[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]