted with speed and vigor to interrupt the conspiracy before 
the conspirators could succeed in staging a full-blown January 
6-style attack on the German Government.
    It would be comforting to believe that the threat of 
violent White supremacy has subsided here in America in the 
wake of more than 900 criminal prosecutions being brought by 
the United States Department of Justice against January 6 
insurrectionists and rioters for assaulting Federal officers, 
destroying Federal property, interfering with a Federal 
proceeding, engaging in seditious conspiracy, which means 
conspiracy to overthrow or put down the government, and 
numerous other offenses. But the threats have not subsided and 
are very much still with us today.
    On May 14, 2022, an 18-year-old White supremacist named 
Payton Gendron, jacked up on online propaganda about the racist 
and anti-Semitic Great Replacement Theory, entered a Tops 
supermarket in Buffalo with an illegally modified AR-15 
semiautomatic rifle, and murdered 10 African-American people, 
wounding three others. He pleaded guilty to first-degree 
murder, state charges, and has offered to plead guilty on 
Federal charges including hate crime charges based on his 
premeditation to commit domestic terrorism.
    We are living through an onslaught of such violent threats 
and attacks, taking place directly against political fusion, 
too. Everyone knows that Representative Gabby Giffords, of 
course, was the victim of an assassination attempt a decade ago 
at a constituent meeting in Arizona and Representative Steve 
Scalise was also the victim of a deranged political shooter 
back in 2017 at baseball practice not far from the Capitol.
    A month ago, an extremist, who was loaded up on internet 
conspiracy theories and made statements like ``Hitler did 
nothing wrong,'' broke into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home 
in San Francisco and bludgeoned her 82-year-old husband, Paul 
Pelosi, in the head with a hammer with the intent of kidnapping 
the Speaker and breaking her kneecaps.
    In the run up to January 6, Michigan Governor Gretchen 
Whitmer was the target of a kidnapping and assassination plot 
by racist, antigovernment extremists.
    The ranking member, Ms. Mace, has seen her home vandalized 
and her privacy violated by someone who scrolled antifa symbols 
on it.
    We live in a violent society and the violent exists across 
the spectrum of political extremism, but the movements of 
violent White supremacy and antigovernment extremism lead 
America in fomenting terroristic violence and disseminating 
propaganda to incite it. Both the FBI and the Department of 
Homeland Security identify White supremacy as the most lethally 
dangerous domestic terror threat our country faces.
    This hearing will help us to understand the continuing 
evolution of the White supremacist and extremist anti-
government movement, specifically, the strategic turn of major 
far right groups to focus their wrath on local governments and 
school boards since the January 6 riot and insurrection and 
subsequent Federal criminal prosecutions; the mobilization of 
White supremacist groups to attack the LGBTQ community in 
private clubs and public places; the emergence of Christian 
nationalism as an organizing ideological principle; and the 
growing prominence of the Great Replacement Theory as a 
unifying field conspiracy theory for the motivation of far 
right-wing politics.
    Please consider this video highlighting the proliferation 
of extremist violence against Americans.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Raskin. I look forward hearing the testimony we will 
hear from our witnesses, and how we can all work together best 
in Congress across the country to combat violent extremism when 
it appears.
    With that, I now recognize the distinguished ranking 
member, Ms. Mace, for her opening statement.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The love is likewise. Ditto. Appreciate that. It has been 
an honor to serve with you on this Subcommittee on Civil Rights 
and Civil Liberties. I have learned a lot, and have enjoyed the 
colloquy and the debate that we have had and learning that we 
agree on so much and I wish that the rest of Congress can learn 
from many of lessons that we've, you know, shared here.
    Americans of all races, religions, creeds deserve to 
achieve their American dream in a secure society where they 
don't have to fear harm, simply on account of who they are, 
where they live, where they come from, or what their political 
affiliation is, skin color, gender orientation, et cetera.
    We hear a lot about threats to our democracy and 
Constitution these days. Those threats are real. That warning 
is used so often to advance a political agenda that it has lost 
some of the impact that it should have. But let me be clear. 
The only alternatives to our constitutional system of 
government are a descent into authoritarianism, fascism, or the 
embrace of anarchy.
    Chairman Raskin, you and I agree that there are serious 
threats to our democratic ideals lurking on the horizon. We 
took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Yet 
there are those who seek to undermine the Constitution for 
their own ends, and even people who want to damage our republic 
and harm our citizens.
    As you mentioned in your opening remarks, I have seen both 
sides of the coin on this, both politically.
    America is founded on the idea enshrined in our Declaration 
of Independence and one we've ever since been struggling to 
achieve for all Americans that we're endowed by our Creator 
with certain unalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness.
    Our democratic ideals demand that we engage in a robust 
debate about how to solve the most challenging problems facing 
our country. This necessarily means that we're going to have 
disagreements, and passions will flare. But part of the 
American experiment, as you know, Chairman Raskin, is the 
ability to debate these ideas and not fear the threats or 
attacks that are--that may or may not come and have often come, 
especially in the last 2 to 3 years.
    Our Constitution and the rule of law provide for an open an 
open and honest debate with people we disagree with. A view 
placed may be met with strong criticism, but they must never be 
met with violence or censorship, both of which threaten this 
American experiment.
    First, we must not be tempted to misuse power to silence 
those we disagree with, or sensor lawful speech. We have seen 
not just the Twitter files, but we've seen a number of examples 
over the last few months where censorship has been overreaching 
and one-sided. I am a firm believer in the concept that free 
speech creates human interactions within the marketplace of 
ideas and enables us to, as one witness who appeared before our 
subcommittee in April explained, feel like we can talk to 
people who disagree with us fervently to learn that they are 
people of good will who often want the same good things for 
society but we just have different ways of getting there. Our 
goals are the same, but how we approach them may be different.
    Second, we must recognize that violence as a solution to 
problems or as an expression of extreme and hateful ideas, 
whether from the far right or the far left or anywhere in 
between, cannot be tolerated at it sows fear, suppresses civil 
discourse, and comes to a great human cost.
    It's not partisan. As someone who's seen it on both sides, 
I've had my house trespassed on not once but twice in the last 
year. I've had my car keyed. I've had my family, including my 
children, threatened for political positions that I have taken.
    As you mentioned, Chairman Raskin, you know, in 2017 when 
Republicans were targeted and Steve Scalise was shot multiple 
times in that tragic incident, Rand Paul was attacked by his 
neighbor. We've had instances which had the FBI called to this 
committee and talking about antifa attacks, anarchist attacks, 
something that they don't really, the FBI doesn't truly track 
in terms of their metrics. They don't call out antifa for what 
it is in their internal metrics we learned earlier this year.
    My district knows this truth all too well as we continue to 
mourn nine churchgoers murdered by a racist domestic terrorist 
at Mother Emanuel in 2015. Racially motivated violent 
extremists are excessive, particularly lethal, and particularly 
dangerous, especially as they are most likely to be and conduct 
lone-wolf attacks. White supremacy violence is a very real 
threat and so are the threats emanating from other pernicious 
and racist ideologies.
    We must be--confront a spike in anti-Semitism in the United 
States with documented cases of target harassment assaults 
against Jewish Americans on the rise in recent years. Anti-
Semitic ideologies lead to violence against Jewish people, and 
I have always condemned anti-Semitism, whether it is found at a 
dinner party or echoed in the halls of Congress.
    We must also confront rising discrimination and violence 
against Asian Americans, as you mentioned in your video as 
well. We must strengthen our domestic society and ensure that 
we're doing everything in our power to protect the 
Constitution--we're not flushing it down the toilet or putting 
through it through a shredder, not now, not ever--the rule of 
law, and ensure Americans have the security they need to 
prosper and achieve their American dream.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, what a wonderful opening statement.
    I want to specifically associate myself with everything 
that you said about the Constitution and how the only 
alternative to the Constitution, if you think you want to 
replace it, is going to be authoritarianism, fascism, or a 
collapse into anarchy. And I appreciate that very much and 
that's very much in the spirit of the views of our Founders.
    So, thank you, Mrs. Mace.
    Before we got to our witnesses, I want to recognize the 
distinguished chair of the Oversight Committee, Mrs. Maloney, 
for her opening statement.
    Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. I want to thank you, Chairman 
Raskin, and also Ranking Member Mace, for holding this 
incredibly important hearing.
    Too many Members of Congress, like Representative Mace and 
people in this country are innocently attacked by the violence 
in this country, and I think the recent attack on the Speaker's 
husband showed that you're not even safe in your own home, 
which is outrageous here in America. So, this hearing is very 
important.
    And, Mr. Chairman, your leadership of the subcommittee has 
been exemplary. I look forward to following the work you will 
do moving forward on this issue and many others.
    White supremacy is one of the most terrible threats to our 
democracy today. Both the FBI and DHS recognize White supremacy 
as the deadliest domestic terror threat facing the United 
States. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are 
more than 733 hate groups operating in the United States today. 
This includes 98 white nationalist groups; 61 anti-Semitic 
groups; 50 anti-Muslim groups; 65 anti-LGBTQI+ groups; 16 Neo-
Confederate groups; and 18 Ku Klux Klan groups. This is a 
horrifying amount of people and numbers, and hate is on the 
rise here in our country.
    That is why it's critical that Congress continue to shed 
light on this growing cancer and come up with substantive 
solutions to address hate and violence. We may disagree on 
politics. But there is no room in this country for 
discrimination, violence, and hate.
    Thank you again, Chairman Raskin and Ranking Member Mace, 
for holding this vital hearing and all our panelists today and 
for your life's work.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Chair Maloney, for your inspired and 
extraordinary leadership of our committee. And thank you for 
joining us in this committee today.
    I want to introduce our panel of witnesses.
    We have, first, Eric Ward who's Executive Vice President of 
Race Forward and senior advisor to the Western States Center. 
He joins us over Zoom.
    Then we'll hear from Oren Segal, the Vice President of the 
Center on Extremism at the Anti-Definition League.
    Then we'll hear from Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical 
instructor for the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School.
    Next, we'll hear from Asra Nomani, a senior fellow in the 
practice of journalism at the Independent Women's Network.
    Then we'll hear from Amanda Tyler, executive director of 
the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and, finally, 
from Professor Mary McCord, the executive director for the 
Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at 
Georgetown University Law Center.
    The witnesses will all be under muted so we can swear them 
in.
    Would you all please rise and raise your right hands, if 
you would?
    Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to 
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Let the record shows that all of the witnesses have 
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
    You may be seated.
    Without objection, your more elaborate written statements 
will be made part of the record. But you will all be recognized 
for five minutes.
    With that, Mr. Ward, you are now recognized for your 
testimony.

STATEMENT OF ERIC WARD, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, RACE FORWARD, 
             SENIOR ADVISOR, WESTERN STATES CENTER

    Mr. Ward. Good morning, Chairman Raskin, and members of the 
committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the 
ongoing crisis of anti-democracy extremism and white 
nationalism, currently present in this country.
    I commend you for using this forum to address the urgent 
threats posed to American democracy. White nationalists and 
other bigoted groups are driving harassment campaigns against 
elected officials, law enforcement, leaders of color, the LGBTQ 
community, school officials, and many more at an alarming rate.
    This harassment has a chilling effect on the ability of 
many people to engage in civil society, but I believe that 
despite an acceleration in anti-democracy formations, it is 
possible to build a shared commitment to a country where 
elected officials, business, nonprofit institutions, faith 
leaders, and ordinary citizens join together and reject the 
violence and anti-Semitic conspiracies of white nationalism, 
and begin the important work of closing the door to political 
violence and stopping anti-democracy extremists from 
mainstreaming their tactics and agenda.
    I live and work in the Pacific Northwest, a place deeply 
shaped and impacted by anti-democracy extremism. This region 
has been a proving ground for extremists and anti-democracy 
formations. Over these past five years, as the fight for 
inclusive democracy has become both a national and 
international commitment, it becomes imperative that we soberly 
assess the drivers of these threats and invest in the 
communities and local governments who are working to combat 
them.
    First, it is important to understand that the insurrection 
did not end on January 6, 2021. Across the country, in small 
communities and towns, the insurrection is still a daily 
reality for many Americans. Health workers, educators, local 
government officials, civil rights activists, election workers, 
and community leaders are the targets. They are bearing the 
brunt of intimidation, physical violence, and acts of domestic 
terrorism from those who are supportive or took part in the 
insurrection.
    Perhaps no incident illustrated the continuity of January 6 
is better covered than the violent assaults on House Speaker 
Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, in October. The attacker 
stands accused of promoting anti-Semitic and racist language 
and conspiracy theories. This incident brings home the crisis 
for those communities that are being targeted in much the same 
way, but without the benefit of Federal intention and 
mainstream media attention.
    It has also demonstrated that the cultural shift that has 
occurred in the almost two years since the insurrection, a 
shift to an environment where individuals feel empowered to 
carry out political violence on their own, or in an 
increasingly unpredictable way.
    The reports of attacks on electrical infrastructure in 
North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington are raising the stakes. 
Law enforcement is reportedly investigating posts by extremists 
on online forums that encourage attacks on critical 
infrastructure, and whether the North Carolina attack was 
intended to disrupt the local LGBTQ event, this after a series 
of attacks on the LGBTQ community in recent weeks and months.
    Much of the violence and intimidation I've been describing 
is perpetrated by those who have been influenced by the Great 
Replacement, a genocidal conspiracy theory belief that is 
grounded in anti-Semitism. It falsely purports a global force 
is orchestrating a master plan to undermine white political 
power and white existence.
    Depending on the version of the theory one comes across, 
conspiracy might be run by global elites, or an international 
cabal, monied interests, all thinly veiled references to Jewish 
people. This is anti-Semitism in its most modern form. It is a 
form of racism. It places Jews not as a religious other, but as 
a racialized other.
    If we seek to counter domestic extremism, we must recognize 
that anti-Semitism and the Great Replacement Theory remain the 
energizing principle behind white nationalism.
    With the Federal Government's help, local governments and 
communities can respond with strategies that strengthen 
democratic practice, while closing the space for political and 
hate violence. Respectfully, I offer three actions that could 
reduce the threat to local communities from anti-democracy 
extremism.
    One, block grants to counter the impacts of extremism on 
local governments; two, require Federal agencies to provide 
respective action plans; and three, root out extremism in law 
enforcement and the military.
    We remain inspired by the broad coalitions of local elected 
leaders, civil servants, and community members who raise their 
voice against violence and bigotry every day.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    Mr. Segal, you're recognized for your five minutes.

   STATEMENT OF OREN SEGAL, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CENTER ON 
               EXTREMISM, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE

    Mr. Segal. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, 
members of the committee.
    I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today to 
address ongoing threats of White supremacy and extremism, and 
the impact they have on our communities, our democratic 
institutions, and the very fabric of American society.
    Since 1913, ADL has worked to stop to the defamation of the 
Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment for 
all. We have a world-class team of analysts and investigators 
who track and respond to extremism and threats from across the 
ideological spectrum.
    Our work shows that domestic extremism remains a clear and 
present danger to our democracy. While the Jewish, Black, LGBTQ 
communities continue to be primary targets for White 
supremacists, extremists embrace and promote a wide range of 
hatreds, including Islamophobia, misogyny, and dangerous anti-
democratic conspiracies. These narratives are often combined in 
the minds of extremists who seek to create fear and anxiety, 
and erode trust within our society and in our public 
institutions.
    It is important to underscore how broadly and profoundly 
these forms of extremism impact all Americans, regardless of 
how they identify, their political affiliations, or where they 
live. From Charleston to Charlottesville, Pittsburgh to Jersey 
City, El Paso to Buffalo, we have seen the deadly consequences 
of these conspiratorial and hate-fueled ideologies and 
movements.
    In this moment, we are watching the dangerous normalization 
of ideologies that animate White supremacy and other forms of 
extremism. Thanks to disinformation and toxic conspiracy 
theories, including those surrounding the pandemic, election 
denial, and the Great
    Replacement Theory, once-fringe beliefs are taking root in 
our public discussion.
    This normalization could not happen without elected 
officials, television pundits, and other high-profile 
influencers legitimizing these views. A recent study by ADL and 
the Princeton's Bridging Divides Initiative documented the 
proliferation of threats and harassment against local 
officials. These threats discourage civil--civic engagement, 
increased social and political division, and terrorized elected 
officials.
    But we also need to address threats from inside our 
institution. Another ADL report identified hundreds of 
individuals on the Oath Keepers membership list in sensitive 
positions including law enforcement, military personnel, and 
elected officials. Extremists thrive in times of political and 
social unrest, and technical tools and platforms help 
extremists reach, recruit, and radicalize more especially than 
ever before.
    The Buffalo shooter, who earlier this year left 10 people 
dead and a city reeling in horror, was drawn to hateful content 
on 4chan. He incorporated this content into his online 
manifesto. He used Twitch and Discord to record his views, and 
ultimately amplify live footage of his attack.
    Modern extremists have developed a deadly blueprint. They 
prepare their social media strategies to signal back to their 
online communities, at the same time they are preparing their 
weapons.
    And thanks to inconsistent action by Meta and Twitter, who 
continue to put profits over people, extremism continues to 
incubate and thrive on mainstream social media platforms.
    Last week, ADL issued a report showing that exposure to 
White supremacist ideologies and online games more than doubled 
in 2022. Among young gamers, ages 10 to 17, 15 percent have 
been exposed to White supremacist ideologies.
    It is clear the time to fight back against the rising tide 
of hate and extremism is right now. Congress has advanced some 
promising initiatives such as increasing nonprofit security 
grants, but many of those are piecemeal or reactive and fail to 
keep up with the pace and breadth of the challenge. We need 
whole-of-government solutions.
    This is why ADL introduced its comprehensive civil rights-
forward PROTECT plan, which includes calls to pass an 
appropriations bill that resources to the threat; grow the 
nonprofit security grants program; combat extremism within our 
institutions, including through NDAA; and the complicity of 
social media services in facilitating extremism; establish an 
independent clearinghouse for online extremist content; and, 
finally, make hate crime reporting mandatory.
    I thank you for your leadership in ending the scourge of 
extremism and hate and violence. I urge you all to work across 
the aisle to find lasting, bipartisan solutions to this 
problem.
    I look forward to your questions.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Segal, for your testimony.
    I recognize now Professor Caraballo for her five minutes.

STATEMENT OF ALEJANDRA CARABALLO, CLINICAL INSTRUCTOR, CYBERLAW 
                   CLINIC, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

    Ms. Caraballo. Good morning, Chairman Raskin, Ranking 
Member Mace, and members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Alejandra Caraballo, and I am a clinical 
instructor at Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic and LGBTQ 
rights advocate. I have worked in LGBTQ rights advocacy for 
years as a civil rights attorney, and I have monitored anti-
LGBTQ extremist content online as part of my advocacy work.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you in my 
personal capacity to discuss the pressing issues of rising 
White supremacy in the context of anti-LGBTQ hate and the ways 
that social media have amplified this issue and made it worse.
    In the balance of my testimony, I will seek to document a 
more detailed nexus between White supremacy and the recent rise 
in extreme threats against the LGBTQ community.
    Additionally, I will provide some recommendations for how 
Congress can better hold social media companies accountable for 
their role in amplifying this rise in extremism, while also 
aiding law enforcement and civic society groups in limiting 
extremist conduct that endangers and harms vulnerable, 
marginalized groups.
    We only need to look at recent events to gain an 
understanding of the extent of the problem. At the beginning of 
this month on the weekend of December 2, several extremist 
groups targeted the LGBTQ community. This wave of bigoted 
action was caused by the Proud Boys, the anti-Semitic Goyim 
Defense League, Patriot Front, and other White supremacist 
groups.
    This weekend of hate comes just weeks after five people 
were murdered and at least 19 people were injured in a shooting 
at Club Q, an LGBTQ club in Colorado Springs.
    At the start of the week, the Department of Homeland 
Security bulletin warned of broad threats against LGBTQ, 
Jewish, and immigrant communities. The weekend itself began 
with the arrest of a Texas man for making death threats against 
a Boston physician who provides gender-affirming care to 
transgender patients. This doctor was affiliated with the 
national LGBTQ health center at Fenway Health, an organization 
of which I am proud to serve as a board member.
    In Columbus, Ohio, armed militia members, Proud Boys, and 
Patriot Front showed up to forcibly shut down a holiday-themed 
drag event at the First Unitarian Universalist Church of 
Columbus. In Lakeland, Florida, the neo-Nazi group NatSoc 
Florida, carried swastika flags and banners that called drag 
queens quote, ``pedophiles with AIDS.'' They also used a 
projector to place texts on the building, called for the death 
of pedophiles, clearly meaning that drag queens, when led in 
context with their banner.
    In New York, a drag event at Lincoln Center was targeted by 
members of the Goyim Defense league, a bigoted neo-Nazi org 
that promotes virulent anti-Semitism.
    Finally, a drag event in Southern Pines, North Carolina, 
was subjected to weeks of threats after a tweet by Libs of 
TikTok highlighted it. The event itself went on, despite the 
threats against organizers and the presence of several Proud 
Boys outside. However, it was disrupted by power loss due to 
intentional sabotage at a power station nearby.
    While there's no confirmed link between the threats against 
the LGBTQ community event and the attack on the power 
substation, the timing has put the local LGBTQ community on 
edge.
    The events in Ohio and North Carolina, Florida, and New 
York feature well-worn, baseless accusation of grooming and so-
called child abuse. They underscore the ongoing amplified 
threat to an LGBTQ community already reeling from deadly 
violence. This has been a long, winding road of escalating 
rhetoric and tactics that were first popularized on social 
media and spread to the physical world.
    Prominent social media accounts often perpetuate incendiary 
language that manifests into real-world violence. There is a 
direct connection between these accounts and violent threats 
against people, events, and institutions they target.
    The framing and language used often mirrors a more 
accessible version found on extremist sites, such as 4chan. 
Their audience of millions are eager to engage with replies of 
the tweets of these accounts featuring threats, including 
violent memes of bullets and woodchippers. Social media 
companies have failed to intervene in meaningful ways, allowing 
the active spread of hate speech through algorithmic 
amplification and the monetization of this hate content.
    Last, I want to highlight the great personal cost of being 
a highly visible trans woman in this atmosphere.
    Earlier this year, I, along with my parents, were doxed and 
had our personal information published including my home 
address, personal contact information, Social Security number, 
and my driver's license number.
    I have been baselessly called a groomer and a pedophile on 
social media more times than I can count, solely because I am a 
queer and trans person. This is particularly and deeply 
offensive as I have spent--I spent three years as an attorney 
representing the survivors of sex trafficking and intimate 
partner violence. These spurious accusations hurt real victims 
of sexual abuse by depriving the language they use to describe 
what happened to them.
    I have been threatened by anonymous online accounts that 
have stated they wanted to ``tie me to an effing post and set 
me on fire.'' Others have targeted me with violent imagery of 
trans people being hanged. I have received physical letters 
that have glorified genocide and openly fantasized about being 
able to legally murder people like me.
    In September, I met with the FBI regarding these threats 
against me, an utterly surreal experience. No one should go 
through this solely for being who they are and defending their 
community. However, I will not be intimidated, and I will not 
be silenced in spite of the constant harassment and threats I 
receive. I will continue to speak out against the hate and 
violence being perpetrated against my community and LGBTQ, 
Jewish, immigrant, and Muslim siblings.
    I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on 
these issues, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your testimony and for 
coming to join us.
    Ms. Nomani, you're recognized for your five minutes.

 STATEMENT OF ASRA NOMANI (MINORITY WITNESS), SENIOR FELLOW IN 
    THE PRACTICE OF JOURNALISM, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S NETWORK

    Mr. Raskin. Is your microphone on? Could you just hit the 
little button? OK.
    Ms. Nomani. Good?
    So, my name is Asra Nomani. I came to the United States at 
the age of four. I was an immigrant to the great state of New 
Jersey, and I grew up in Morgantown, West Virginia, a mostly 
White state.
    I was affirmed. I was supported. And I was able to grow up 
a girl who knew not a word of English when I arrived to become 
a reporter for The Wall Street Journal.
    I am sitting here before you today, apparently the face of 
White supremacy. I am wearing a shirt that my father made. My 
father survived literally White supremacy in India. My father 
is 5 foot 3. Because when he was a boy, the White supremacists, 
that were the British rule in India, literally funneled food 
away from the people of India and my father starved.
    So, he grew up to be a young man who came to the United 
States of America because he believed in the values and 
principles of this great Nation.
    My father made this shirt for me, inspired by the gown that 
Representative Ocasio-Cortez wore to the Met Gala. It says on 
here the names that we, the parents, in the United States of 
have been called, including the video that you featured, 
Chairman Raskin, things like domestic terrorists, White 
supremacists, QAnon moms.
    What is it that we the parents have dared to stand up 
against in the United States of America over the last couple of 
years? It is a divisive ideology expressed through this book 
called ``Critical Race Theory.'' It is a book that is taught in 
law schools. But it is translated into our school system with 
books like this, ``Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness.'' The 
trickle-down effect of the demonization of any human being 
because of their race is books like this.
    Where does this book take us as an idea? It takes us to 
this very simple idea, an idea that is a new hierarchy of human 
value. There's no doubt that the hierarchy of human value that 
was about White supremacy is illegitimate. Every single person 
is opposed to the idea of White supremacy, but we cannot 
replace an old hierarchy of human value with a new hierarchy of 
human value that demonizes children with this book. Whiteness 
is a bad deal. Signing a contract with the devil.
    What is the message in this? The message is the shaming of 
human beings. No child should be shamed. And why is this a 
threat to our democracy? Because we then have posters like this 
one in the Los Angeles school district. What does it say? Ef 
America with KKK replacing the ``C,'' because the idea is that 
our Nation has become a White supremacist nation. That is not 
true. That is not the reality, and we can see exhibited here 
today this poster also, Ef the police.
    This is an ideology that I call the woke army. It is an 
ideology of activists who are going through America's school 
districts and our communities, and what they are doing is a 
threat to democracy. What is the greatest threat that our 
children face today? It is the learning loss that has happened 
in our school districts. The Department of Justice declares 
clearly the characteristics that lead any human being to 
extremism includes having less education.
    Chairman Raskin, I don't know if you know it, but the 
reading level in your school district, the Montgomery County 
schools, is at 32 percent of kids that are reading at grade 
level. Math is at 30 percent. Congresswoman Tlaib is here. In 
Detroit, it's 18 percent and then 12 percent for math. It is a 
failure. This is a system failure.
    White supremacy must be defeated, as must all extremism. 
This is our mandate as adults for our children. Our children 
are in a crisis today, and the idea that we the parents are now 
the agents of White supremacy is unacceptable. All of these 
books that I have here today are the indoctrination that are 
being put into the minds of our children instead of the 
fundamentals that are critical to make them educated, 
enlightened citizens that protect our democracy.
    That is our greatest mandate, and that is the one that I am 
honored to serve with you to realize for our children.
    Thank you so much.
    Mr. Raskin. Thanks so much.
    Now we'll hear from Amanda Tyler, the executive director of 
the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
    Welcome.

 STATEMENT OF AMANDA TYLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BAPTIST JOINT 
                COMMITTEE FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

    Ms. Tyler. Well, good morning, Chairman Raskin and Ranking 
Member Mace, and other members of the subcommittee.
    I'm Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint 
Committee for Religious Liberty.
    As a faithful Christian and a patriotic American, I am 
honored to be here this morning to offer testimony about the 
connection between Christian nationalism and White supremacist, 
why Christian nationalism must be addressed, and why I believe 
Christians have a special responsibility to address the harms 
of Christian nationalism.
    BJC has a long and consistent record of defending religious 
freedom for all, supporting both of the First Amendment's 
religion clauses, the no-establishment and free exercise 
clauses. We chaired the coalition that pushed for passage of 
RFRA.
    In July 2019, BJC launched Christians Against Christian 
Nationalism. It's a grassroots project of Christians from every 
congressional district in the country who oppose the rise of 
Christian nationalism and its threat to our faith and our 
country.
    Christian nationalism is a political ideology and cultural 
framework that seeks to merge American and Christian 
identities. It suggests that real Americans are Christians, and 
that true Christians hold a particular set of political 
beliefs.
    The ``Christian'' in Christian nationalism is more about 
ethno-national identity than religion. Christian nationalism is 
a gross distortion of the Christian faith that I and many 
others hold dear.
    Opposition to Christian nationalism is not opposition to 
Christianity, and a growing number of Christians feel a 
religious imperative to stand against Christian nationalism.
    Christian nationalism uses the language, symbols, and 
imagery of Christianity. In fact, it may look and sound like 
Christianity to the casual observer. However, closer 
examination reveals that it uses the veneer of Christianity to 
point not to Jesus the Christ, but to a political figure, 
party, or ideology.
    Christian nationalism often overlaps with and provides 
cover for White supremacist and racial subjugation. It creates 
and perpetuates a sense of cultural belonging that is limited 
to certain people associated with the founding of the United 
States, namely native-born White Christians.
    Christian nationalism is not patriotism. Patriotism is a 
healthy love of country. Nationalism is an allegiance to 
country that demands supremacy over all other allegiances. 
Christian nationalism relies on a cherry-picked and misleading 
version of an American history in order to thrive
    The Christian Nation myth must downplay or ignore the role 
of indigenous communities, Black Americans, immigrant 
populations, religious minorities, secular Americans, and all 
others who undercut the false narrative that the U.S. is 
special because it was founded by and for White Christians.
    But the myth of a Christian Nation is worse than just bad 
history. It undermines and contradicts the U.S. Constitution, 
specifically the prohibition in Article VI against religious 
tests for public office, one of the truly revolutionary aspects 
of the Constitution that laid the foundation for the U.S. being 
a faith-freedom Nation.
    As a Baptist, I became a leader in the fight against 
Christian nationalism because of my increasing alarm about the 
violence it has inspired at our country's houses of worship: 
Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, Tree of Life Synagogue 
in Pittsburgh, Chabad of Poway near San Diego.
    As recently as earlier this year at the Tops supermarket in 
buffalo, Christian nationalism inspired White supremacist 
violence in public spaces. Christian nationalism helped fuel 
the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, uniting disparate 
actors and infusing their political cause with religious 
fervor.
    We applaud this committee's sustained work to confront 
White supremacy and investigate its myriad causes. 
Understanding Christian nationalism is imperative to both 
dismantling White supremacy and preserving religious freedom 
for all.
    Christianity does not unite Americans. Our belonging in 
American society must never depend on how we worship, what we 
believe, or how we identify religiously.
    Do not allow anyone to say that confronting Christian 
nationalism is somehow anti-Christian. All across this country, 
Christians are deeply alarmed by this ideology, especially the 
way it gives an illusion of respectability to White supremacy, 
and undermines our Nation's foundational commitment to ensure 
religious freedom for all.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Tyler.
    Professor McCord, you are recognized now for five minutes.

  STATEMENT OF MARY MCCORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR 
 CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 
                           LAW CENTER

    Ms. McCord. Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, and 
distinguished members of the committee--subcommittee, thank you 
for inviting me to testify.
    I will focus today on the evolution of the extremist 
paramilitary organizations and the ongoing threat they pose to 
democracy.
    Evaluating this threat requires not only understanding 
these groups' use of paramilitary training and promotion of 
insurrectionist ideology, but also understanding and responding 
to the strategies and developing alliances through which they 
seek to enter mainstream American politics.
    Since January 6, this has been a decentralized strategy, 
focused on local politics. Social media platform Gab outlined 
it this spring. Quote, ``Capture your local county, then 
several of them, then maybe your state. We need to take the 
concepts and values of nationalism and decentralize them to our 
backyards.''
    Consistent with this strategy, paramilitary organizations 
have rebranded and reorganized since January 6. The Three 
Percenters original and the Proud Boys both dissolved their 
national organizations in favor of state and local chapters. 
Local groups like them tout their civic engagement, claim to 
have working relationships with local government and law 
enforcement, and advertise their tax-exempt, nonprofit status. 
This rebranding helps legitimize their political activity.
    For example, in 2021, they packed school board meetings in 
opposition to mask and vaccine mandates and to teaching about 
race and diversity.
    In 2022, they have shown up heavily armed and intimidating 
at events promoting White supremacy, LGBTQ-friendly programs, 
and at demonstrations in opposition to the overruling of Roe v. 
Wade.
    Paramilitary actors, including some who participated in the 
January 6 attack, have successfully run for office in multiple 
states. They've taken over local GOP executive committees where 
they aggressively push the party from its establishment roots 
toward the fringe, and they've sought recall elections of 
moderate Republicans in favor of election deniers and 
extremists.
    Elected Federal and state officials have used private 
militias as quote, unquote ``security.'' They've appeared at 
events with militia members and have even echoed their 
insurrectionist propaganda. Some have downplayed or denied the 
violence on January 6, emboldening extremists.
    After receiving death threats to themselves and their 
families, four of the 10 Republican House Members who voted to 
impeach Donald Trump in 2021 opted against running for 
reelection.
    Paramilitary groups have also recruited and sought favor 
from law enforcement. The ADL's recent analysis of the leaked 
membership list for the Oath Keepers identified 373 persons 
then serving in law enforcement across the country and 
approximately 1,100 who had previously served.
    Paramilitary groups have also aligned with so-called 
constitutional sheriffs, elected sheriffs who believe that they 
answer only to the U.S. Constitution, are free to refuse to 
enforce any law with which they disagree, and espouse election 
denialism. Some have advocated deputizing local militias.
    The combination of false election fraud claims and sheriffs 
with expansive views of their authority and willingness to 
deputize militia members is an obvious threat to democratic 
processes.
    So, what must be done? Too little law enforcement action 
has been taken against paramilitary activity across the 
country. Private militias are not authorized under Federal or 
state law, are not protected by the Second Amendment, and are 
unlawful in every state. Insurrection is not allowed by the 
United States Constitution and is a felony under Federal law. 
Yet, local law enforcement agencies lack resources and 
sometimes the political will to use the legal tools available 
in their states.
    Congress should consider a Federal anti-paramilitary law 
that includes a civil law enforcement mechanism for seeking 
injunctive relief and civil forfeiture against armed 
paramilitary actors and their organizations. Federal funding 
for state and local enforcement of existing state laws would 
also help.
    Law enforcement must eradicate extremists from their ranks. 
Although police have First Amendment rights, those rights are 
not limitless. Even when speaking in their personal capacities 
on matters of public concern, law enforcement officials may be 
fired or disciplined when their speech or association 
interferes with the mission of the agency.
    Congress should consider conditioning Federal law 
enforcement grant funding on proactive efforts to eradicate 
extremists from the force. State and local officials also must 
also step in when law enforcement, whether part of the 
constitutional sheriff's movement or not, overreach their 
authority. Election administration is the job of election 
officials, not law enforcement officers.
    Thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee.
    Mr. Raskin. Professor McCord, thank you very much for your 
testimony.
    We'll now go to member questioning, and I'm going to allow 
the members on my side to go before me.
    Ms. Mace, you've got your five minutes if you want to go 
now.
    Ms. Mace. I've got other people.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Great. I will call first on Congresswoman 
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton from the District of Columbia.
    You're recognized for your five minutes.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have some very astounding statistics here from the Anti-
Defamation League that, for example, over 50 percent of 
domestic terror killings have been committed by White 
supremacists over the last 10 years or so, and about 75 percent 
of these killings were committed by right-wing extremists.
    The mass shootings and recent attacks in El Paso, Texas, 
and Buffalo, New York, killed a combined 33 people after 
posting racist manifestos, citing their belief in White 
replacement theory.
    Mr. Ward, can you elaborate on why you have described the 
Buffalo shooting as part of, and here I'm quoting,
    ``unfolding of mission-oriented hate crimes''? That was the 
quote.
    Mr. Ward. Absolutely, Representative.
    Over the last 10 years, there has been an increase in a 
specific type of hate violence in this country, often referred 
to as mission-driven. Mission-driven means that there's a 
political ideology. There is a goal of undermining democracy, 
causing fear.
    This is different from what most hate crimes constituted 
previous to that period. Most hate violence, while despicable, 
was driven, has a spontaneous reaction, usually young people, 
young men, intoxicated, spur of the moment, driven by a 
conscious or unconscious bias.
    But what we're seeing in the country now--El Paso, 
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Charleston--are planned acts of violence 
that are driven by a world view that believes that Jews are 
somehow part of a racialized conspiracy to destroy the White 
race. It is dangerous, and its attempt is to undermine 
democracy, to create instability, and to cause fear.
    This is something different in the form of hate crimes that 
we have seen previously.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you. My goodness.
    Mr. Segal, can a statistical comparison be made between 
killings committed by White supremacists and killings by 
racially motivated extremists belonging to other groups, like 
Black nationalists or even other categories of violent 
extremists identified by the DOJ?
    Mr. Segal. Thank you for the question.
    As you cited earlier, the data from ADL looking at 
extremist-related murders is very clear. Seventy-five percent 
of extremist-related murders in the past 10 years have been 
carried out by right-wing extremists, and the majority of those 
by White supremacists. Now that does not mean that extremist 
violence is the sole domain of any one extremist movement or 
group. We do count examples of Black nationalists, Islamists, 
left-wing murders as well, but they, frankly, pale in 
comparison to the threats we see from the threats and violence 
from right-wing extremists.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Segal, is it possible that the number of 
White supremacist-related killings is much higher than the 
available reporting suggests?
    Mr. Segal. It is possible. Murders tend to get a lot of 
attention. But we also know that identifying a motive for some 
of those murders takes time. We don't always have all the 
information until years later.
    So sometimes we have gone back and added more to our 
numbers based on revelations that come out during court 
proceedings, et cetera. So, the numbers are quite high and 
probably even higher than the data we provided.
    Ms. Norton. Well, following up on that, do murders 
committed by a male supremacist or incels fit the paradigm of 
hate-related killings?
    Mr. Segal. Yes, so primarily the murders that we have 
tracked from extremist movements, they tend to be perpetrated 
by males and incels, or involuntarily celibates. Those were 
motivated by misogyny or hatred of women. That level of 
violence has significantly increased, both in the U.S. and 
North America more broadly.
    Ms. Norton. Well, hearing this, it's clear why DHS and DOJ 
have identified racially motived violent extremists and 
militia-violent extremism as the deadliest domestic terror 
threats facing the country.
    So, I submit that.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. The gentlewoman's time has expired. 
Thank you, Ms. Norton. I now recognize the gentleman from 
Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for his five minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the Federal 
Government uses five categories to describe threats presented 
by domestic terrorism, including racially or ethnically 
motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority 
violent extremism, animal rights, environmental violent 
extremism, abortion-related violent extremism, and all other 
domestic terrorism threats.
    But this committee in--this is our seventh, and probably 
the last it sounds like--it has been focused exclusively, it 
seems to me, on category 1 racially or ethnically motivated 
violent extremism. I wasn't planning to do this, but since it's 
been up, the Buffalo shooter heinous, evil being.
    Absolutely, there can be no excuse for it. But, you know, 
we hear a lot about right-wing extremists. But this guy was an 
admitted socialist who was thankful that the conservative 
movement was dead. He attacked Rupert Murdoch as a Christian 
Zionist. He mentioned Ben Shapiro multiple times, as with 
rather pejorative terms because of his Jewish heritage. That's 
evil. That guy is evil. And I raise that because I'm thinking 
this was in tone today as well, the Pelosi attacking. David 
DePape. David DePape was a leftist himself. A radical leftist.
    The point is, there's no exclusivity here. There's evil in 
the world, and we have to deal with that evil in the world. It 
seems to me, statements like we heard in your written 
statement, Ms. McCord, actually provided climate for a rhetoric 
that is dangerous as well.
    So, for instance, you attack Sheriff Mark Lamb of Pinol 
County, Arizona, because he has nonprofit and because he has a 
group of posse that he is there. And I'd like to submit for the 
record, Mr. Chairman, an article about the posse that goes on 
there. They receive training. They receive education in law 
enforcement practices, and they don't arrest people, and they 
don't cause trouble. They go through a vetting and a background 
check. So, I----
    Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. So, 
we hear those types smears constantly. We heard one--on of the 
statements was that these individuals refused to enforce the 
law. That's one of the ways you define terrorists, domestic 
terrorists. Yes, that is a quote, refuse to enforce the law. 
And yet, I find myself saying, Well, if you're the ICE--if 
you're the head of Homeland Security and you tell Immigration 
Custom Enforcement, you know, that 1.25 million people that 
have actually had due process in courts where they have 
actually now had a removal order, but you specifically tell 
your agents, we can't look for them and nor will we remove, is 
that not the same thing? So, the point is there's a lot of 
issues that go on with this.
    I also want to raise a point here that I think is critical. 
There was implication that this is widespread domestic--White 
nationalist terrorism is widespread in law enforcement. And 
yet--and I'm going to submit this for the record, too, Mr. 
Chairman, this is a response to the FBI to questions for the 
record arising from a September 29, 2021, hearing.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, and without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, sir. The questions were put to the 
FBI about a White nationalism and terrorism in the--domestic 
terrorists in the local police agencies. This is what the FBI 
said, quote, ``The FBI does not have information to support the 
assessment that these individuals are broadly representative of 
the hundreds of thousands of sworn law enforcement officers 
operating in the U.S. across nearly 20,000 Federal, state, 
county and local agencies. And available FBI reporting has not 
revealed RMV infiltration into law enforcement.'' You just 
don't find it. But that doesn't mean anything to my friends on 
the left, because the rhetoric is what is important to you, the 
narrative that you're trying to construct is important to you, 
and that's unfortunate, because it prevents us from getting to 
the bottom of what is causing this. I think Ms. Nomani is 
exactly right. It is indoctrination, and we need to find a way 
to stop that.
    And I will say this, Ms. Caraballo. I do agree with you 
that social media has exacerbated the problem. I'm not quite 
sure how you resolve that, but I don't think necessarily 
censorship is the answer either. But with that, Mr. Chairman, I 
realize my time is gone, and I'll yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your questioning. I now 
would like to recognize the very distinguished gentlelady from 
Michigan, Congressman Tlaib, for her five minutes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman, for this incredibly 
important hearing. You know, I want to begin with submitting 
for the record, if I may, an article that specifically talked 
about how the Buffalo shooter--shooting suspect says his motive 
was to prevent eliminating White race.
    Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
    Ms. Tlaib. Mr. Ward, can you tell me a little bit more 
about the Buffalo shooter? Because I don't want people in 
Buffalo, especially the community that was targeted to feel 
like we don't understand and see that they were targeted 
because of who they were.
    Mr. Ward. Yes, Representative Tlaib. We should be clear 
that those targeted at the supermarket were targeted because 
they were Black. It was Black shoppers. Not all the victims 
were Black, but the majority were. We should understand that 
the killer himself identified himself as an ethno-nationalist, 
as an eco-fascist, and a national socialist, which is a 
reference to the Nazi party in Germany. When asked if folks 
could call him that, he said, in his own words, I would not 
disagree with you.
    I think it's important not to mislead in terms of the 
driving force of these killers which was anti-Semitism. They 
were attacking a Black population because they saw African 
Americans as puppets of a Jewish cabal, of a Jewish conspiracy. 
And that's why the killer acted in violence.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you very much, Mr. Ward. Ms. McCord, in a 
2006 intelligence assessment, the FBI warned that, quote, 
``White supremacist infiltration of law enforcement can result 
in other abuses of authority,'' and, you know, passive 
tolerance of racism within communities served. And the issue is 
getting worse. I mean, in the last few years we have seen 
countless videos of law enforcement officers wearing badges 
associated with extremist groups, like the Three Percenters and 
private law enforcement Facebook groups filled with racism. 
Hey, I even saw law enforcement, you know, in Detroit, 
specifically, targeting Black Lives Matters protesters and so 
forth. A member of the U.S. Capitol was even caught reading a 
printed-out copy of the disgusting anti-Semitic text or 
protocols of elders of Zion at the interest of our cap--you 
know, literally short months after January 6.
    More recently, and this is even more disturbing, an 
internal FBI email revealed that there is, quote, ``a sizable 
percentage of the FBI employee population that felt sympathetic 
to the group that stormed the Capitol.''
    So, Ms. McCord, I want to talk about this because, you 
know, we see a growing link--and I know it's intentional by the 
White supremacists and nationalists of--between law enforcement 
personnel and White supremacy, can you talk about how that is 
threatening the constitutional multiracial democracy that we 
live in?
    Ms. McCord. Yes, thank you for the question. You know, we 
know that extremists do actually recruit from law enforcement, 
particularly, paramilitary organizations like Oath Keepers, 
like Three Percenters. They recruit because of their training 
and paramilitary tactics, their use of weaponry, their 
knowledge about incendiary devices. And, unfortunately, you 
know, it's not the predominance among law enforcement, but the 
number of those who espouse extremist views, including White 
supremacy within law enforcement has an outside impact, of 
course.
    And, you know, the threat to democracy comes--if these are 
the people who are in charge of, you know, complying with the 
rule of law, actually protecting public safety in their 
communities, and they have no--their communities can't trust 
them to actually protect them, represent their values--or not 
represent, but protect their values and allow them to have the 
equal opportunity to participate in democratic processes, it 
really does break down. And that is why courts have recognized, 
including the Supreme Court, that even though First Amendment 
rights do apply to police, it can't be such that they can 
undermine the mission of their agencies by espousing the type 
of extremist rhetoric which makes them unable to actually 
protect public safety in their communities.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Ms. McCord. Mr. Ward, you know, one 
of the things I learned from a Black Baptist pastor in 
Detroit--you know, as you know, I grew up in the most beautiful 
blackest city in the country, the city of Detroit, is he said, 
you know, we're not a country that's divided, we're 
disconnected. And I know exactly what he means because when I 
called Rabbi Miller in Michigan when his synagogue was targeted 
recently by hateful rhetoric, it was some of his employees that 
were Black that were first targeted. And he seemed so 
incredibly worried about even that more than obviously at the 
moment of the fact that they were targeted because of their 
Jewish faith. And it was at that moment I remember them saying, 
can you talk about this impact of how we need to understand 
that the person that went into Buffalo, the person that 
targeted the synagogue in Michigan, that we're all connected in 
this form of hate. And there is no hierarchy who gets hated the 
most, it is they want us all gone.
    Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady's time has expired, but please, 
Mr. Ward, if you would answer, that would be great.
    Mr. Ward. I will answer briefly. We should understand that 
this is a movement that doesn't drive hate, whether it's anti-
Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Black. It is tapping into bias in 
order to build a political platform to overthrow the United 
States of America. That is the goal of White nationalism. And 
what we have connected is that we are all victims of White 
nationalism, whether we come from minority communities, law 
enforcement, government workers, we are the victims in this 
country, and we have to respond and defend our community and 
defend our Constitution. And we do that by denouncing bigotry 
and political violence.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. Two articles have been 
submitted for the record. One, the Buffalo supermarket shooting 
suspect posted an apparent manifesto repeatedly citing Great 
Replacement Theory, and alleged Paul Pelosi attacker posted 
multiple conspiracy theories.
    Mr. Raskin. With that, I will recognize Mr. Donalds for his 
five minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Never a dull moment 
in this subcommittee. I will always say that. Let's go through 
a couple of things. First, yes, look, if you go back to the 
Buffalo shooter, which was awful for all reasons considered, 
did he cite replacement theory? Yes, he did. Did he also cite 
socialist theories? He most definitely did. Did he target Black 
people 100 percent? He did. So, if you combine all of the 
issues with the Buffalo shooter, you had somebody who wanted to 
kill Black people. Obviously, that's a White supremacist move. 
That was his whole focus. But he also espoused ideals from the 
left wing of politics. Both things can occur at the same time, 
and they did in the Buffalo shooting. And I think the thing 
that's most frustrating in hearings like this is because the 
supposition from my colleagues is that if you are a White 
supremacist, then all at the same time, you're also--and 
somehow on the right side of politics, the Buffalo shooter 
actually demonstrates that's not true. That's actually not 
true. White supremacy is awful. Nobody should be defending it. 
It should always be denounced, but we also have to be careful 
not to just conveniently circle together our political 
opponents so that it makes us look good in narratives, in press 
clippings, in hearings, or when you go to ask people for their 
votes in elections.
    We do have an issue in the United States with domestic 
terrorist violence. There is an issue. But it's across the 
political spectrum. Even the FBI--we got some questions that we 
need to ask them about other things going on in the United 
States--but even the FBI does not categorize domestic violence 
based upon political viewpoints. They do not do that. I wish 
the news media would report it, but the FBI does not categorize 
it based upon political thoughts. They categorize it based 
purely on the violence that people inflict. These are key 
conditions that we have to understand if we're going to have 
real hearings about what must be quote, unquote, ``done'' in 
the United States.
    One other point I have to bring up--and this is with 
respect to my colleague who just cited the point about White 
supremacy infiltrating law enforcement from a report back in 
2006. On October 24, 2022, the FBI submitted to this committee, 
and I quote, The FBI does not have information to support the 
assessment that these individuals are broadly representative of 
the hundreds of thousands of sworn law enforcement officers 
operating in the U.S. across nearly 20,000 Federal, state, 
county, and local agencies. And available FBI reporting has not 
revealed, has not revealed an infiltration of--into of law 
enforcement.
    The FBI said that two months ago. So, are we going to sit 
here and just try to create these cute little narratives that 
sound good politically, or are we going to get to the bottom of 
what's actually happening in the United States of America? And 
truth be told, the bottom of what's happening in the United 
States is that we are making cute narratives that look good for 
politics and sound good in press clippings, and we are not 
being honest about all the various factors that are happening 
in the United States, namely, a major social media problem. We 
know about the Twitter files. Let me give you guys a preview. 
We're going to be talking that in the 118th Congress.
    Real quick before my time expires, because when these 
issues flare up in our politics and in our country, we have to 
be careful not to quickly assign blame to one group or another 
group, or one side of the political aisle or another side of 
the political aisle. We have to get to the facts. And there's 
actually demonstration of that right here in this hearing.
    Ms. Caraballo, on page 12 and 13 of your written testimony, 
you explain to concerned parents as having been infiltrated by 
White nationalists and far-right militia groups, which played a 
significant role in school board protests. This has not, this 
has not actually been my experience with concerned parents.
    In your testimony you wrote that in Loudoun County, 
Virginia, unfounded rumors had spread in local parent groups on 
Facebook about an alleged trans student sexually assaulting a 
girl in a bathroom led to a firestorm of several heated school 
board protests that descended into violence. But, in fact, the 
perpetrator, it actually turned out, had committed two sexual 
assaults at two different Loudoun County schools in 2021, and 
was arrested on October 7, 2021, by the Loudoun County 
Sheriff's Office. These weren't unfounded rumors, as you 
suggest. It actually turned out law enforcement had to act 
because a sexual assault occurred. So, given this, I'm assuming 
that until now, you were unaware of what happened here, and 
you're going to update your testimony for the committee. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Caraballo. Thank you, Representative. What I was 
referring to in terms of unfounded rumors was that the 
perpetrator was trans. At the time there was no indication, and 
later came out that the perpetrator was not have any trans 
identity and----
    Mr. Donalds. I'm out of time, but the only thing I'm going 
to say is this. This is an example of what is concerning us in 
America. We have to be very careful not to quickly label groups 
and people just because it's politically convenient, which has 
been one of the issues in this committee. We have to be very 
careful about this. We are all Americans. We do not want 
violence against any citizen. We want all people to be safe in 
America. We want all people to speak freely in America. That is 
the thing that will actually help us cure some of these 
violence extremist issues we currently have in the United 
States. I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. Thank you for your questioning. Is 
Ms. Wasserman Schultz here? I think she is. You are recognized 
for your five minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, 
White supremacy and other extremist movements thrive in social 
media cases, in part because algorithms drive user engagement 
which promotes increasingly extreme content. The Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently 
found that the most recent acts of political violence in the 
United States are committed by people who do not belong to any 
formal organization, but were instead radicalized online 
through social media and screening platforms and in sites and 
blogs.
    And social media is being maliciously used to normalize 
extremism. Hitler, Nazis, and Holocaust denial were all 
trending on Twitter after they saw the mainstreaming of it by 
cultural, political, and even sports icons.
    Mr. Segal, can you shed light on the link between hate 
spread on these platforms and hate-fueled messaging and 
violence that we see in our committees? Like, for example, in 
the Nazi--this message is recently and repeatedly spray-painted 
across parts of my own hometown of Weston. In other words, how 
does virtual hate turn into physical or real-life hate.
    Mr. Segal. Thank you for the question. I think we need to 
understand these virtual spaces as the lifeblood of extremism. 
Over and over, we see how the ability for people to reach 
recruit and radicalize in these spaces has actually animated 
real-world activity. Now, this is true for the violent 
extremism that we've seen where people have referenced previous 
shooters, their online manifestos, their online footprints, but 
also for some of the more day-to-day, if you will, types of 
activities.
    So, ADL has tracked over 5,000 White supremacist propaganda 
incidents over the last several years. Year over year, it's 
increasing. Where is this propaganda created? It is created in 
online spaces, leveraged amongst people who share it, and then 
shows up on the ground. There's a direct pipeline between the 
hate that is incubated in these online spaces and the impact 
that it has on the communities on the ground.
    And, frankly, one last point is that many of these 
individuals are actually live-streaming their activity on the 
ground in real time, knowing that there are people sitting in 
the comfort of their own homes around the world who are 
encouraging them to harass people on the ground in real time. 
Anti-Semitism, White supremacy, other forms of hatred have 
become a form of entertainment, and they are spread to viewers 
across various platforms. And that's one of the concerns that 
we have for even more violence in the future.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. And just a followup 
question, how do mainstream social media sites like Facebook, 
Twitter, and YouTube allow extremist movements to radicalize 
those who might not otherwise be exposed to this extremist 
White supremacist messaging?
    Mr. Segal. So certainly, the algorithms on many of these 
platforms where they drive people to, you know, basically spend 
more time on these platforms require even more and more sort of 
extreme sort of content. But in addition, we have noticed, by 
design, tactics by White supremacists and other extremists to 
not necessarily rely on terrible content, if for fear that they 
may be taken down or often not, but actually using in their 
handles and their profiles links to other platforms that are 
much more permissible in terms of the hate and violence that 
they will allow. And so, it's using the wide reach of Twitter 
and YouTube and Facebook in order to drive individuals into 
more free spaces where there are even more concentrated echo 
chambers of hate.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. In September, the anti-
parliamentarian task force to combat [inaudible] anti-Semitism 
which I [inaudible] coach there--held a hearing with 
parliamentarians from around the world. We confronted social 
media representatives on their lack of action to prevent 
radicalization and regulate hate speech. This was before Elon 
Musk opened the floodgates on content regulation.
    Ms. Caraballo, what tools or tactics do sites like Twitter 
and Facebook possess to stop or blunt their algorithms that 
fuel radicalization of anti-Semitic or racist content.
    Ms. Caraballo. Thank you, Representative, for the question. 
In particular, these sites have the ability to minimize the 
ability for negative emotional content to spread by the 
algorithms. The algorithms rely on engagement, and oftentimes 
can detect certain types of sentiment and oftentimes that's 
used to promote certain types of content.
    Additionally, advertisers, and particularly political 
advertisers may seek to raise negative engagement, particularly 
around certain content targeting particular minority groups. 
And, particularly, my testimony, I cited the use of the Daily 
Wire constantly advertising around anti-trans content. And so, 
that then gets promoted and reinforced. And, additionally, one 
of the things to also note is the ability for more contextual 
content moderation that looks at the ways that targeted 
harassment on the basis of identity is perpetrated because it 
is a constant moving target, and is very difficult in 
particular to always know what is being used in that context. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I know I'm out of time, 
Mr. Chairman, but we have to address how social media fuels 
extremism. It can't function as an extremist recruitment tool. 
And we have to make sure that there is moderation of toxic 
rhetoric that leads to actual violence, because it's seen as 
good for business, but it's not good for the health of our 
civic spaces. We have to make sure that we address it. Thank 
you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. And I hope it's something 
that we will be able to work on in the next Congress. And now, 
I recognize the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Ms. Mace.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I agree about social 
media and the comments today about it being an extremist 
recruitment tool, but I see it, I believe, from both sides of 
the aisle.
    Threats to our democracy comes from those who seek to 
undermine our Constitution and our three branches of 
government. We've got to take a stand to support the 
Constitution and the rule of law against those who debased our 
society with violence or harassment of government officials 
carrying out their constitutional duties, for example.
    I have a few simple ``yes or no'' questions I would like to 
ask the panelist today. My first one is do you believe that 
rhetoric, you know--that rhetoric is a way to inflict harm on 
our democracy, people's words? Mr. Ward, yes or no?
    Mr. Ward. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Mr. Segal?
    Mr. Segal. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Ms. Caraballo?
    Ms. Caraballo. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Ms. Nomani, yes or no.
    Ms. Nomani. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. OK. Ms. Tyler?
    Ms. Tyler. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Ms. McCord?
    Ms. McCord. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Is rhetoric on social media a problem and a 
threat to our democracy? Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Massie. Mr. Segal?
    Ms. Mace. Ms. Caraballo?
    Ms. Caraballo. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Ms. Nomani?
    Ms. Nomani. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Ms. Tyler?
    Ms. Tyler. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Another question I have. Do you believe that 
rhetoric targeting officials with violence for carrying out 
their constitutional duties is a threat to democracy? Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Mr. Segal?
    Mr. Segal. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Ms. Nomani?
    Ms. Nomani. Yes.
    Ms. Tyler. Yes.
    Ms. McCord. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. All right. Thank you very much. Only a few weeks 
after the attempted attack on the Supreme Court Justice on June 
25, one of the witnesses, Alejandra Caraballo tweeted out the 
following in response to a decision on abortion, overturning 
Roe v. Wade. And I will quote directly from the tweet:
    The six justices who overturned Roe should never know peace 
again. It is our civic duty to accost them every time they're 
in public. They are pariahs. Since women don't have their 
rights, these Justices should never have a peaceful moment in 
public again.
    I know something about being accosted. The night of January 
5, I was physically accosted on the streets of D.C. in Navy 
Yard by a constituent of mine. I fervently blamed rhetoric, 
rhetoric on social media, rhetoric at public events for being 
physically accosted. I carry a gun everywhere I go when I am in 
my district and I'm at home, because I know personally that 
rhetoric has consequences. I've had my car keyed. I've had my 
house spray painted. I had someone trespass in my house as 
recently as August. I've been doxed on social media about where 
I live. And I've had to add the security everywhere I go often 
because I can't afford it. I have to carry my own firearm 
wherever I go.
    And Alejandra Caraballo also recently tweeted on November 
19, not even a month ago, that the Supreme Court vested with 
the judicial power of the United States by our Constitution 
stated they are not a legitimate court issuing decisions. And 
also, the Supreme Court is an organ of the far right.
    So, my last question today of Ms. Caraballo, do you stand 
by these comments, this kind of rhetoric on social media, and 
do you believe it's a threat to democracy?
    Ms. Caraballo. Thank you, Representative, for the 
opportunity to clarify and provide context to my tweets. And--
--
    Ms. Mace. I asked a question. Is it yes or no? Do you 
believe your rhetoric is a threat to democracy when you're 
calling to accost a branch of government, the Supreme Court?
    Ms. Caraballo. I don't believe that's a correct 
characterization of my statements.
    Ms. Mace. But you tweeted it. Did you not tweet that, that 
you thought that the Supreme Court Justices should be accosted?
    Ms. Caraballo. What I'm saying is that----
    Ms. Mace. Yes or no? Did you tweet it?
    Ms. Caraballo [continuing]. it is not a characterization of 
my statements.
    Ms. Mace. On June 8 of this year, a man was arrested near 
Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home in Maryland. He told law 
enforcement officers he wanted to kill the Supreme Court 
Justice. He was found with a knife, with a pistol, two 
magazines, ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, 
crowbar, and duct tape. The threats that Members of Congress, 
the threats that branches of government face on the left and 
the right. As was mentioned by the chairman earlier in the 
committee hearing, what happened to the Speaker's husband is 
every Member's worst nightmare.
    So it's clear to me that we have to call out the threats to 
our democracy emanating from wherever they come, whether it's 
the right or the left. It is incumbent upon every one of us to 
call it out on both sides of the political spectrum, and we 
recommit ourselves to the Constitution and the rule of law.
    I look forward to working with anyone, Republican or 
Democrat, as you know, Mr. Chairman, to address these threats 
from within and without. And I look forward to inviting more 
people who actually know what they're talking about to our 
witness panel in the 118th Congress. Thank you, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Mace. I turn now that Ms. Kelly 
for her five minutes.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have talked a lot today 
about the dire threat to democracy posed by the spread of White 
supremacy and related extremism. But I'd like to discuss the 
means to combat radicalization and private unregulated 
militias.
    First off, nearly every state has a statute on the books 
prohibiting ad hoc militias from organizing and operating, but 
these laws are seldom enforced.
    Ms. McCord, two quick yeses or noes. Many militias seem to 
believe that there's a constitutional right that allows for the 
violent overthrow of the government to take it back for the 
people. Does that right exist?
    Ms. McCord. No, it does not.
    Ms. Kelly. Does the Second Amendment provide this right?
    Ms. McCord. No, it does not.
    Ms. Kelly. That's what I thought. OK. What more can states 
do--be doing to investigate and enforce those anti-militia 
laws? And are there any states you appoint to that have 
demonstrated strong enforcement? And what can we do on the 
Federal level in Congress?
    Ms. McCord. I would point recently to the elected district 
attorney of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Bernalillo County, Raul 
Torrez. He brought a civil enforcement action against an 
unlawful private militia that was operated in Albuquerque, the 
New Mexico civil guard. My organization at in Georgetown co-
counseled with him in that enforcement action, and we obtained 
injunctive relief, court-ordered relief prohibiting that 
militia and its officers, directors, members, and successor 
organizations from continuing to operate as a military unit 
outside of governmental authority or to usurp the role of law 
enforcement by assuming the functions of law enforcement. That 
is a really commendable use of the state laws in New Mexico, 
and that's something that could be replicated elsewhere.
    However, as your question notes, there is, I think, a lack 
of resources for many state and local law enforcement and 
prosecutors, and sometimes a lack of political will to take the 
kind of action that Mr. Torrez took. And that is why I have 
worked with the chairman and his staff on, you know, some 
proposals for Federal anti-paramilitary activity legislation.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much. These unregulated militia are 
major contributors to gun violence, so it's very critical that, 
you know, that these laws are enforced.
    Mr. Segal, turning to you, briefly, what does the whole-of-
government approach to combating radicalization and extremism 
look like? And what funding and grants are needed?
    Mr. Segal. So, I recommend that folks look at ADL's protect 
plan which is a comprehensive set of recommendations, which 
includes opposing extremists in government service, taking 
domestic terrorism prevention measures. Specifically, though, 
it also includes creating an independent clearinghouse for 
online extremist content. You can imagine it modeled after in 
part the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 
where, essentially, people who are identifying extremist 
activity or threats of violence online have a place to report 
it that is fund--that is nonprofit, independent, but funded by 
the government. I think that would be a good step.
    And then, last, I think we need to also identify 
potentially looking at targeting foreign White supremacist 
terrorist groups, because we know White supremacy is a global 
terror threat. And the ability for extremists to translate 
their ideologies of hate through the internet across the world 
is something that we're seeing impact communities on the ground 
here in the United States.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much. Ms. Caraballo, I wanted to 
give you a chance to--it seems like you wanted the opportunity 
to have a little rebuttal, so I wanted to give you that 
opportunity.
    Ms. Caraballo. Thank you, Representative, for the 
opportunity to provide some context to my speech, or to my 
tweets. The tweets aren't necessarily representative entirely 
of my views. Every American has the right to protest, protest 
peacefully on sidewalks as the Supreme Court has held, and to 
protest public officials, peacefully. And I wholeheartedly 
support the peaceful protests of government officials. And I 
stress the word ``peaceful.'' In terms of the word ``accost'' 
means to confront, verbally. And that is entirely what I meant, 
and that is what I was pointing to.
    And yet, in terms of the second tweet, I was referring to 
reports about--in the news media that Justice Alito had taken 
meetings with a family and leaked a Supreme Court decision back 
in, I believe, 2014, the Hobby Lobby decision. And those are my 
personal views. And I hope every American is able to share 
their personal views on social media and exercise their First 
Amendment right to free speech. Thank you.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you. And I just want to say thanks for 
your explanation. But I do agree with my colleagues, we want to 
be able to do our jobs in a peaceful way and don't want to have 
things, what happened to Nancy Pelosi's husband, or any Member 
of Congress or elected official be physically hurt from doing 
their job. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. And I thank the distinguished gentlelady from 
Illinois.
    Ms. Mace, if there's nobody else on the Republican side, 
I'm going to take my five minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Mace. Oh, that's fine. I just ask unanimous consent to 
enter the tweets into the record.
    Mr. Raskin. You got it.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Segal, let's just clear up one bit of 
semantic confusion. The Buffalo shooter invoked the Great 
Replacement Theory, engaged in other racist and anti-Semitic 
speech. He said he was inspired by the New Zealand mass 
murderer who killed more than 50 people and proclaimed his 
loyalty to anti-Semitism, racism, and so on. If that person 
calls himself a national socialist, would you categorize him in 
your research on the left, national socialism being, I guess, 
the linguistic root of Nazi for Nazi Germany?
    Mr. Segal. I think any sober look at the Buffalo shooter's 
manifesto statements--and by the way, the symbols and names on 
his weapons, symbols of White supremacy, names of White 
supremacist shooters before him, would recognize that attack as 
clearly a White supremacist attack.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Good. I wanted to ask you about something 
that Ms. Nomani said. And there were some things she said I 
agreed with. There were some things she said I disagreed with. 
But she used the phrase of a woke army. And I just want to be 
clear about this because we've been focused on violence today. 
Is there such thing formally, literally as a woke army that has 
ever killed anyone in a synagogue, like the Tree of Life 
Synagogue, or a church like the Mother Emanuel Church in 
Charleston, South Carolina, or a supermarket like the Tops 
supermarket, or a Walmart? Does a woke army exist as a violent 
threat to the American people?
    Mr. Segal. I'm not aware of any woke army other than in a 
semantic argument type of way.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Ms. Tyler, can I ask you, what motivated 
the Joint Baptist Committee to take on the problem of White 
Christian nationalism?
    Ms. Tyler. Well, the problem with White Christian 
nationalism, it exactly fits with our mission of defending and 
extending religious freedom for all people. And that's because 
Christian nationalism strikes at the heart of the foundational 
ideas of what religious freedom means and how it's protected in 
this country. And that, of course, is with the institutional 
separation of church and state.
    Mr. Raskin. Can I ask you quickly about that because 
everybody knows about Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury 
Baptists. Well, why have the Baptists always been such strong 
champions of religious freedom and pluralism and toleration?
    Ms. Tyler. It really goes back to the beginning of the 
Baptist movement in the early 17th Century, and Thomas Helwys, 
who wrote the first defensive universal religious freedom in 
the English language and was imprisoned by King James I for his 
advocacy. It continued with Roger Williams, who founded the 
First Baptist Church of America. What unites these early 
Baptist advocates with modern-day advocates like me and others 
at the Baptist Joint Committee is our theological commitment to 
sole freedom, and our living out of Jesus' command to love our 
neighbors as ourselves. We protect our--the religious freedom 
of our neighbors as we protect our own religious freedom. And 
we do it in our constitutional democracy by defending the First 
Amendment.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you for your testimony, and thank 
you for your work.
    Professor McCord, the Constitution says that the states 
shall appoint the officers of the militias that Congress has 
the power to arm, to organize, to discipline the militias. And 
so, the groups that are out on the streets of--in different 
states and cities that arrived in Washington on January 6 were 
calling themselves militias. They have no formal legal status, 
do they? And what is their status in the states?
    Ms. McCord. That's correct, Chairman. There is no authority 
under the Federal Constitution or any state Constitution for 
private groups of individuals to ban together and form their 
own private armies or private militias. Well-regulated has 
always meant regulated by the government, even since before the 
founding. As you indicated, Article I gives Congress the 
authority to provide for the organizing and disciplining of the 
militia, and it gives states the ability to appoint officers.
    Congress has executed that authority through the Militia 
Acts which have authorized since the late 1700's what has 
become our modern National Guard. So, the only lawful militia 
is a militia that reports up through the government. There's 
state-level militias, and they can be Federalized.
    Mr. Raskin. The Proud Boys are not a militia. The Three 
Percenters are not militia. In fact, the Constitution says that 
Congress has the power to call forth the militias of the 
states, i.e., the National Guard, in order to put down 
insurrections by groups like that that might pretend to be a 
militia, right?
    Ms. McCord. That's correct. They have no status under law. 
They have no authority to engage in insurrection.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. Well, let's see, if there are no 
other members present, then I think we can move to close.
    Ms. Mace, do you have any closing thoughts before I give a 
few?
    Ms. Mace. No, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to thank you for 
this committee hearing. As I reiterated earlier today, it's 
been an immense honor to serve with you in this committee. And 
I hope that we can do much more in the 118th Congress together 
here on Oversight. So, I hope you'll be staying on the 
Oversight Committee when you do.
    But I appreciate your constitutional arguments or 
constitutional expertise, and your passion for civil rights, 
just like I have a passion for civil rights in my district. And 
we agree on so much. The goal, at the end of the day, is often 
the same, but how we get there might differ. And I have enjoyed 
working with you together on this committee. So, thank you, and 
I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you, Ms. Mace. It's been a real 
honor and a pleasure to get to know you and to get to know your 
very sincere and heartfelt commitment to the civil rights and 
civil liberties of all Americans. And, you know, we've all been 
through some tough times together. And it's been wonderful to 
see you stand up as an independent thinker and someone who 
always has the courage of her convictions. And, again, I refer 
anybody out there to Ms. Mace's really excellent book, In the 
Company of Men, about the experiences that she shaped her in 
coming into public life. So, I wish you all the best.
    I want to thank all of our colleagues for their 
involvement. And I do hope that we will be able to maintain a 
bipartisan commitment to rejecting violent extremism, which 
continues to haunt the American republic. One thing that Ms. 
Nomani said that I agreed with very much was her rejection of 
the idea that America is becoming a White supremacist society. 
On the contrary, America has consistently moved away from White 
supremacy. We began as a White supremacist country, and that's 
what Justice Taney declared in Dred Scott decision that America 
was founded as a White man's compact. And that view was 
overthrown in the Civil War and by the Reconstruction 
amendments. And we've made tremendous progress in the direction 
of becoming a government of the people, by the people, for the 
people, all the people. And that has vindicated people's belief 
from all over the world that have come here as immigrants that 
they will be treated fairly in an open society open to people's 
talents and skills, regardless of their race or their ethnicity 
or their religion.
    So, what we're seeing, I think, in the explosion of White 
supremacist violence in public places like supermarkets and 
Walmarts and churches and synagogues is a kind of rearguard 
action. Let's hope it's a last gasp of that view.
    There is a place for everyone in this beautiful, 
multiracial, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic constitutional 
democracy where all of us are equal under law and all of us 
have the opportunity to seek our freedom and our happiness 
together.
    So with that, I want to thank all of the panelists for 
their lucid and excellent educational remarks today. I want to 
commend my colleagues for participating in this important 
conversation.
    Without objection, all members will get five legislative 
days within which to submit additional written questions for 
our witnesses today, which will be forwarded to you for your 
response, please get them back to us as quickly as you can. And 
at that point, this hearing is adjourned, and I thank you all 
for being with us.
    [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]