[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







 
      ``MOSTLY PEACEFUL'': COUNTERING LEFT-WING ORGANIZED VIOLENCE

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                       OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS,
                           AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 16, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-13

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                                     

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                          ________________
        

                             
               U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
53-781 PDF           WASHINGTON : 2023                          
                               
                               
                               
                               

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

                 Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee, Chairman
Michael T. McCaul, Texas             Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, 
Clay Higgins, Louisiana                  Ranking Member
Michael Guest, Mississippi           Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Dan Bishop, North Carolina           Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida           Eric Swalwell, California
August Pfluger, Texas                J. Luis Correa, California
Andrew R. Garbarino, New York        Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Shri Thanedar, Michigan
Tony Gonzales, Texas                 Seth Magaziner, Rhode Island
Nick LaLota, New York                Glenn Ivey, Maryland
Mike Ezell, Mississippi              Daniel S. Goldman, New York
Anthony D'Esposito, New York         Robert Garcia, California
Laurel M. Lee, Florida               Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
Morgan Luttrell, Texas               Robert Menendez, New Jersey
Dale W. Strong, Alabama              Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma              Dina Titus, Nevada
Elijah Crane, Arizona
                      Stephen Siao, Staff Director
                  Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
                       Natalie Nixon, Chief Clerk
                     Sean Jones, Legislative Clerk
                                 ------                                

     SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                  Dan Bishop, North Carolina, Chairman
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Glenn Ivey, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Ezell, Mississippi                  Member
Dale W. Strong, Alabama              Shri Thanedar, Michigan
Elijah Crane, Arizona                Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee (ex     Yvette D. Clarke, New York
    officio)                         Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi 
                                         (ex officio)
                  Sang Yi, Subcommittee Staff Director
           Lisa Canini, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
                   Luke Jennette, Subcommittee Clerk
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               Statements

The Honorable Dan Bishop, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
  Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability:
  Oral Statement.................................................     1
  Prepared Statement.............................................     4
The Honorable Glenn Ivey, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Maryland, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
  Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability:
  Oral Statement.................................................     5
  Prepared Statement.............................................     8
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
  Homeland Security:
  Oral Statement.................................................     9
  Prepared Statement.............................................    10
The Honorable Mark E. Green, MD, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Tennessee, and Chairman, Committee on 
  Homeland Security:
  Prepared Statement.............................................    12

                               Witnesses

Ms. Riley Gaines, Spokeswoman, Independent Women's Forum:
  Oral Statement.................................................    13
  Prepared Statement.............................................    15
Mr. Scott G. Erickson, Former Deputy Chief of Staff at U.S. 
  Department of Homeland Security, and Former Police Officer, San 
  Jose, California:
  Oral Statement.................................................    18
  Prepared Statement.............................................    19
Ms. Amy Spitalnick, Incoming Chief Executive Officer, Jewish 
  Council for Public Affairs, Testifying on Behalf of Human 
  Rights First:
  Oral Statement.................................................    20
  Prepared Statement.............................................    22
Mr. Julio Rosas, Senior Writer, Townhall:
  Oral Statement.................................................    24
  Prepared Statement.............................................    25

                             For the Record

The Honorable Delia C. Ramirez, a Representative in Congress From 
  the State of Illinois:
  Article, April 27, 2012........................................    37
  Article, August 18, 2016.......................................    38
  Report, March 23, 2021.........................................    41
The Honorable Daniel S. Goldman, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of New York:
  Article, September 17, 2020....................................    48
The Honorable Glenn Ivey, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Maryland:
  Statement of Daniel Byman, Professor and Director, Security 
    Studies Program of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign 
    Service at Georgetown University; Senior Fellow at the 
    Brookings Institution........................................    52
  Letter From the Southern Poverty Law Center Submitted by 
    Honorable Glenn Ivey.........................................    55
  Statement of Heidi L. Beirich, Ph.D. Co-Founder/Executive Vice 
    President, Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.........    65
  Article, May 14, 2023..........................................    71
The Honorable Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Representative in 
  Congress From the State of Georgia:
  Images.........................................................    80
The Honorable August Pfluger, a Representative in Congress From 
  the State of Texas:
  Document.......................................................    92


      ``MOSTLY PEACEFUL'': COUNTERING LEFT-WING ORGANIZED VIOLENCE

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, May 16, 2023

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                    Committee on Homeland Security,
                Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, 
                                        and Accountability,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:21 p.m., at 
Room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Dan Bishop 
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Bishop, Greene, Ezell, Strong, 
Crane, Ivey, Thanedar, Ramirez, and Clarke.
    Also present: Representatives Thompson, Pfluger, and 
Goldman.
    Chairman Bishop. The Committee on Homeland Security 
Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability 
will come to order.
    Without objection, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger, 
will be permitted to sit with the committee and to ask 
questions of witnesses.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the 
committee in recess at any point.
    Today's hearing will examine the impact of the left-wing 
violence that is plaguing American communities and highlight 
how the Department of Homeland Security has the ability to do 
more to support State and local law enforcement to combat 
interstate threats such as left-wing violence.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Ivey for the purposes of 
seeking unanimous consent.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Before I begin, I ask unanimous consent that Representative 
Goldman be permitted to sit with the committee and question 
today's witnesses.
    Chairman Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Good afternoon, and welcome to this subcommittee hearing 
titled ``Mostly Peaceful: Countering Left-Wing Organized 
Violence''. Today's hearing will examine the threat of 
organized left-wing violence and how the Federal Government, 
and the Department of Homeland Security in particular, can best 
help State and local law enforcement understand, anticipate, 
prepare for, and respond to these threats.
    Peaceful protests, robust debate, and civil dialog are all 
essential to our democratic society. The subcommittee just 
reaffirmed that principle in a hearing inquiring into the 
Department of Homeland Security's troubling and dangerous 
venture into censorship of American's on-line expression, which 
some astute observers have termed the ``censorship laundering 
enterprise''. However, another threat to free expression is the 
contemporaneous phenomenon of more and more left-wing violence, 
organized violence, that appears designed to corrupt and 
suppress open debate as well.
    Time and again across the Nation Americans have seen both 
episodic and in some cases sustained violence against people, 
especially law enforcement, and property damage from so-called 
Antifascist and anarchist groups. But it often seems that of 
this the Federal Government takes little notice. I anticipate 
that my Democrat colleagues will reply with the official line 
from all the security agencies that right-wing extremism 
represents the most lethal terroristic threat to the homeland. 
Certainly, that issue has received no lack of official 
attention. But this is not about grading extremism. Violence in 
public discourse is always unacceptable, no matter the ideology 
behind it. But mention left-wing violence and the 
prevarications begin. Some will claim that it is not that big a 
deal or that Antifa is a myth. We all remember State-aligned 
media's fervent effort to label fiery, violent rioting as, 
``mostly peaceful''.
    Well, it is time that Congress take a closer look at what 
``mostly peaceful'' looks like.
    Here is one of our witnesses, former collegiate swimmer who 
found herself on the wrong end of a mob when she appeared at 
San Francisco State University last month to speak her mind 
about the state of women's sports. She was barricaded in a room 
for her own personal protection for several hours before 
finally being able to leave. Take a look at the mob Riley 
Gaines encountered.
    [Video shown.]
    Chairman Bishop. Our colleges and universities, once the 
symbol of free and open debate in our country, are increasingly 
scenes of violent intimidation by left-wing extremists to 
silence those with whom they disagree.
    In another recent incident, left-wing agitators at Stanford 
Law School disrupted a student organized lecture from a Judge 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 
Protesters shouted him down and refused to let him deliver his 
speech. Then the university DEI administrator who appeared 
didn't act to establish order and contain the heckling. 
Instead, she took the podium to deliver prepared remarks 
praising the disruptive intimidation and suggesting that 
Stanford re-think its commitment to free speech. The Judge 
eventually had to be escorted out by Federal Marshals.
    But it is not just colleges and universities. In 2020, the 
American people watched as riots raged, causing an estimated $2 
billion in damage and chaos across our country. Minneapolis, 
Kenosha, other such places, we saw courthouses and police 
facilities in Portland and Seattle, and even the very notion of 
government control, targeted with months of sustained violence. 
Any notion that this was a phenomenon limited to a specific 
time or region gave way more recently to the spectre of left-
wing activists carrying out a sustained, violent campaign 
against a public safety training center under development in 
Atlanta. The agitators, several of whom were arrested on 
terrorism charges, attacked law enforcement with rocks, bricks, 
Molotov cocktails, and commercial-grade fireworks. This is not 
what peaceful protest looks like.
    It is past time to recognize that these are not random or 
spontaneous outbursts of violence, far from it. Self-styled 
Antifascist and anarchist groups often exploit bona fide causes 
deliberately to organize and deploy street violence for 
political ends. They use sophisticated tactics to assault law 
enforcement officers, destroy property, and spread fear and 
disorder. They travel across the country to targeted locations 
to unleash their destructive rage. For example, 21 of the 23 
people arrested in the Atlanta attack came from outside the 
State of Georgia. Just two were locals, including a lawyer 
employed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
    These groups are sophisticated, they are well-trained and -
financed, they have extensive logistical support, and they are 
extremely clever in masking their activities. According to the 
FBI, groups like Antifa avoid traditional hierarchies and 
leadership structures. They prefer small cell activities 
tailored to specific events. Some use the opaque nature of 
groups like Antifa to excuse or to claim that Antifa is ``a 
false issue'' or a myth. But the law enforcement personnel and 
journalists on the ground, including our witnesses, know that 
the threat is real. The opaque and diffuse nature of groups 
like Antifa mean that local law enforcement often lack the 
insights they need to prepare for and counter destructive 
activities.
    Unfortunately, it is not clear that the Department of 
Homeland Security is always engaging in the level of 
information sharing and coordination sufficient to address this 
threat. Part of the Department's mission, after all, is to 
share timely and actionable information to enable State and 
local partners to keep their communities safe. The question is, 
does the Department sufficiently share analyses and collect 
lessons learned from prior instance of organized left-wing 
violence with State and local partners? After all, you cannot 
address a threat you decline to define or acknowledge.
    So today's hearing is not about whether left- or right-wing 
extremism is worse, they are different problems requiring 
different strategies. It is well past time we recognize 
organized left-wing violence for the threat that it is.
    Earlier today, two other subcommittees on the Homeland 
Security Committee held a hearing about Federal efforts to 
support State and local law enforcement. As we celebrate 
National Police Week, we on the committee are reminded of the 
importance of these Federal and local partnerships.
    This afternoon we are fortunate to have Scott Erickson, a 
former police officer, former high-ranking Homeland Security 
official, share with us his testimony on the tools and 
information local law enforcement needs from the Federal 
Government to help secure our communities. Americans like our 
witness today, Riley Gaines, who has the right to speak her 
mind, and Julio Rosas, who has the right to report the news, 
deserve no less than to exercise their Constitutional rights 
without constant fear of being violently attacked for doing so.
    [The statement of Chairman Bishop follows:]
                    Statement of Chairman Dan Bishop
                              May 16, 2023
    Good afternoon and welcome to the Subcommittee on Oversight, 
Investigations, and Accountability's hearing titled, `` `Mostly 
Peaceful': Countering Left-Wing Organized Violence.''
    Today's hearing will examine the threat of organized left-wing 
violence and how the Federal Government, and the Department of Homeland 
Security in particular, can best help State and local law enforcement 
understand, anticipate, prepare for, and respond to these threats.
    Peaceful protests, robust debate, and civil dialog are all 
essential to our democratic society. The subcommittee just reaffirmed 
that principle in a hearing inquiring into the Department of Homeland 
Security's troubling and dangerous venture into censorship of 
Americans' on-line expression, which some astute observers have termed 
the Censorship Laundering Enterprise. However, another threat to free 
expression is the contemporaneous phenomenon of more and more left-
wing, organized violence that likewise appears designed to co-opt and 
suppress open debate. Time and again, across the Nation, Americans have 
seen both episodic and in some cases sustained violence against people, 
especially law enforcement, and property damage from so-called anti-
fascist and anarchist groups. But it often seems that, of this, the 
Federal Government takes little notice.
    I anticipate that my Democratic colleagues will reply with the 
official line from all the security agencies that right-wing extremism 
represents the most lethal, terroristic threat to the homeland. 
Certainly, that issue has received no lack of official attention. But, 
this is not about grading extremism. Violence in public discourse is 
always unacceptable--no matter the ideology behind it.
    But, mention left-wing violence and the prevarications begin: Some 
will claim that it's not that big of a deal, or that Antifa is a myth. 
And we all remember state-aligned media's fervent effort to label 
fiery, violent rioting as quote--``mostly peaceful.''
    Well, it's time that Congress takes a closer look at what ``mostly 
peaceful'' looks like. Here's one of our witnesses, a former collegiate 
swimmer who found herself on the wrong end of a mob when she appeared 
at San Francisco State University last month to speak her mind about 
the state of women's sports. She was barricaded in a room for several 
hours before finally being able to leave.
    Take a look at the mob Ms. Gaines encountered.
    Our colleges and universities--once the symbol of free and open 
debate--are increasingly scenes of violent intimidation by left-wing 
extremists to silence those with whom they disagree.
    In another recent incident, left-wing agitators at Stanford Law 
School disrupted a student-organized lecture from a judge of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Protesters shouted him 
down and refused to let him deliver his speech. Then the University DEI 
administrator who appeared didn't act to establish order and contain 
the heckling; instead she took the podium to deliver prepared remarks 
praising the disruptive intimidation and suggesting that Stanford 
rethink its commitment to free speech. The judge eventually had to be 
escorted out by Federal marshals.
    But it's not just colleges and universities. In 2020, the American 
people watched as riots raged, causing an estimated $2 billion dollars 
in damages and chaos across our country. Minneapolis, Kenosha, . . . We 
saw courthouses and police facilities in Portland and Seattle, and even 
the very notion of government control, targeted with months of 
sustained violence.
    Any notion that this was a phenomenon limited to a specific time or 
region gave way more recently to the specter of left-wing activists 
carrying out a sustained, violent campaign against a Public Safety 
Training Center under development in Atlanta. The agitators--several of 
whom were arrested on terrorism charges--attacked law enforcement with 
rocks, bricks, Molotov cocktails, and commercial-grade fireworks. This 
is not what peaceful protest looks like:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://nypost.com/2023/03/06/international-group-involved-in-
attack-on-atlantas-cop-city/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's past time to recognize that these are not random or 
spontaneous outbursts of violence. Far from it. Self-styled anti-
fascist and anarchist groups, often exploit bona fide causes 
deliberately to organize and deploy street violence for political ends. 
They use sophisticated tactics to assault law enforcement officers, 
destroy property, and spread fear and disorder.
    They travel across the country to targeted locations to unleash 
their destructive rage. For example, 21 of the 23 people arrested in 
the Atlanta attack came from outside the State of Georgia. Just two 
were locals--including a lawyer employed by the Southern Poverty Law 
Center.
    These groups are sophisticated. They are well-trained and -
financed. They have extensive logistical support. And, they are 
extremely clever in masking their activities. According to the FBI, 
groups like Antifa avoid traditional hierarchies and leadership 
structures. They prefer small-cell activities tailored to specific 
events.
    Some use the opaque nature of groups like Antifa as an excuse to 
claim Antifa is a ``false issue'',\2\ or a myth.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://twitter.com/RepCohen/status/1276271227200569347.
    \3\ https://nypost.com/2020/07/27/jerry-nadler-calls-violence-from-
antifa-in-portland-a-myth/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But, the law enforcement personnel and journalists on the ground, 
including our witnesses, know the threat is real. And, the opaque and 
diffuse nature of groups like Antifa means local law enforcement often 
lack the insights they need to prepare for and counter destructive 
activities.
    Unfortunately, it is not clear that the Department of Homeland 
Security is always engaging in the level of information sharing and 
coordination sufficient to address this threat.
    Part of the Department's mission is to share timely and actionable 
information to enable State and local partners to keep their 
communities safe. The question is--Does the Department sufficiently 
share analyses and collect lessons learned from prior incidents of 
organized left-wing violence with State and local partners?
    After all, you cannot address a threat you decline to define or 
acknowledge.
    So, today's hearing is not about whether left- or right-wing 
extremism is worse. They are different problems requiring different 
strategies. It is well past time we recognize organized left-wing 
violence for the threat that it is.
    Earlier today, two other subcommittees on the Homeland Security 
Committee held a hearing about Federal efforts to support State and 
local law enforcement. As we celebrate National Police Week, we on the 
committee are reminded of the importance of these Federal and local 
partnerships.
    This afternoon, we are fortunate to have Scott Erickson, a former 
police officer and former high-ranking Homeland Security official, 
share with us his testimony on the tools and information local law 
enforcement needs from the Federal Government to help secure our 
communities.
    Americans like our witnesses today, Riley Gaines--who has the right 
to speak her mind--and Julio Rosas--who has the right to report the 
news--deserve no less than to exercise their Constitutional rights 
without the constant fear of being violently attacked for doing so.

    Chairman Bishop. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ivey, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You are absolutely right. I am going to talk a little bit 
about the very violent aspects of right-wing violence. Right-
wing extremism that we have here in the United States, not in a 
me-too-ism, one-up-ism, but because it is significantly greater 
threat than the Antifa scenario that was just discussed.
    I want to present two things to the committee, this chart, 
and we will come back to it, I want to give the witnesses a 
chance to discuss it, but I believe it is the blue shows left-
wing extremism, and this is obviously 100 percent. These are 
killings and incidents, and this is from 2013 to 2022. As you 
can see, with respect to the incidents, the red part of the 
doughnut is right-wing extremism--and we will talk about what 
that means later--but it is almost from an incident standpoint, 
the entire circle. Then with respect to the killings from 2013 
to 2022, three quarters of it is right-wing extremism. So that 
is not to say that there is no left-wing extremism issue or 
that there aren't solutions that we should take or steps that 
we should take to address them, but it is to say that from a 
standpoint of violence and the risk of death to citizens here 
in the United States, right-wing extremism is a greater 
problem.
    I wanted to back up and talk about sort-of the roots of 
this. I will come to these issues with the left in a moment. 
But of course, the largest act of home-grown terrorism is the 
Oklahoma City bombing. I think we lost 168 civilians in that 
bombing. That was Timothy McVeigh acting in conjunction with 
two others--I think Terry Nichols--I forget the name of the 
third gentleman--but he decided that he was upset about the 
Waco issue and then 2 years later to the day, he put a bomb 
inside a truck that he designed from fertilizer and drove it 
into the Oklahoma City Federal office building. I think it was 
the second floor of that building had a kindergarten and 
daycare in the bottom, so many of the deaths were to children. 
I saw some of the clips of people who were survivors of that 
bombing. I think some worked for the IRS, some were just 
Federal people who worked trying to be public servants and help 
their community. They were really unconnected, uninvolved, had 
no relationship with the Waco scenario at all. But it certainly 
set a gigantic tone, because we have had a lot of right-wing 
extremism that has tried to imitate McVeigh or followed along 
the ideological tracks that he laid out. In fact, I believe it 
was Mr. Nichols who was connected to the Michigan militia, 
which was also connected to the same group that tried to kidnap 
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. We have had some 
discussions about that at previous hearing, but I think it is 
clear that that was an effort to kidnap her, and I think 
apparently to assassinate her. That was based on their views 
with respect to COVID, feeling that she had gone too far in 
imposing COVID restrictions.
    So I think we have to be sure that we sort-of separate out 
that sort of violence, those sorts of threats, from what we 
have got witnesses who will talk about today.
    I particularly wanted to mention this. I think Kari 
Watkins, who is the director of the Oklahoma City Museum, that 
is a memorial to the bombing site, says that from that sacred 
ground, we have to work to find common ground, otherwise we 
cannot begin to address these problems. I think that the common 
ground has to be data-driven, that there has to be a focus on 
the significant causes of violence and right-wing extremism. I 
think from a homeland security standpoint, it is important for 
us to focus on what the roots of that are so we can try and 
disrupt that.
    We had a hearing here a little while ago about 
disinformation, misinformation, malinformation--I will just say 
false information, just to summarize it quickly. But it is 
clear that a lot of the young men who get involved, and there 
is almost always young men, in committing these kinds of acts, 
buy into various types of disinformation and misinformation. I 
want to chat about a couple of them real quick.
    Some of you may recall the Atlanta attacker from March 
2021. He fatally shot 8 people at different spa locations. I 
think 6 of them were Asian women and he had to drive to find 
the 6 to kill. He had to drive, I think it was 8 miles, to get 
to the 3 different massage parlors. He said, I am going to kill 
all Asians, was the quote from that event.
    With respect to--and I will just do a couple of these 
instead of going through all of them because we don't have 
time, but El Paso, August 2019. The alleged attacker killed 23 
people, injured numerous others using a recently purchased 
semiautomatic rifle. Another issue we need to talk about, the 
ability for these guys to buy, usually AR15s and go out and 
commit these mass attacks, even if they shouldn't be able to 
get them, even if they are under the age of 21, is another 
issue that I think we need to address, in addition to 
recognizing mental health issues. This guy expressed support 
for the attack on the mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. Some 
of you may recall that that was another ideologically-driven 
attack that spawned several others here in the United States. 
This guy said the response was to the ``Hispanic invasion of 
Texas''. The manifesto encouraged others to conduct similar 
attacks and said the alleged attacker was a ``white 
nationalist'', trying to discourage Hispanic immigration to the 
United States.
    Let me skip ahead to a couple more. Charlottesville. I 
think we have a tape on Charlottesville. Can we play that?
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Ivey. So this gentleman, James Fields, drove a car into 
a crowd of people. This was at the ``Unite the Right'' rally. 
You saw a little clip of some of the things that they were 
chanting at the front end of that. I got to say this was a 
wake-up call for me. When I first heard the chant, the Jews 
will not replace us, I had no idea what they were talking 
about. In fact, I thought I was mishearing because I had never 
heard the concept. But this is the replacement theory stuff 
that animates many of these individuals who go out and commit 
these killings and it is carried out in multiple ways across 
lines that connects these gentlemen up.
    The piece I saw on Timothy McVeigh said that he tried to 
recruit people by going to gun shows back when he was--before 
he committed his crime, but he wasn't able to do it. The big 
difference between McVeigh then and the connections now, 
especially between the white nationalist, white supremacist 
crowd, is that they don't need to go meet with each other, they 
just go on the internet. The internet is an instantaneous 
connection that links them up and shares the same ideology that 
motivates a lot of this activity.
    I want to hit one last one of these before I stop and I 
will make a quick comment going forward. But in doing research 
for this, I came across something I had never heard of, but 
apparently is a very serious problem that I really think this 
committee should look at, it is called incel. What that is 
short for, involuntary celibacy. This is a group of men who are 
imitating a guy named Elliot Rodger who has the philosophy that 
men should be able to have sex with women of their choice at 
any time that they want. Many times they go out and they have 
been killing people. This guy, Elliot Roger, who spawned this, 
killed 6 people and attacked 14, stabbed 3 to death, and he 
also used an assault weapon as well. He tried to go to a 
sorority house near the University of California at Santa 
Barbara to try and target these women.
    The bottom line for me on this is--and I think there is a 
good hearing that we need to have on this issue of ideological 
violence in the United States. I don't mean any offense to the 
witnesses at the table, but this isn't the group to do that 
with.
    Ms. Gaines, I respect your position. You have snapped back 
at me on a couple of things on the internet, and that is fine. 
I think college violence is important, but it is not really the 
same type of issue that we should be talking about here I 
think. I mean, my university president, Chris Eisgruber, 
addressed the Stanford issue directly and gave solutions to how 
to fix it. I think that is an important issue that we have to 
have, but I don't think this is really the topic to cover it.
    Mr. Erickson, I appreciate your testimony and your 
experience. I hope that when you testify, you will give some of 
the background. I think, for example, in your testimony you 
said something about there have been Antifas responsible for 
dozens of deaths. I hope you will have a chance to be more 
specific. Or maybe it was Mr. Rosa, I am not sure. But I hope 
one of you all will be able to be more specific and talk not 
only about at least what deaths we are talking about, but the 
who, the what, the where, the when, and the why, and most 
importantly, what are the solutions for trying to address this.
    So I hope that we will be able to get to a point where we 
can use the Homeland Security Committee to address homeland 
security problems and try and meet the root causes of this 
issue so we can push back on it.
    With that, I yield back.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Ivey follows:]
                 Statement of Ranking Member Glenn Ivey
                              May 16, 2023
    What is the value of a life? My Republican colleagues are using 
this hearing to discuss the cost of property damage associated with 
left-wing violence. While I don't condone such violence or destruction, 
I must ask why we are focusing on left-wing violence when the data 
overwhelming shows that right-wing violence is significantly more 
likely to result in the loss of American lives.
    Chairman Bishop, I know that during a Counterterrorism, Law 
Enforcement, and Intelligence Subcommittee hearing last month you 
mentioned that you've never been shown data to indicate the numbers 
behind the Domestic Violent Extremism threat. I'm happy to explore that 
data with you today.
    The Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism tracks murders 
with ties to any extreme cause or movement. Of the 444 people killed at 
the hands of extremists over the past 10 years, 335 (or 75 percent) 
were killed by right-wing extremists. In the past 5 years alone, there 
have been 176 deaths linked to right-wing extremists. Deaths linked to 
left-wing extremists in the last 5 years totals no more than 3. The 
loss of American lives is simply not comparable. From non-governmental 
organizations to academic researchers, to Government organizations like 
the FBI or Government Accountability Office, there is no disagreement 
that far-right extremism is a far more deadly threat than left-wing 
violence.
    While my Republican colleagues are fond of fearmongering about the 
Black Lives Matter movement and Antifa, again the data just doesn't 
support their claims. The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project 
studied the Black Lives Matter protest movement in 2021 and found that 
approximately 94 percent of pro-BLM demonstrations have been peaceful, 
with only 6 percent resulting in reports of violence, clashes with the 
police, vandalism, or looting. In contrast, demonstrations involving 
right-wing militias have turned violent or destructive more than twice 
as often, nearly 14 percent of the time.
    The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project also found that 
when far-right groups engage directly with pro-BLM demonstrations that 
risk of violence increases again, with 26 percent of demonstrations 
involving both groups turning violent or destructive. Anti-fascists, or 
antifa, have been linked to exactly one murder in the United States in 
the last 25 years, according to data from the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies. Have there been deadly, violent, and 
unacceptable attacks by far-left actors? Yes. But far-right violence is 
considerably more common, and far more lethal, than attacks from the 
far left.
    This trend holds true when we examine police officers killed by 
domestic extremists. Make no mistake, police officers were specifically 
targeted by far-right extremists on January 6th. One post made on 
TheDonald.win site ahead of the insurrection stated: ``Cops don't have 
`standing' if they are laying on the ground in a pool of their own 
blood.''
    Members of the Republican Party have gone so far as to excuse or 
condone the violence at the Capitol on January 6th, which was one of 
the most organized, violent, and wide-scale attacks on law enforcement 
in recent memory. And while some of my Republican colleagues like to 
repeat disinformation about who was in that crowd, video evidence 
depicts that the overwhelming majority of those who participated were 
Trump supporters and right-wing militia groups intent on staging a 
violent and bloody coup at the expense of law enforcement lives.
    For the remainder of my time, I'd like to commemorate the many 
victims of right-wing extremist attacks in recent years.
    Just last week, on May 6, 9 people were killed and 7 injured in a 
right-wing extremist attack on a shopping mall in Allen, Texas.
    In November, 5 people were killed and 25 people were injured in a 
right-wing extremist attack on an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs, 
Colorado.
    One year ago, on May 14, 2022, 10 people were killed and 3 were 
injured in a right-wing extremist attack at a grocery store in Buffalo, 
New York.
    In February 2022, 1 person was murdered and 4 injured in a right-
wing extremist attack at a park in Portland, Oregon.
    On January 6, 2021, 5 people were killed and over 138 were injured 
in a right-wing extremist attack at the U.S. Capitol.
    In August 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot 2 people during a 
racial justice protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
    And in May and June 2020, 2 people were murdered and 4 injured in a 
right-wing extremist attack against security personnel and law 
enforcement officers in California.
    These are just a handful of examples of violent and deadly attacks 
in recent years, where the perpetrator's motives were known and clearly 
connected to far-right movements. Unfortunately, I don't have the time 
today to go back further, but I'd ask for a moment of silence for the 
victims of this senseless and unacceptable violence.

    Chairman Bishop. Thank you, Ranking Member Ivey.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, 
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I welcome 
our panel of witnesses today.
    Before I begin, I would like to join with the people of 
Buffalo, New York, in observing a recent 1-year anniversary of 
the Tops supermarket shooting in which a far-right extremist 
who embraced a great replacement theory killed 10 people in a 
racist rampage. Marking the anniversary of the Buffalo 
supermarket shooting with a hearing on left-wing extremism 
displays a shocking lack of sensitivity to the scores of 
individuals harmed by far-right violence.
    At best, today's hearing is a missed opportunity to conduct 
meaningful oversight over how the Government is combating the 
disturbing trend in right-wing violence that is wreaking havoc 
on communities across the country. At worst, it is a shameful 
attempt to whitewash and deflect attention from inaction on gun 
violence and a threat posed by far-right extremist groups by 
vastly overstating the consequences of left-wing extremism. 
Allow me to provide some additional context to recent violent 
extremist events.
    In 2020, the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence assessed that domestic extremists motivated by 
white extremists and antigovernment ideologies pose the most 
persistent and lethal threats to the Nation. Data supports that 
conclusion. According to the University of Maryland's National 
Consortium on the Study of Terrorism and Responses to 
Terrorism, there have been 170 foiled mass casualty plots by 
right-wing extremists and 52 plots resulting in injuries or 
death between 1990 and 2021. During that same period, there 
have been 29 foiled mass casualty plots by left-wing extremists 
and 11 plots resulting in injuries or death. Moreover, 
according to the Anti-defamation League, far-right extremists 
committed every single one of the 25 extremist-related murders 
that occurred in 2022. White supremacists committed 21 of those 
25 murders.
    To be clear, Democrats condemn violence in every form, 
ideology-motivated or otherwise. That is why earlier this year, 
I sought to add language to the committee's oversight plan, 
committing to doing our part to combat domestic violent 
extremism and antisemitism. Every single Republican opposed my 
amendment. It is also worth noting that despite Republican 
efforts to link left-wing extremists to Congressional 
Democrats, Democrats do not vote or support of far-left 
extremist groups.
    In contrast, when he was asked to condemn white supremacist 
and militia, former President Trump directed the Proud Boys to 
stand back and stand by. Three months later, as the Proud Boys, 
Oath Keepers, and other far-right extremists attacked the 
Capitol to thwart the peaceful transfer of power even as they 
were beating police officers, it took the former president 187 
minutes, over 3 hours to direct the attackers to leave the 
Capitol. Not only did the former President fail to condemn far 
right groups and ideologies, he allowed them to flourish. Now 
they are emboldened.
    For example, in November a white supremacist murdered 5 and 
shot 17 at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado. Last month, we 
learned that a low-level National Guardsman in Massachusetts, 
with a love of guns and a desire for a race war, leaked highly-
Classified documents relating to military operations in 
Ukraine, jeopardizing national security and the lives of 
thousands. Just this month, a neo-Nazi murdered 9 and injured 
10 others in a mass shooting at a mall in Allen, Texas.
    Mr. Chairman, historical data makes clear that far-right 
extremists, particularly white supremacists, are a clear and 
present threat to the homeland security.
    Recent events show the problem is getting worse, not 
better. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues choose to 
ignore the threats posed by right-wing extremism in favor of 
playing politics. I urge my colleagues to focus on the facts 
and use their power and influence to combat dangerous, deadly, 
far-right violence.
    Before I close, I would like to call attention to the 
disturbing connection between guns and domestic violent 
extremism. ADL found that guns were used in 83 percent of 
murders involving domestic extremists in 2021, and that 10,000 
people every year are victims of hate crimes involving guns. We 
owe it to communities like Buffalo and Allen to do more than 
send thoughts and prayers. We need to take meaningful action to 
make people safer.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
             Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
                      May 16, 2023 at 2 o'clock pm
    Good afternoon. Before I begin, I would like to join the people of 
Buffalo, New York in observing the recent 1-year anniversary of the 
Tops supermarket shooting, in which a far-right extremist who embraced 
the Great Replacement theory killed 10 people in a racist rampage.
    Marking the anniversary of the Buffalo supermarket shooting with a 
hearing on ``left-wing extremism'' displays a shocking lack of 
sensitivity to the scores of individuals harmed by right-wing violence.
    At best, today's hearing is a missed opportunity to conduct 
meaningful oversight over how the Government is combating the 
disturbing trend in right-wing violence that is wreaking havoc on 
communities across the country.
    At worst, it is a shameful attempt to whitewash and deflect 
attention from inaction on gun violence and the threat posed by far-
right extremist groups by vastly overstating the consequences of left-
wing extremism.
    Allow me to provide some additional context of recent violent 
extremist events.
    In 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 
assessed that domestic extremists motivated by white supremacist and 
anti-Government ideologies pose the ``most persistent and lethal 
threats'' to the Nation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/National-
Strategy-for-Countering-Domestic-Terrorism.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Data supports that conclusion.
    According to the University of Maryland's National Consortium of 
the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), there have 
been 170 foiled mass casualty plots by right-wing extremists and 52 
plots resulting in injuries or death between 1990-2021.
    During that same period, there have been 29 foiled mass casualty 
plots by left-wing extremists and 11 plots resulting in injuries or 
death.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Memo chart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, according to the Anti-Defamation League, far-right 
extremists committed every single one of the 25 extremist-related 
murders that occurred in 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-
united-states-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    White supremacists committed 21 of those 25 murders.
    To be clear, Democrats condemn violence in every form--
ideologically-motivated or otherwise.
    That is why, earlier this year, I sought to add language to the 
committee's oversight plan committing to doing our part to combat 
domestic violent extremism and antisemitism.
    Every single Republican opposed my amendment.
    It is also worth noting that, despite Republican efforts to link 
``left-wing extremists'' to Congressional Democrats, Democrats do not 
court the vote or support of far-left extremist groups.
    In contrast, when he was asked to condemn ``white supremacists and 
militia groups,'' former President Trump directed the Proud Boys to 
``stand back and stand by.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/opinion/trump-proud-
boys.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Three months later, as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and other far-
right extremists attacked to Capitol to thwart the peaceful transfer of 
power, even as they were beating police officers, it took the former 
President 187 minutes--over 3 hours--to direct the attackers to leave 
the Capitol.
    Not only did the former President fail to condemn far-right groups 
and ideologies, he allowed them to flourish. Now, they are emboldened.
    For example, in November a white supremacist murdered 5 and shot 17 
at an LBGTQ+ nightclub in Colorado.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colorado-lgbtq-club-
shooting-suspect-ran-neo-nazi-site-testimony-revea-rcna71754.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last month, we learned that a low-level National Guardsman in 
Massachusetts, with a love of guns and a desire for a ``race war,'' 
leaked highly-Classified documents relating to military operations in 
Ukraine, jeopardizing national security and the lives of thousands.
    And just this month, a neo-Nazi murdered 9 and injured 10 others in 
a mass shooting at a mall in Allen, Texas.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/08/allen-mall-shooting-
right-wing-death-squad/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Chairman, historical data makes clear that far-right 
extremists--particularly white supremacists--are a clear and present 
threat to homeland security.
    Recent events show the problem is getting worse, not better.
    Unfortunately, my Republicans colleagues choose to ignore the 
threats posed by right-wing extremism in favor of playing politics.
    I urge my colleagues to focus on the facts, and use their power and 
influence to combat dangerous, deadly far-right violence.
    Before I close, I would like to call attention to the disturbing 
connection between guns and domestic violent extremism.
    The Center for American Progress found that guns were used in 83 
percent of murders involving domestic extremists in 2021, and that 
10,000 people every year are victims of hate crimes involving guns.
    We owe it to communities like Buffalo and Allen to do more than 
send thoughts and prayers. We need to take meaningful action to make 
people safer.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
    Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening 
statements may be submitted for the record.
    [The statement of Chairman Green follows:]
                Statement of Chairman Mark E. Green, MD
                              May 16, 2023
    Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for holding today's important hearing 
analyzing organized violence by extreme far-left groups like Antifa 
that assault law enforcement, threaten freedom of speech, and create 
lawlessness in our cities. I also want to thank our witnesses for 
joining us today.
    This is National Police Week. I want to take a moment to recognize 
the brave men and women of law enforcement who are dealing with the 
unprecedented crisis on our Southern Border as well as in our 
communities with the rise of left-wing violence. We will continue to 
hold President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas accountable for the 
situation they have created and the problems they exacerbate and 
ignore.
    Americans watched during the summer of 2020 as far-left groups 
incited riots in our cities. These riots caused approximately $2 
billion dollars of destruction and contributed to a growing hostility 
toward the brave men and women who patrol our streets--culminating in 
the ``Defund the Police'' movement.
    Three years later, left-wing street violence and mob tactics are 
now routine and expected. In just the past 2 months, violent protests 
targeted several speakers on college campuses, including Riley Gaines, 
a brave American who found herself victim to mob violence at San 
Francisco State University after she expressed her opinion about 
biological women in sports. It is absurd that an American would need 
police protection to exercise her First Amendment rights, but this is 
what we have come to expect under the new normal.
    Or take the on-going campaign against the Atlanta Public Safety 
Training Center. For months on end, left-wing activists occupied land 
adjoining the training center's construction site, sabotaging progress 
with violence and threats. These left-wing agitators attacked police 
officers with rocks and Molotov cocktails and set fire to construction 
equipment. Most of the agitators arrested and charged traveled from 
other States, indicating the organized, national reach of the problem.
    I want to say a few words about today's discussion on this often-
contentious topic. I know there can be a temptation when discussing 
domestic violent extremism to get bogged down in arguments about 
comparing threats from left-wing versus right-wing groups. This is 
counterproductive and distracts us from focusing on how the Department 
of Homeland Security can provide State and local law enforcement with 
the tools they need to preserve law and order.
    Violence by any political movement should never be tolerated in the 
United States. We must forcefully reject all forms of political 
violence regardless of their political views. The dividing line is not 
right versus left, but law-abiding Americans versus the mob. We cannot 
substitute voting with violence.
    Given the alarming increase in left-wing violence, from the 
Portland mobs to the mass shooting at a Congressional Republican 
baseball practice, the focus of today's hearing is to examine the 
violent threat of left-wing agitators and how DHS can best support 
local law enforcement's efforts to counter this threat. We have seen 
that these agitators employ sophisticated tactics to mask their 
identities and activities, using decentralized national networks to 
organize and support operations. We need DHS to use its resources, 
networks, and intelligence to help law enforcement anticipate and react 
to these tactics and networks.
    As we honor the brave men and women who put themselves in harm's 
way to protect and serve, we also need to make sure that we are giving 
them the support they need to succeed in their mission. Anti-police 
violence, surging crime rates, and lackluster support from State and 
local leaders impact morale. It's no secret that law enforcement is 
experiencing a crisis in recruiting and retention. As a consequence, 
our communities are less safe.
    Close partnership among Federal, State, and local agencies is 
essential to countering the threat of organized left-wing violence and 
dismantling the networks that provide material support for the violence 
we have witnessed in Atlanta, Portland, and many other cities in recent 
years.
    Effective and efficient information sharing is critical in law 
enforcement's preparation and response to extreme violence. DHS plays a 
vital role by providing useful intelligence and information to our 
State and local law enforcement partners. One of the roles of this 
committee is to evaluate and examine the Department's efforts and look 
for ways the Department can better serve the State and local law 
enforcement agencies as they seek to ensure public safety.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I yield 
back. Thank you.

    Chairman Bishop. I am pleased to have a distinguished panel 
of witnesses before us today on this very important topic. I 
ask that our witnesses please rise and raise their right hand.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Chairman Bishop. I would now like to formally introduce our 
witnesses.
    Ms. Riley Gaines is a spokeswoman for the Independent 
Women's Forum and 12-time NCAA All-American swimmer. Mr. Scott 
Erickson is the former deputy chief of staff for the U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security and a former San Jose police 
officer. Ms. Amy Spitalnick is the incoming chief executive 
officer for the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. Mr. Julio 
Rosas is a senior writer for Townhall and an author.
    I thank all the witnesses for being here today.
    I now recognize you, Ms. Gaines, for 5 minutes for your 
opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF RILEY GAINES, SPOKESWOMAN, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S 
                             FORUM

    Ms. Gaines. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 
Ivey, and Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the committee 
for inviting me to speak to you today.
    My name is Riley Gaines, and I'm a 12-time All-American 
swimmer from the University of Kentucky. Competing in the 
women's division of the 200 of the 2022 NCAA Championships, 
myself and my teammates and competitors around the country were 
required to compete and share a locker room with Lia Thomas, a 
biological male who competed on the men's team at University of 
Pennsylvania, as Will Thomas the 3 years prior.
    In the 200-yard freestyle at the NCAA Championships, Thomas 
and I tied. Despite going the exact same time down to the 
hundredth of a second, the NCAA insisted on giving Thomas the 
trophy, as they explained, this was necessary for photo 
purposes, and told me that I had to go home empty-handed.
    At our National championships I looked around and wondered 
why no one was standing up for myself and the other women in 
the pool and in that locker room. As I talked to my teammates 
and competitors at the championships, I discovered that the 
overwhelming majority of the girls shared the extreme 
discomfort of being forced to strip down in front of a male who 
was intact with and exposing male genitalia in that same room. 
After seeing how this affected every girl at that meet, I 
decided I would stand up and speak out. I put my plans for my 
future, which included dental school, on hold after graduation, 
and decided to fight for women and girls in sports.
    Last December, I joined the Nation's most influential 
women's organization, making gains to stand up for women's 
rights and against discrimination of women in single-sex 
spaces, Independent Women's Forum and its C4 sister 
organization, Independent Woman's Voice, and I serve as a 
spokeswoman there. But I've spent this past year speaking about 
the need to keep women's sports for females only and to 
safeguard women's privacy, security, and access to a fair 
playing field.
    The right to privacy and equal opportunities for women are 
not being protected by Title IX. Even worse than the efforts to 
dismantle Title IX are the efforts to silence and intimidate us 
through the use of every means available, whether that be fear, 
shame, threats, emotional blackmail, gaslighting to try to keep 
us from speaking out against the efforts to deprive women of 
their rights. I believe the coerced silencing of women and men 
by college administrators who will not let us speak freely 
about injustices now being faced by women in sports is one of 
the most important free speech issues of our time.
    Seeing how universities were not allowing students to 
truthfully consider all perspectives, I found it necessary to 
travel to colleges all over the country to share my experience 
surrounding the injustices being faced by women in sports and 
the systemic attempt to erase women as a whole. On April 6, 
2023, I traveled to San Francisco State University to speak to 
a campus group on the right of women to compete on a level 
playing field in sports. The school administration was aware of 
my visit and the program had been publicized on campus. I was 
told I would be met by the campus police and briefed on a 
security plan an hour-and-a-half before the event, but the 
police failed to show up to our scheduled meeting. I went to 
the classroom building where I was to speak, which was on the 
third floor, and I entered the room, which soon began to fill 
with protesters. Still, the campus officers did not show like I 
was told they would, and I began my speech. The protesters in 
the room, they were not generally disruptive, however, I could 
hear chanting from outside the hallway, and I sensed the 
situation outside was growing confrontational, which was 
unnerving, but no one provided any guidance to alert me that my 
safety was at risk. They continuously chanted outside the room, 
we fight back, and that's when I began to fear for my safety.
    As I ended my presentation, protesters in the room opened 
the locked doors. In a chaotic flood of shouting angry 
protesters forced their way in. They rushed at me with fist 
raised, most shouting, and angry faces coming around me. They 
flickered the lights and ultimately then turned the lights off. 
The room filled with glares of cell phone flashlights, some in 
my face, and I realized I was at the mercy of the crowd and I 
was assaulted. A woman grabbed me and told me she was with the 
campus police and pulled me toward the door. But I did not 
believe she was with the police because she wore no clothes 
that indicated she was an officer and she had a face covering 
on, so I couldn't see her face. I resisted going with her, but 
I recognized I really had no choice because I couldn't have 
made it out without help. Again, I really, truly feared for my 
life.
    But once we made it into the hallway, we were met with an 
even larger mob blocking the stairway exit, ultimately forcing 
us to barricade ourselves into an office alongside the same 
hallway. The small room we had found would be my prison for the 
next 3 hours, and in those hours I was certainly held against 
my will. The mob screamed vengeful, racist, violent, awful 
things at both myself and the officers, and I received no 
assurance that I would get out of that situation. When I needed 
consoling from the officers because I was so flustered and 
confused, they told me they could not provide me with that 
because it seemed too controversial for them. When I had 
expressed that I had been hit, no one asked me if I was OK, or 
no one asked me if I needed medical attention. When I realized 
I missed my flight back home due to being held hostage, I 
became visibly upset and told the lieutenant in the room that I 
just wanted to make it home. He responded back with don't you 
think we all want to go home?
    After a while, some of these protesters began to demand a 
ransom for my release. They had asked for payment and 
threatened not to safely release me without it. I heard an 
adult administrator, who I learned to be the dean of students, 
from outside the door trying to negotiate my release with the 
students. They said my appearance on campus was so traumatic 
that they were owed something. They were under the false notion 
that the university paid me to be there, therefore they only 
thought it was fair that I should pay them if I wanted to 
leave.
    After hours of being held against my will, the officers 
from the city of San Francisco Police Department finally 
arrived, and they were much more methodical and assertive in 
developing a strategy. It was around midnight that I was 
finally able to leave. I had to run to the car----
    Chairman Bishop. Ms. Gaines, I ask you to sum up as soon as 
you can.
    Ms. Gaines. Thank you.
    Yes, I'll just read this last paragraph here.
    Free speech suffers when university administrators do not 
condemn violence and kidnapping on their campus, it's chilled 
when administrators do not adequately prepare for and protect 
the safety of their speakers, whether liberal or conservative, 
and free speech is undermined when administrators misrepresent 
and malign the views of those with whom they disagree.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Gaines follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Riley Gaines
                              May 16, 2023
    Thank you Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Ivey, and Members of the 
committee for inviting me to speak to you today. My name is Riley 
Gaines. I am a 12-time All-American Swimmer from the University of 
Kentucky. Competing in the women's division of the 2022 NCAA 
Championships, I and my fellow female swimmers were required to compete 
and share the locker room with Lia Thomas, a biological male who 
competed on the men's team at University of Pennsylvania as Will Thomas 
the 3 years prior. In the 200-yard NCAA women's final I tied Thomas. 
Despite going the exact same time down to the hundredth of a second, 
the NCAA gave Thomas the trophy as they explained this was necessary 
for ``photo purposes'' and told me I had to go home empty-handed.
    At our National Championships, I looked around and wondered why no 
one was standing up for me and all the other women in the pool and in 
the locker room. As I talked to my teammates and competitors at the 
NCAA Championships, I discovered that the overwhelming majority of the 
girls shared extreme discomfort being forced to strip down in front of 
a male who was intact with and exposing male genitalia in the same 
room. After seeing how this affected every girl at that meet, I decided 
I would stand up and speak out. I resolved to do everything I could do 
to ensure that no other girls feel alone in the fight for their right 
to compete on a level playing field.
    I put my plans for dental school on hold after graduation and 
decided to tell my story. Last December, I joined the Nation's most 
influential women's organization making gains to stand up for women's 
rights and against discrimination of women in single-sex spaces--
Independent Women's Forum (IWF) and its C4 sister organization 
Independent Women's Voice (IWV).
    I serve as the organizations' Stand With Women spokeswoman, and 
have been fortunate to have a bigger platform from which to share my 
experiences--in the media, before elected officials, among the public, 
and alongside a bipartisan coalition of organizations and individual 
athletes driving advocacy efforts to let rule-making bodies like the 
NCAA and the White House know America won't stand for unjust and 
discriminatory policies that hinder women's rights. I have spent this 
past year speaking about the need to keep women's sports female and to 
safeguard women's privacy, security, and access to a fair playing 
field. What a year it has been!
    My experience certainly did not feel like our privacy and equal 
opportunities were being protected by administrators who were legally 
responsible to uphold Title IX. Even worse than the efforts to 
dismantle Title IX are the efforts to silence and intimidate us through 
the use of every means available--fear, shame, threats, emotional 
blackmail, gaslighting--to try to keep us from speaking out against the 
efforts to deprive women of their rights.
    I believe the coerced silencing of women and men by college 
administrators who will not let us speak freely about injustices now 
being faced by women in sports is one of the most important free speech 
issues of our time.
    Seeing how universities were not allowing students to truthfully 
consider all perspectives, I found it necessary to travel to various 
college campuses to share my experience surrounding the injustices 
being faced by women in sports and the systemic attempt to erase women 
as a whole.
    However, what I did not know then was how vicious the effort to 
silence me and other women has become. I would soon learn.
    I soon learned that college administrators appear to be using 
another, even more dangerous technique, reliance on mob intimidation 
and violence. I have come to believe intimidation and compelled silence 
is being knowingly enforced through violent means, as college 
administrators silence free speech by failing to control and prevent 
mob tactics and mob violence.
    On April 6, 2023, I traveled to San Francisco State University to 
speak to a campus group on the right of women to compete on a level 
playing field in sports. The school administration was aware of my 
visit, and the program had been publicized on campus. I was told I 
would be met by campus police and briefed on a security plan an hour 
and a half before the event, but the campus police failed to show up to 
our scheduled meeting.
    I went to the building where I was to speak which was on the third 
floor of a classroom building. At the time, I did not think about the 
difficulty of exiting a third-floor room if a mob gained control of the 
hallways and stairways.
    I entered the room which soon began to fill with protestors. Still 
no campus officers showed like I was told they would. I began my speech 
and the protestors in the room were generally not disruptive. However, 
I could hear chanting in the hallway outside the room. I sensed the 
situation outside might be growing confrontational which was unnerving, 
but no one provided any guidance to alert me that my safety was at 
risk. They continuously chanted from outside the room ``we fight 
back.'' I began to fear for my safety.
    As I ended my presentation, protestors in the room opened the 
locked doors and a chaotic flood of shouting, angry, protestors forced 
their way in. The crowd rushed at me, some with fists raised, most 
shouting, anger contorting many faces around me. Then the lights in the 
room began flicking on and off in strobe-like fashion and then they 
went off. The room was filled with the glare of a hundred cell phone 
flashlights, some being shined in my face. I realized I was at the 
mercy of the crowd, and I was assaulted.
    A woman grabbed me, told me she was with campus police and pulled 
me toward the door. I did not believe she was actually with the police 
because she wore no clothes that indicated she was an officer and had a 
face covering on. I resisted at first, but I recognized I had no choice 
because I could not have made it out without help. I truly feared for 
my life.
    Once we made it to the hallway, we were met with an even larger mob 
blocking the stairway exit ultimately forcing us to barricade ourselves 
into an office along this same hallway. The small room we had found 
would be my prison for the next 3 hours. The door to the hallway, the 
only barrier between me and those who were yelling violent threats, 
demanding that the door be opened so that they could ``handle me 
themselves.''
    In those hours I was held against my will, the mob screamed 
vengeful, racist, violent things at both myself and the officers. I 
received no assurance that I would get out of that situation alive. 
When I needed consoling from the officers because I was so flustered 
and confused, they told me they could not provide me with that as it 
was too controversial. I expressed I had been hit, and no one asked me 
if I was OK or needed medical attention. When I realized I missed my 
flight back home due to being held hostage, I became visibly upset and 
told the lieutenant in the room I just wanted to make it home. He 
responded with ``don't you think we all want to go home?''
    After a while some of the protestors began to demand a ransom for 
my release. They asked for payment and threatened not to safely release 
me without it. I heard an adult administrator from the university 
outside the door trying to negotiate my release. They said my 
appearance on campus was so traumatic, they were ``owed something.'' 
They were under the false notion that the university paid me to be 
there, therefore they only thought it was fair I should pay if I want 
to leave. The amount of $10 for each student was suggested.
    From inside the room, I heard things being said such as ``If she 
didn't want the smoke, she shouldn't have came here'', ``you did this 
to yourself, b****'', ``you come on this campus and think we're not 
going to start a riot?'', ``let her out so we can handle her'', ``we 
aren't letting up.'' There was even a school reporter there doxxing my 
information and location on twitter in hopes more protestors would show 
up.
    After hours of being held against my will, officers from the city 
of San Francisco Police Department finally arrived. These officers were 
much more methodical and assertive in developing an exit strategy. 
Around midnight, the officers formed a diamond around me and pushed 
through the mob to get outside.
    My student hosts had a car waiting for me outside. I had to run to 
the car because we were met with more protestors outside who were also 
running at the car. We were able to drive away from SFSU but with no 
police escort or police following us to make sure we got where we 
needed to go safely. I was still in desperate fear for my safety the 
entire time I was in San Francisco and until I was eventually able to 
board a plane for the return flight home.
    After being threatened, intimidated, assaulted, and held hostage 
not a day has gone by that I have not thought about these events, had 
flashbacks, and experienced emotional trauma at realizing how close to 
being seriously injured or even killed I may have come. I have had 
nights where I can't fall asleep and continue to be unsettled about 
this whole matter knowing what these protestors wanted to do to me. At 
the same time, I am determined to do whatever I can do to make sure 
this never happens again to anybody.
    A violent mob took control of a building and the campus police on 
the SFSU campus that evening, seeking to stamp out free speech and take 
a physical hostage. The mob was given free rein to do so and that 
certainly sent a message. The message is that those who encourage open 
dialog that conflict with the radical left policies that control 
college campuses will not be protected nor will their safety be taken 
seriously.
    The SFSU V.P. of Student Affairs Jamillah Moore released a 
statement applauding students for their `` tremendously brave'' efforts 
to ``peacefully protest'' someone as ``personally abhorrent'' as myself 
that evening. The email claimed the school welcomes and embraces 
diversity, yet it was more than evident they didn't welcome me and my 
perspective.
    Kidnapping is not a peaceful protest. What happened to me 
throughout the evening of April 6 was not in any way peaceful.
    Free speech suffers when university administrators do not condemn 
violence and kidnapping on their campus, it is chilled when 
administrators do not adequately prepare for and protect the safety of 
speakers--whether conservative or liberal--and free speech is 
undermined when administrators misrepresent and malign the views of 
those with whom they disagree.
    I speak from experience when I say that free speech is under attack 
on college campuses around the country and many college administrators 
appear to only be giving aid and comfort to those who are trying to 
silence conservative speech on campus.

    Chairman Bishop. Thank you, ma'am, for your statement.
    Now I recognize Mr. Scott Erickson for 5 minutes for his 
opening statement.

STATEMENT OF SCOTT G. ERICKSON, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF AT 
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND FORMER POLICE 
                 OFFICER, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Erickson. Well, good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman 
Bishop, Ranking Member Ivey, and Ranking Member Thompson, and 
Members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak 
today on the important issue of political violence and in 
particular, its impact on the law enforcement community.
    I'd also like to take a moment to acknowledge the 
conclusion of Police Week here in Washington, DC, an important 
time of the year where we honor the police officers who have 
made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their communities.
    I currently serve as the director of the Center for Law and 
Justice at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to joining 
AFPI, I spent 3 years at the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security, where I served in a variety of roles, including as 
deputy chief of staff during the summer of 2020, a period 
marred by wide-spread civil unrest and leftist-inspired 
violence, much of which was directed at the law enforcement 
community. Earlier in my career, I spent nearly 2 decades as a 
uniform police officer in the city of San Jose. As a second-
generation police officer, law enforcement has been and remains 
an important part of my identity.
    The integrity of the law enforcement profession is of vital 
importance to not just public safety, but to the maintenance of 
the rule of law itself. A civil society cannot function unless 
the institutions designed to uphold it remain intact. The rise 
of unchecked violence, particularly the phenomenon of anarchist 
or Antifascist criminal activity, has caused untold damage to 
communities across our Nation. It has also had a debilitating 
effect on law enforcement. Combined with the associated rise of 
anti-police rhetoric and the inane defund the police movement, 
these phenomena have contributed to a generational crisis in 
recruiting and retention within the law enforcement profession. 
For those officers who remain in the job, morale is the lowest 
it's been in a generation.
    Confronting the rise of organized far-left violence poses 
operational and tactical challenges for law enforcement. Every 
department's capacity to address these challenges is unique, 
and each is equipped with different resources, training, 
expertise, and personnel. To improve the ability of departments 
to effectively confront these challenges often requires cross-
jurisdictional collaboration and robust information sharing 
across the spectrum of Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement agencies. It is here where our Federal partners can 
play an outsized role, particularly in the receipt, analysis, 
and dissemination of critical information relevant to emerging 
threats. Fusion centers, for instance, utilize a hub-and-spoke 
approach to synthesize and distribute information within and 
among State and local law enforcement partners. Federal law 
enforcement operating within the context of these information-
sharing systems can often provide a more global view in 
emerging threats than what is available at the State or local 
level alone. They often have better visibility on spatially-
diffused threats, potentially coalescing toward a specific 
target.
    Examples of ideologically-aligned violent opportunists 
traveling across State lines to carry out coordinated acts of 
violence were evident in the recent attacks on the as-yet 
completed Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. Of the 23 
individuals arrested for crimes ranging from vandalism to 
assault, only two were from the State of Georgia. Two others 
were not even from the United States, but had ostensibly 
traveled to Atlanta to engage in this coordinated criminal 
behavior.
    More information means better preparation. The sooner a law 
enforcement agency is aware that a coordinated act of violence 
may be forthcoming, the better that agency will be able to 
marshal the resources necessary to effectively address the 
threat and protect their communities. Robust collaboration is 
essential to the effective administration of justice. When such 
collaboration is absent, negative public safety outcomes become 
more likely. Portland over the summer of 2020 is a stark 
example. Local political intransigence prevented basic 
cooperation among Federal, State, and local partners, resulting 
in over 100 days of violence and chaos as Federal law 
enforcement personnel remained under siege within the Hatfield 
Federal Courthouse. The political violence that occurred in 
Portland and elsewhere throughout the country during the summer 
of 2020 was disgraceful, and it should never happen again.
    Let me conclude by saying that while each citizen has a 
role to play in the maintenance of an orderly society, it is 
the men and women of law enforcement who undergird that 
proposition. We must empower them to do their job safely and 
effectively.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this 
important topic, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Erikson follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Scott G. Erickson
                              May 16, 2023
    Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Ivey 
for giving me the opportunity to speak today on the important issue of 
political violence and, in particular, its impact on the law 
enforcement community.
    I currently serve as the director of the Center for Law and Justice 
at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). Prior to joining AFPI, I 
spent 3 years at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security where I 
served in a variety of roles including as deputy chief of staff during 
the summer of 2020, a period marred by wide-spread civil unrest and 
leftist-inspired violence, much of which was directed at the law 
enforcement community. Earlier in my career, I spent nearly two decades 
as a uniformed police officer in the city of San Jose, California. As a 
second-generation police officer, law enforcement has been--and 
remains--an important part of my identity.
    The integrity of the law enforcement profession is of vital 
importance to not just public safety but to the maintenance of the rule 
of law itself. A civil society cannot function unless the institutions 
designed to uphold it remain intact. The rise of unchecked violence--
particularly the phenomenon of anarchist or anti-fascist criminal 
activity--has caused untold damage to communities across our Nation. It 
has also had a debilitating effect on law enforcement. Combined with 
the associated rise of anti-police rhetoric and the inane ``defund the 
police'' movement, these phenomena have contributed to a generational 
crisis in recruiting and retention within the law enforcement 
community. For those officers who remain on the job, morale is the 
lowest it's been in a generation.
    Confronting the rise of organized, far-left violence poses 
operational and tactical challenges for law enforcement. Every 
department's capability to address these challenges is unique and each 
is equipped with different resources, training, expertise, and 
personnel. To improve the ability of departments to effectively 
confront these challenges often requires cross-jurisdictional 
collaboration and robust information sharing across the spectrum of 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
    It is here where our Federal partners can play an outsized role, 
particularly in the receipt, analysis, and dissemination of critical 
information relevant to emerging threats. Fusion centers, for instance, 
utilize a hub-and-spoke approach to synthesize and distribute 
information within and among State and local law enforcement partners. 
Federal law enforcement operating within the context of these 
information-sharing systems can often provide a more global view on 
emerging threats than what is available at the State or local level 
alone and they often have better visibility on spatially diffuse 
threats potentially coalescing toward a specific target.
    Examples of ideologically-aligned violent opportunists traveling 
across State lines to carry out coordinated acts of violence were 
evident in the recent attacks on the as-yet completed Atlanta Public 
Safety Training Center. Of the 23 individuals arrested for crimes 
ranging from vandalism to assault, only 2 were from the State of 
Georgia. Two others were not even from the United States but had 
ostensibly traveled to Atlanta to engage in this coordinated criminal 
behavior.
    More information means better preparation. The sooner a law 
enforcement agency is aware that a coordinated act of violence may be 
forthcoming, the better that agency will be able to marshal the 
resources necessary to effectively address the threat and protect their 
communities.
    Robust collaboration is essential to the effective administration 
of justice. When such collaboration is absent, negative public safety 
outcomes become more likely. Portland over the summer of 2020 is a 
stark example. Local political intransigence prevented basic 
cooperation among Federal, State, and local partners, resulting in over 
100 days of violence and chaos as Federal law enforcement personnel 
remained under siege within the Hatfield Federal Courthouse.
    The political violence that occurred in Portland--and elsewhere 
throughout the country--during the summer of 2020 was disgraceful, and 
it should never happen again.
    Let me conclude by saying that while each citizen has a role to 
play in the maintenance of an orderly society, it is the men and women 
of law enforcement who undergird that proposition. We must empower them 
to do their jobs safely and effectively.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this important 
topic. I look forward to your questions.

    Chairman Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Erickson. I now recognize 
Ms. Amy Spitalnick for 5 minutes for her opening statement. I 
hope I said your name correctly.

STATEMENT OF AMY SPITALNICK, INCOMING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
  JEWISH COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF 
                       HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST

    Ms. Spitalnick. You did.
    Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Members Ivey and 
Thompson, Members of the committee, I'm grateful to be here 
today.
    In addition to serving as a senior advisor on extremism at 
Human Rights First, I'm also the incoming CEO of the Jewish 
Council for Public Affairs. I previously led Integrity First 
for America, the nonpartisan nonprofit that held accountable 
those responsible for the 2017 Charlottesville violence. Many 
of us remember the horror of neo-Nazis with torches chanting, 
Jews will not replace us, or the violence the next day, 
culminating in the car attack that claimed Heather Heyer's life 
and injured so many others. That violence was no accident. 
Rather, it was planned, meticulously on social media and other 
channels, down to discussions of hitting protesters with cars 
and claiming self-defense. As the evidence in our lawsuit made 
clear, and as the jury agreed, finding every single defendant 
liable, these extremists planned violence came to 
Charlottesville to engage in that violence, and then celebrated 
that violence.
    This matters not just because a woman was murdered and so 
many others grievously injured, it matters because Unite the 
Right was a flashpoint in the rise of deadly white supremacist 
extremism, a harbinger of a cycle of far-right violence that 
continues to claim lives around the country: Charlottesville, 
Pittsburgh, El Paso, January 6, Buffalo, and this month, Allen, 
Texas. These are just a few of many examples I could cite. 
We're experiencing a tidal wave of white supremacist violence. 
But I don't just want to share examples. I want to talk about 
data.
    According to the ADL, every single extremist-related murder 
in 2022 was committed by right-wing extremists. The vast 
majority were white supremacists. Over the past decade, 96 
percent of the events in which extremists killed someone were 
committed by people with right-wing ideologies. In the same 
period, three-quarters of extremism-linked murders were 
committed by right-wing actors, while only 4 percent were 
linked to left-wing actors. Research from the Start Center at 
the University of Maryland also shows that in the last 30 years 
far-right actors were responsible for 74 percent of planned or 
successful terrorist attacks by domestic extremists, while far-
left perpetrators were responsible for just 13 percent.
    It's not just NGO's and academic institutions tracking this 
disproportionate threat. In late 2020, former President Trump's 
Department of Homeland Security found that white supremacists 
were, ``the most persistent and lethal threat in the United 
States''. This isn't to say that other forms of political 
violence don't exist. Of course they do. That includes left-
wing or anarchist violence, Islamist violence, or violence that 
doesn't fit neatly into one particular ideology. There was a 
time when left-wing extremist violence was a bigger threat, 
nearly 50 years ago, during the 1970's. But since the 1990's, 
available data show that right-wing extremism has consistently 
been the most violent domestic terror threat. Unless we're 
clear-eyed about the facts, we'll never be able to intervene 
and break the cycle of extremism.
    It's all the more important to understand this reality, 
because it's not happening in a vacuum. The rise in right-wing 
extremism has gone hand-in-hand with an increasing 
normalization of right-wing extremism. Conspiracy theories, 
once relegated to the dark corners of the internet, like the 
Great Replacement, are espoused not just by mass murderers, but 
by elected officials, candidates, and pundits. Policies aimed 
at dehumanizing and stripping away the rights of certain 
communities are fueling attacks on those very communities. 
Violent extremists take this normalization of conspiracy 
theories and bigotry as license. It's not just a threat to our 
communities. It directly threatens our democracy and our 
national security.
    So what do we do? While we should invest in responsive 
measures like security, we can't simply sue, prosecute, or 
barricade our way out of this crisis. We need comprehensive 
solutions with real accountability, support for targeted 
communities, and societal resilience. This includes investing 
in and protecting democratic institutions, addressing the 
threat of extremism in the military and law enforcement, 
empowering communities with tools to prevent radicalization, 
like media and digital literacy, education, and resources for 
parents, educators, and caregivers, making it harder for 
violent extremists to get their hands on the deadly weapons too 
often used in these acts of mass violence, and building cross-
community coalitions that recognize none of us are safe if one 
of us isn't safe.
    The facts and the data are clear. We're grappling with a 
very real threat of right-wing extremism. Every statistic 
affirms that the vast majority of extremist violence is 
perpetrated by those motivated by white supremacist and other 
right-wing ideologies. Acknowledging that doesn't take away 
from the fact that other forms of political violence exist. But 
this moment requires us to be clear-eyed about our reality if 
we're to do something about it.
    I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here today and look 
forward to your questions. Thank you so much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Spitalnik follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Amy Spitalnick
                              May 16, 2023
    Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Ivey, and Members of the 
committee. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here today.
    My name is Amy Spitalnick and I am a senior advisor on extremism at 
Human Rights First, a nonpartisan organization committed to ensuring 
that the United States is a global leader on human rights. I am also 
the incoming CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a nearly 80-
year-old nonpartisan organization that serves as the national convener 
of Jewish coalitions to build a safe, just, and inclusive democracy.
    I previously led Integrity First for America, the nonpartisan 
nonprofit that held accountable the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and 
hate groups responsible for the August 2017 violence in 
Charlottesville.
    Many of us remember the visceral horror of watching neo-Nazis with 
torches storm the University of Virginia, chanting things like ``Jews 
will not replace us'' as they beat students and other community 
members. Or seeing the horrific images of violence the next day, 
culminating in the car attack that claimed Heather Heyer's life and 
injured so many others.
    That violence was no accident. Rather, it was planned meticulously 
in advance--on social media sites like Discord, via text, and on other 
channels--down to discussions of whether they could hit protesters with 
cars and claim self-defense.
    As the evidence in my organization's lawsuit made clear--and as the 
jury agreed, when they found every single defendant liable \1\--these 
extremists planned violence; came to Charlottesville to engage in that 
violence; and then celebrated that violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Sganga, N. (2021, November 23). ``Jury awards $26 million in 
Charlotteville `Unite the Right' rally civil case.'' CBS News. https://
www.cbsnews.com/news/charlottesville-unite-the-right-rally trial-
verdict-26-million/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This matters, not only because a young woman was murdered and so 
many others were grievously injured. It also matters because Unite the 
Right was a flashpoint in the rise of deadly white supremacist 
extremism--serving as a harbinger of a cycle of far-right violence that 
continues to claim lives around the country.
    Charlottesville.
    Pittsburgh, where a white supremacist murdered 11 Jews praying in 
synagogue.
    El Paso, where a white supremacist targeted a predominately 
Hispanic community, killing 23 people at a Walmart.
    January 6th, where extremists with Confederate flags, nooses, QAnon 
conspiracy theory propaganda, and even a ``Camp Auschwitz'' shirt 
attacked the seat of our Government with the intent to harm Members of 
Congress and law enforcement.
    Buffalo, where a year ago Sunday a white supremacist drove hours in 
order to target a Black community, murdering 10 people at a grocery 
store.
    And earlier this month, Allen, Texas, where a man who held neo-Nazi 
and white supremacist views, and sported a swastika tattoo and ``Right 
Wing Death Squad'' patch, murdered 8 people shopping at an outlet mall.
    And these are just a handful of far too many examples I could cite. 
We are experiencing a tidal wave of white supremacist extremism in 
which individuals and communities are attacked based on who they are. 
It targets entire groups with the goal of making them feel unsafe, 
unwelcome, and unable to protect themselves.
    But I don't just want to share examples. I want to talk about 
data--the hard facts that are too often missing from these 
conversations.
    According to data released earlier this year by the ADL, every 
single extremist-related murder in 2022 was committed by right-wing 
extremists. The vast majority of those were white supremacists.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Anti-Defamation League (ADL). (2023). ``Murder and Extremism in 
the United States in 2022.'' https://www.adl.org/resources/report/
murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the past decade, 96 percent of the events in which extremists 
killed someone were committed by people with right-wing ideologies. In 
the same time period, more than half of the murders linked to extremism 
were committed by right-wing actors, while only 4 percent were linked 
to left-wing actors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Bump, P. (2023, February 28). ``Underrecognized: Extremist 
murders are usually from right-wing actors.'' The Washington Post. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/28/extremism-right-
wing-deaths/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 2022 University of Maryland-led study specifically looked at 
disparities in violence among extremist groups, concluding radical acts 
perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less 
likely to be violent.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Jasko, K.; LaFree, G.; Piazza, J.; and Becker, M. (2022, July 
18). ``A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and 
Islamist extremists in the United States and the world.'' PNAS. https:/
/www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Research from the START Center at the University of Maryland also 
tracks trends in mass casualty terrorist attacks and failed terrorist 
plots. Attacks are considered ``mass casualty'' when the perpetrator 
intended to kill or injure four or more people. Their data show that, 
over the last 30 years, far-right actors were responsible for 74 
percent of these planned or successful terrorist attacks by domestic 
extremists. In comparison, far-left perpetrators were responsible for 
only 13 percent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to 
Terrorism (START). (2023). ``Profiles of Individual Radicalization in 
the United States (PIRUS).'' https://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/
files/publications/local_attachments/PIRUS-Mass%20Cas- 
ualty%20Extremist%20Offenders_0.pdf https://www.start.umd.edu/sites/
default/files/publications/local_attachments/PIRUS-
Mass%20Casualty%20Extremist%20Offenders_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's not just NGO's and academic institutions that are tracking 
this disproportionate threat. In late 2020, former President Trump's 
Department of Homeland Security found that white supremacists were 
``the most persistent and lethal threat'' in the United States.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Sands, G. (2020, September 8). ``White supremacy is `most 
lethal threat' to the US, DHS draft assessment says.'' CNN. https://
www.cnn.com/2020/09/08/politics/white-supremacy-dhs-draft-assessment/
index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This isn't to say that other forms of political violence don't 
exist. Of course they do. That includes left-wing or anarchist 
violence; Islamist violence; or violence that doesn't fit neatly into 
one particular ideology.
    There was a time when left-wing extremist violence was a bigger 
threat: nearly 50 years ago, during the 1970's. But since the 1990's, 
available data show that right-wing extremism has consistently been the 
most violent domestic terror threat.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Watson, D. (2002, February 6). Testimony Before the Senate 
Select Committee on Intelligence. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/
news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unless we're clear-eyed about the facts, the data, and the reality 
of the current violent threat--which every indicator tells us is 
disproportionately emanating from the far right--we will never be able 
to intervene and break the cycle of violent extremism.
    It's all the more important to understand this reality because it's 
not happening in a vacuum. Rather, the rise in right-wing violence has 
gone hand-in-hand with an increasing normalization of right-wing 
extremism.
    Human Rights First is particularly focused on the mainstreaming of 
hate. The ideology driving far-right extremism, and the broader 
antidemocratic movement, in the United States has become increasingly 
visible in our institutions, policies, and public discourse, and 
represents an existential threat to our democracy. This hate and 
bigotry is not new but it has been given new life through the rampant 
spread and normalization of racist, antisemitic, misogynistic, anti-
LGBTQ+, and other bigoted conspiracies.
    Conspiracy theories which were once relegated to the dark corners 
of the internet--like the Great Replacement Theory--are espoused not 
just by mass murderers but by elected officials, political candidates, 
and pundits.
    Policies aimed at dehumanizing and stripping away the rights of 
certain communities are fueling attacks on those communities--such as 
the neo-Nazi organizations using anti-drag and anti-trans protests as 
recruitment opportunities.
    Violent extremists take the normalization of conspiracy theories 
and bigotry as license for violence: for attacks on our democratic 
institutions and on vulnerable populations. It's not just a threat to 
our communities; it also directly threatens our democracy and our 
national security.
    The challenge ahead of us is great because this extremism is no 
longer relegated to fringe actors and violent groups, it is both 
mainstream and it is a movement. Therefore, mitigating this threat 
requires an approach that includes addressing the violent and most 
visible components of the movement, but also the mainstream networks 
that build support for the movement.
    It also means acknowledging the age-old bigotry this network has 
employed, addressing their attacks on civil and human rights across our 
country, and repairing and reconciling the harm it has caused.
    So what can do we do about it?
    While we can and should invest in responsive measures like 
security, we also acknowledge that we can't simply sue, prosecute, or 
barricade our way out of this crisis.
    We need comprehensive solutions emphasizing protection of our 
democratic institutions, processes, and values. It also requires real 
accountability, supporting targeted communities, and building societal 
resilience to mitigate the further normalization of hate and extremism. 
This includes:
   Defending Election Legitimacy.--Undermining the legitimacy 
        of our elections, the cornerstone of our democracy, is a key 
        goal of this extremist movement and is already under way.
   Protecting Democratic Institutions & Civil Rights.--Creating 
        a concerted effort to protect our public education, health 
        care, and voting systems--as well as communities' fundamental 
        civil and human rights--against the antidemocratic attacks at 
        the local, State, and Federal levels.
   Seeking Accountability.--Holding elected officials 
        accountable for the impact of the extremist rhetoric they 
        perpetuate, such as the harmful ``invasion'' narrative and 
        ``Great Replacement'' conspiracy theory in furthering violence.
   Confronting Extremism in the Military and Law Enforcement.--
        Recognizing and addressing the threat of extremism in the 
        military and law enforcement.
   Empowering Civil Society.--Empowering our society with tools 
        to identify mis/disinformation and conspiracies and prevent 
        radicalization: from media and digital literacy and other forms 
        of education, to resources for parents, educators, and 
        caregivers.
   Combating Armed Extremism.--Making it harder for violent 
        extremists to get their hands on the deadly weapons too often 
        used in these acts of mass violence.
   Building Cross-Community Coalitions.--Understanding that 
        growing, mainstreamed extremism puts all of us at risk--and 
        building cross-community coalitions rooted in the necessary 
        idea that none of us are safe if one of us isn't safe.
    The facts and the data are clear: we are grappling with a very real 
threat of right-wing extremism in this country. Every single statistic 
makes clear that the vast majority of extremist violence is perpetrated 
by those motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing 
ideologies. Acknowledging that doesn't take away from the fact that 
other forms of political violence exist. But this moment requires us to 
be clear-eyed about our reality if we're to do something about it.
    Again, I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here today, and I 
look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.

    Chairman Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Spitalnick. I now recognize 
Mr. Julio Rosas for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF JULIO ROSAS, SENIOR WRITER, TOWNHALL

    Mr. Rosas. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, and this committee 
for having this hearing on what I believe to be an important 
subject that is often overlooked in the national discourse.
    What has been happening in and around in Atlanta over the 
police training facility is part of the on-going repercussions 
of the BLM and Antifa riots in 2020. In my capacity as the 
senior writer for Town Hall, I covered many of these BLM and 
Antifa riots first-hand, and I can tell you that these were 
very destructive events, not just in the moment into the cities 
in which they occurred, but also to our Nation's overall 
approach to law and order. During that chaotic time in our 
country's history, the same story repeated itself. The far left 
organized to attack not only police officers, but also 
neighborhoods and innocent bystanders, many of whom were 
minorities. Sometimes the anger was over justified police 
actions, like the riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin. I want to be 
clear. Yes, there were BLM protests that were peaceful. The 
common statistic that is cited is around 93 percent of them 
were peaceful. To that I say thank goodness, because in that 7 
percent of violence, over $2 billion worth of damage was done 
to places across the country, sometimes repeatedly in the same 
area. Dozens of lives were lost, and an untold number were hurt 
or injured, with myself being included.
    I also want to make clear that Antifa is very much a real 
movement within the United States, and they can pose a real 
threat to the safety of innocent Americans. They are not, as 
Representative Jerry Nadler has claimed, a myth. I have seen 
their destructive actions first-hand. In the aftermath of so 
many riots I have seen the on-going decay that lawlessness 
brings in so many of our cities. The criminal elements saw how 
a fragile police force can be when they are underfunded and 
under supported.
    These days, it does not even take a controversial police 
action to spark riots. We saw this recently in Chicago and Los 
Angeles just a few weeks ago. Today the issue is not 
necessarily police funding. Because of the increase in crime, 
localities who did take away money in the name of social 
justice have put the money back, but the damage was done. 
Today's criminals have no fear, because why would they? Law 
enforcement is understaffed, and even when arrests are made, 
pro-criminal DAs give them sweetheart deals so they can go back 
out and commit crimes again. What is being done under the guise 
of antiracist measures has led to minority communities being 
terrorized by this encouraged criminal element.
    Because of what happened 3 years ago, the far left is 
emboldened to occupy a force to attack police, the construction 
company, and the downtown area. It is a forced version of the 
autonomous zone created in Seattle that was allowed to exist 
despite its dangers, for almost a month in 2020. I do not know 
where this country is headed, but I anticipate that intentions 
are not lowered and action is not taken, events like the 
outcome of the 2024 Presidential election may spark another 
wave of violence that the country might not come back from.
    The anger and breakdown of order is real. It is visceral. I 
have seen it for myself in both our inner cities and at our 
Southern Border, where I just recently returned from in El 
Paso. The law enforcement agencies and the judicial system must 
take steps now if they want to prevent a continuation of the 
recent violence. If they do not, then I suspect I will be as 
busy as I was in 2020.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rosas follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Julio Rosas
    Thank you Chairman Bishop and this subcommittee for having this 
hearing on what I believe to be an important subject that is often 
overlooked in the national discourse. What has been happening in and 
around Atlanta over the police training facility is part of the on-
going repercussions of the BLM and Antifa riots in 2020.
    In my capacity as the senior writer for Townhall, I covered many of 
these BLM and Antifa riots first-hand and I can tell you these were 
very destructive events, not just in the moment and to the cities in 
which they occurred, but also to our Nation's overall approach to law 
and order. During that chaotic time in our country's history, the same 
story repeated itself: the far left organized to attack not only police 
officers but also neighborhoods and innocent bystanders, many of whom 
were minorities. Sometimes, the anger was over justified police 
actions, like in the riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
    I want to be clear, yes, there were BLM protests that were 
peaceful. The common statistic cited is around 93 percent of them were 
peaceful and to that I say, thank goodness, because in that 7 percent 
of violence, over $2 billion worth of damage was done to places across 
the country, sometimes repeatedly in the same area. Dozens of lives 
were lost and an untold number were hurt or injured, myself included.
    I also want to be clear that Antifa is very much a real movement 
within the United States and they can pose a real threat to the safety 
of innocent Americans. They are not, as Rep. Jerry Nadler claimed, a 
myth. I have seen their destructive actions first-hand. They go by 
different names, such as Rose City Antifa or the DC Youth Liberation 
Front, but they are united in their radical beliefs to take down not 
just their local police department, but the United States as we know 
it.
    In the aftermath of so many riots, I've seen the on-going decay 
that lawlessness brings in so many of our cities. The criminal element 
saw how fragile a police force can be when they are unfunded and under-
supported. These days, it does not take a controversial police action 
to spark riots. We saw this in Chicago and Los Angeles just a few weeks 
ago.
    Today, the issue is not necessarily funding. Because of the 
increase in crime, localities who did take money away in the name of 
social justice have put the money back, but the damage was done. 
Today's criminals have no fear, because why would they? Law enforcement 
is understaffed and, even when arrests are made, pro-criminal DAs give 
them sweetheart deals so they go back out and commit crimes again. What 
is being done under the guise of anti-racist measures has led to 
minority communities being terrorized by this encouraged criminal 
element.
    Because of what happened 3 years ago, the far left is emboldened to 
occupy a forest to attack police, the construction company, and the 
downtown area. It's a forest version of the ``autonomous'' zone created 
in Seattle that was allowed to exist, despite its dangers, for almost a 
month in 2020.
    I do not know where this country is headed, but I anticipate if the 
tensions are not lowered, events like the outcome of the 2024 
Presidential election may spark another wave of violence that the 
country might not come back from. The anger and the breakdown of order 
is real, it's visceral. I have seen if for myself, in both our inner 
cities and at our Southern Border, where I have just come from. The law 
enforcement agencies and the judicial system must take steps now if 
they want to prevent a continuation of the recent violence. If they do 
not, then I suspect I will be as busy as I was in 2020. Thank you.

    Chairman Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Rosas.
    Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their 
5 minutes of questioning. An additional round of questioning 
may be called after all Members have been recognized.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Rosas, as you note in your book, we have seen this 
phenomenon where Members of Congress--you just made reference 
to Mr. Nadler referring to Antifa as a myth, that it is a false 
issue, the FBI director said that Antifa is, ``not a group or 
an organization, it is a movement or an ideology'', Secretary 
Mayorkas insists that Antifa should not be called domestic 
terrorists. It seems to me we have got to distinguish between 
ideological movements and those who lapse over into something 
beyond that.
    You made a distinction talking about BLM protests, that 93 
percent were peaceful, but the 7 percent were remarkably 
destructive and violent. Speak to that. Isn't it important for 
all of us to draw those distinctions clearly and not slough 
them over, not blur them?
    Mr. Rosas. Absolutely. Just because Antifa is--they have--
as you mentioned, they very much operate on a decentralized 
small unit level, and that's on purpose so that local law 
enforcement has a harder time trying to take action and take it 
down, because if they take down one cell, there's another one 
in the same area, particularly Portland and the Pacific 
Northwest. There's even some here in the D.C. area. So, yes, I 
mean, this isn't complicated. This is a real movement that 
people identify with, and they have historically, even before 
2020, taken violent action against innocent people.
    Chairman Bishop. As best I have been able to see, Antifa in 
particular, and just observations I have made, they are 
organized around the motion of violent protest.
    Mr. Rosas. Yes.
    Chairman Bishop. I guess I would ask you if that is an 
accurate understanding. So if they exist in these small cells, 
maybe linked by this ideology of some sort, how are they 
organized and led and how do they interact and coordinate with 
each other and how do they get their funds? If you have insight 
about that.
    Mr. Rosas. So, I mean, just how any other group kind-of 
organizes today. I mean, they all use social media. Half the 
reason why I knew where to be in 2020 is because they advertise 
freely on social media sites like Twitter. Now, this is pre-
Elon Musk Twitter. Some of them have been taken down in the 
time since he took over. But they organize on social media, 
they organize in encrypted chats as well. When it comes to 
funding, I mean they openly solicit donations on their PayPals, 
Venmos, Cash App. That's kind-of how they, at least publicly, 
are able to sustain themselves.
    I mean just from personal experience--you know, I used to 
live in the D.C. area, unfortunately, and I would see some of 
the same people over and over again at these protests, and I 
would kind-of wonder how you're able to hold down a job if 
you're constantly at these things. Of course, I'm there because 
that's my job to cover what they're doing. So it's not really 
complicated. They organize openly on social media and more 
discrete ways, and they raise money openly too.
    Chairman Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Roses.
    Mr. Erickson, and somewhat quickly, because I got a limited 
amount of time left, from your perspective, your experience, 
Homeland Security. Is Antifa, groups like that, a real threat 
that needs to be attended to by Congress and by the Department?
    Mr. Erickson. Absolutely, it's a real threat.
    During the summer of 2020, when I was at Homeland Security, 
I traveled with the then-Secretary to Portland to visit with 
our Federal law enforcement officers who were at that time in 
the midst of well over a month of continued, sustained, violent 
assault. It's a very real phenomenon. It's a very real danger, 
and we should deal with it.
    Chairman Bishop. Ms. Gaines, toward the end of your 
statement, I sort-of had to hurry you along at the end, but I 
want to get to that in particular.
    I was troubled, and it was just spoken of outside the 
hearing before that, the vice president for student affairs at 
San Francisco sort-of lauded what happened to you, or at least 
said that it was--people who attacked you demonstrated ``the 
value of free speech and the right to protest peacefully''. 
What is your reaction to statements like that about the mob 
that you confronted?
    You got about 45 seconds. You can take it all.
    Ms. Gaines. What I saw was not peaceful by any means. The 
vice president releases an email to their student body 
applauding--word for word--I applaud the tremendously brave 
students who behaved the way they did. Which, when I read this, 
knowing what I know, what I went through, seeing what I saw, 
that was not peaceful. To applaud that behavior from an 
institution of higher education is chilling. It's terrifying 
that that is something we're encouraging or encouraging, we're 
celebrating. By no means did they say we uphold the freedom of 
speech or condemn violence.
    Chairman Bishop. I think that is a critically important 
point, and I appreciate you making it.
    My time has expired.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Ivey for 5 minutes for 
questions he may have.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Gaines, this is the topic that is a little off-topic 
for the hearing, I think, but wasn't the Stanford official who 
made those comments removed from her position?
    Ms. Gaines. This was at the San Francisco State University, 
so I'm not entirely sure about Stanford, but she was not 
removed. Her name is Dr. Jamillah Moore and she's the vice 
president of student affairs.
    Mr. Ivey. Right, but the praising of these kinds of 
activities on college campuses, do you know about some of the 
steps other universities have taken to try and address this?
    Ms. Gaines. I'm just here to talk about what happened at 
San Francisco State University.
    Mr. Ivey. Fair enough, fair enough.
    Let me ask this--let me read this piece here. Just over 27 
years ago, the prominent white supremacist, Louis Beam, Jr. 
published a now-infamous essay titled ``Leaderless 
Resistance''. Extremist organizations being argued were too 
vulnerable to government disruption, the future of white 
supremacy was individual. Lone actors and small, self-organized 
groups that could take action at their own initiative was the 
way to go.
    Mr. Rosas, let me ask you if you are familiar with this 
lone-actor approach that has been taken by some of the right-
wing extremists, especially the ones who are committing massive 
attacks that are killing multiple people. Have you seen any of 
those activities on the news?
    Mr. Rosas. On the news, yes.
    Mr. Ivey. OK. Have you researched or studied any of those 
activities?
    Mr. Rosas. Well, which one specifically? Like, are we 
talking about El Paso, Buffalo, or?
    Mr. Ivey. Pick one. I mean, unfortunately, there are dozens 
of these. Yes, take Charlottesville. I mean, what do you----
    Mr. Rosas. I was there covering it. I was there. OK. Yes, 
I'm acutely aware of what happened there.
    Mr. Ivey. OK. Did you find that troubling and disturbing?
    Mr. Rosas. Of course.
    Mr. Ivey. OK.
    Mr. Rosas. I also found it troubling that a majority--a big 
reason for the violence was how ill-prepared local law 
enforcement was.
    Mr. Ivey. Right.
    Mr. Rosas. They were not separating the two sides. I walked 
through the crowd and I found myself in between the two sides 
fighting. There were State police on the other side of the 
road.
    Mr. Ivey. All right. So you are not blaming the police for 
the--you are not blaming the police for the killing of Ms. 
Heyer?
    Mr. Rosas. I'm blaming the poor planning. Because when 
there's big events like that, you want to make sure that no 
vehicles are able to drive in those areas to prevent exactly 
what happened later on that afternoon. So there was multiple 
failures. Just like January 6, there's multiple failures to 
adequately prepare.
    Mr. Ivey. I will come back to January 6. But the killing of 
Ms. Heyer, you agree with the neo-Nazi, Mr. Fields, who drove 
the car and hit her with that right?
    Mr. Rosas. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
    Mr. Ivey. The neo-Nazi who drove the car that killed Ms. 
Heyer, you will agree was responsible for her death?
    Mr. Rosas. Oh, directly, absolutely. Yes.
    Mr. Ivey. Right. He was convicted? I think he pled guilty 
to two different sets of charges, has a double life sentence he 
is serving. Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Rosas. Yes.
    Mr. Ivey. All right. Then there was a civil suit. Actually, 
you might be some connected to that, Ms. Spitalnick, in which 
leaders of the organization which helped to support this Unite 
the Right rally were held to be liable, and there were damages 
imposed. I don't remember the amount. But you understand that 
that happened as well, right?
    Mr. Rosas. Yes.
    Mr. Ivey. OK, and there were civil rights violations that 
were connected with those activities, right?
    Mr. Rosas. Oh, yes, sure.
    Mr. Ivey. OK. With respect to January 6, I guess I will 
come to mute you, Mr. Erickson. You mentioned that Portland was 
disgraceful and should never happen again, and I certainly 
agree with that position.
    Mr. Erickson. Right.
    Mr. Ivey. Would you agree that January 6 was disgraceful 
and should never happen again?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes, I would.
    Mr. Ivey. OK. One of the things I wanted to ask you with 
respect to the solutions, you talked a little bit about some of 
the activities, but this committee has had a hearing with 
respect to--well, one of the issues we could have considered at 
that hearing was countering false information, disinformation 
that pushes these kinds of ideologies forward. When you were at 
Homeland Security, did you pursue any of those activities, or 
do you think that that would be useful in some of these 
scenarios to try and address--whether you think it is right- or 
left-wing violence, that we should try and address it in those 
ways?
    Mr. Erickson. I don't think it's the Government's place to 
necessarily be in the business of deciding what is or is not 
appropriate speech. I think that obviously, there's plenty of 
misinformation and disinformation floating around on the 
internet. I think people have to be mature consumers of that 
information.
    Mr. Ivey. Let me give you an example that is a little off-
topic for this, but false allegations about active shooters at 
elementary schools and communities. We now have a scenario 
where people, rather than pulling the fire alarm for whatever 
reason, now are making calls saying there is an active shooter 
at elementary school X even though there isn't one. Would you 
agree that that is something that the Government should take 
steps to respond to and denounce so that parents don't go 
crazy, police don't go down with weapons drawn and accidentally 
shoot somebody, teachers don't freak out. Do you think that 
would be appropriate to address that kind of misinformation?
    Mr. Erickson. Of course.
    Mr. Ivey. OK. My time has expired.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentleman yields back. Thank you.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, 
Mr. Thompson, for his 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Erickson, what was your position at DHS?
    Mr. Erickson. I held a number of positions. I was there 
from February 2018 until January 2021. So I was the law 
enforcement advisor in the Office of Partnerships and 
Engagement, I was law enforcement counselor to three 
Secretaries, I was deputy chief of staff, and very briefly, 
acting chief of staff at the end.
    Mr. Thompson. So, are you familiar with the data produced 
by DHS relative to domestic terrorism?
    Mr. Erickson. It depends what data you're speaking of.
    Mr. Thompson. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis 
publishes an annual report on domestic terrorism.
    Mr. Erickson. I'm familiar with the Office of Intelligence 
and Analysis, I am not familiar with the specific data points 
that you may be referencing.
    Mr. Thompson. So if I told you that the director of 
Intelligence and Analysis and the director of the FBI annually 
report to this committee, would you understand that that is 
what happens?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes.
    Mr. Thompson. If I told you that in both instances, the 
director of Intelligence and Analysis and the FBI said the No. 
1 domestic terrorist threat to the homeland was radical right-
wing extremism. Are you familiar with that?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes. You're referencing the under secretary, 
I assume, of I&A, Intelligence and Analysis, and the director 
of the FBI. Yes, I'm familiar with that. I'm also familiar with 
the fact that that was referenced in the 2020 Homeland Threat 
Assessment that was released, again, under the Trump 
administration.
    Mr. Thompson. So the No. 1 threat to the homeland is 
radical right-wing domestic terrorism?
    Mr. Erickson. Well, I mean, if you're saying what's the No. 
1 threat to the homeland, I would say that the 100,000 lives 
lost to opioids, largely fueled by the fentanyl, now that's 
affecting the homeland.
    Mr. Thompson. No. No, no, no, no. Based on the testimony 
and in that report, since you are familiar with it, just repeat 
for the committee what those two individuals said.
    Mr. Erickson. If you're speaking about domestic terror 
threat, then that----
    Mr. Thompson. Yes.
    Mr. Erickson. Then yes what you said is accurate.
    Mr. Thompson. It is, correct, right?
    Mr. Erickson. Correct.
    Mr. Thompson. The data says that radical right-wing 
domestic terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the homeland. In your 
report to the Department, why would you say going after a 
smaller percent of the threat rather than the larger percent of 
the threat?
    Mr. Erickson. I'm sorry, which report? My report?
    Mr. Thompson. No, no, the same report I just asked you 
about.
    Mr. Erickson. OK. Why are we discussing left-wing domestic 
terrorism?
    Mr. Thompson. You never mentioned right-wing. Everything 
you talked about was about left-wing.
    Mr. Erickson. Correct.
    Mr. Thompson. I am saying, why would you talk about a 
smaller component of it when the data shows just the opposite?
    Mr. Erickson. Well, I was asked to testify in a hearing, I 
believe, titled Left-wing Extremism.
    Mr. Thompson. OK. So if I ask you, in your professional 
opinion, what is the most serious threat to the homeland, 
radical right-wing extremism or left-wing extremism, based on 
the data?
    Mr. Erickson. I just want to be clear, if you're talking 
about the greatest threat to the homeland, I would take a much 
larger aperture in terms of what I'm looking at other than 
domestic terrorism. I'd be looking at the threat from China, 
Russia, Southern----
    Mr. Thompson. No, no, no.
    Mr. Erickson. Well, that's----
    Mr. Thompson. I understand.
    Mr. Erickson. OK. Domestic----
    Mr. Thompson. But you gave testimony to this committee 
about left-wing.
    Mr. Erickson. Correct.
    Mr. Thompson. So what is your testimony if I ask you a 
question about right-wing, which is the most documented threat 
based on testimony from the director of National Intelligence 
and the FBI?
    Mr. Erickson. I would say that I condemn right-wing 
terrorism, white supremacist extremism, left-wing terrorism, I 
condemn all politically-motivated violence in this country.
    Mr. Thompson. Based on the data, are you familiar with 
which one is the most?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes.
    Mr. Thompson. Which one isn't?
    Mr. Erickson. According to the data that you cited, right-
wing extremism is responsible for more deaths than left-wing 
extremism. But to act like only one exists and to ignore the 
other does a disservice to the American people. I think that's 
the point of this hearing.
    Mr. Thompson. I yield back.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentlewoman from Georgia, Mrs. Greene, 
for her 5 minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, Riley, I want to thank you for being here 
today. I want to recognize that you are a hero and a champion 
to women and little girls all over the country. Your bravery 
and courage is admired not only by little girls and women, but 
by Americans all over. This goes across the political divide. I 
think you probably had no idea, all the years you spent 
training in the pool, working out, you had no idea--earning 
your college scholarship, competing in the sport, women's 
sport, by the way, that you trained to compete in, you had no 
idea that you would be sitting in a committee before Congress 
about left-wing organized violence. But here you are today. I 
think that all started with having to compete with a man who is 
6'1'', named William Thomas, a biological male that invaded 
your sport, invaded your privacy, and came in to defeat, 
demoralize, and completely destroy the sport that you love. So, 
No. 1, I want to recognize that and I want to thank you.
    I would also like to ask you a question here. This is in 
your testimony, you said that you were threatened, intimidated, 
assaulted, and held hostage. I would like to just give you a 
minute to go ahead and expand on that when you weren't able to 
finish. Please expand on that.
    Ms. Gaines. Right. I know you guys saw a brief snippet of 
what I saw for hours, so I'll kind-of expand on kind-of what 
was being yelled and said to me to elaborate on why I'm here on 
behalf of condemning violence.
    In this room where I was held hostage and essentially held 
for ransom--actually, not essentially, I was held for ransom--
the protesters from outside the room were yelling at the 
officers who were on the outside of the door protecting me, 
you're only protecting her because she's a white girl. Of 
course, these officers then were terrified. They were terrified 
to do their job because who wants to be accused of that 
accusation? They were yelling things such as, you shouldn't 
have came here, you knew this was going to happen, you were 
asking for this. Open that door and let us at her and we'll 
handle her. She doesn't get to go home safely. She doesn't 
deserve to go home to her.
    Ms. Greene. Ms. Gaines, you were there that day, what was 
the topic you were speaking on?
    Ms. Gaines. Let me reiterate what I was there speaking on. 
I was there speaking on behalf of protecting women's sports. My 
speech consisted of--I probably spoke for 45 minutes, to which 
I opened it up for question and answers afterwards, 
encouraging--actually only opened it to opposing questions 
because I wanted to have this conversation, not because I want 
controversy, but because I want to have that open dialog. I 
think that's how we create solutions. My speech consisted of--
I, of course, talk about what it means to be a female athlete, 
the amount of training, the dedication, the sacrifices that you 
have to give to compete at the level I was competing at. That 
national championships is the fastest meet in the entire world. 
I talked about what that experience looked like. I talked about 
the locker room. I talked about the silencing, the very real 
silencing that we dealt with because of our universities. Of 
course----
    Ms. Greene. Ms. Gaines, may I ask you, any of the people 
that threatened your life, your safety, kidnapped you, and held 
you hostage in that room that day, were any of those right-wing 
extremists?
    Ms. Gaines. No. The people who were in the room for the 
speech portion, it was about 50 percent protesters versus 50 
percent supporters. But of course, the aftermath of really the 
ambush--again, I can't tell you every single one of their 
political affiliation, but I can almost certainly say that 
there were no right-leaning protesters in that room.
    Ms. Greene. OK. I want to point out, because there has been 
a lot lost here, let's talk about the recent four mass 
shootings in the past 5 years. Colorado Spring shooter 
identified as non-binary, Denver shooter, identified as trans, 
Aberdeen shooter, identified as trans, Audrey Hale, the 
Nashville shooter, identified as trans. But trans people only 
make up about one-half of 1 percent of the population. Just 
recently, there was a trans day of vengeance, which is 
definitely not right-wing extremism or violence. This looks 
terrifying, and it is definitely from the left, because on the 
right, I can assure you, we believe in two genders, it is male 
and female. We support Title IX women's sports, you, Riley 
Gaines, and any other female athlete that wants biological men 
to stay out of their sports dressing rooms and women's privacy 
areas.
    This is what left-wing extremism and violence stems from, 
is the movement that wants to use trans terrorism against 
Americans, violating the whole idea of biological science that 
there are two genders, and that children should not be coerced 
and brainwashed into this sick ideology.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentlelady yields back.
    I now recognize Dr. Thanedar of Michigan for his 5 minutes 
of questioning.
    Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the Trump 
administration's Homeland Threat Assessment that says that 
among domestic violent extremists, white supremacist extremists 
will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the 
homeland.
    Chairman Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The information has been retained in committee files and is also 
available at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
2020_10_06_homeland-threat-assessment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    When we look at political violence, we must make a 
distinction between violence against people versus violence 
against property. As Ranking Member Ivey has pointed out, 
right-wing violence has been far, far deadlier than left-wing 
violence.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to read the names of just a 
handful of recent victims of right-wing political violence. 
Again, these are names of men, women, and children, neighbors, 
nieces and nephews, grandmas and grandpas, who were killed by 
right-wing violence.
    Less than 2 weeks ago, on May 6, in Allen, Texas, a 
shooter, wearing a vest reading right-wing death squad, killed 
Daniel and Sophia Mendoza, age 11 and 8, Aishwarya Thatikonda, 
age 26, Christian LaCour, age 20, Elio Cumana-Rivas, age 32, 
Cindy and Kyu Cho, age 35 and 37, and their son, James Cho, age 
3. On November 19, 2022, in Colorado Springs, Colorado, an 
anti-LGBTQ-motivated shooter killed Daniel Davis Aston, age 28, 
Kelly Loving, age 40, Ashley Paugh, age 35, Derek Rump, age 38, 
Raymond Green Vance, age 22. One year ago, on May 14, 2022, in 
Buffalo, New York, a white supremacist and proponent of the 
great replacement theory killed Roberta A. Drury, age 32. 
Margus D. Morrison, age 52, Andre Mackniel, age 53, Aaron 
Salter, Age 55, Geraldine Talley, age 62, Celestine Chaney, age 
65, Heyward Patterson, age 67, Katherine Massey, age 72, Paul 
Young, age 77, Ruth Whitefield, age 86.
    I am running out of time, and I have only gotten through 1 
year of victims of right-wing attacks. That doesn't include the 
many, many victims of mass shooting in which no political 
ideology was identified, but which were nonetheless enabled by 
Republicans refusal to pass common-sense gun reforms.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Ezell for his 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Gaines, I want to thank you for your willingness to 
testify and your bravery for standing up for women. One thing I 
would like to say as a 42-year law enforcement professional, a 
sheriff, a police chief, a detective, one of the hardest things 
these days is to get a person that is willing to testify and to 
stand up and tell the truth.
    In your testimony, you described how you were attacked for 
telling your side of the story. What kind of message does this 
send to the young women who might be afraid of speaking up?
    Ms. Gaines. This is something just based off the 
conversations I've had with girls. I know I briefly mentioned 
it in my testimony, but the overwhelming majority of those 
girls who were specifically at that NCAA Championships where we 
raced with Lia Thomas, who's, of course, a biological male, the 
overwhelming majority of us girls felt so uncomfortable. We 
felt betrayed, we felt belittled, we--it's, of course, in the 
locker room especially, it's awkward. It's embarrassing. Again, 
it's this feeling of--the best word to describe it is 
traumatic. No one protected us. No one stood up for us. So 
that's exactly why I'm doing what I'm doing. Again, I was 
totally thrusted into this position. This is never something I 
wanted. It's still not something I want to be doing, yet I find 
it necessary.
    But the message that it sends, it sends the message that we 
don't matter, that our feelings, our safety, our privacy, it 
doesn't matter. We should smile and step aside and allow these 
men into our spaces, or else you are a bigot.
    Mr. Ezell. I want you to describe to this committee--I was 
reading your--in the second photograph where--and I am going to 
read it--I discovered that the overwhelming majority of the 
girls shared extreme discomfort, being forced to strip down in 
front of a male who was intact with and exposing male genitalia 
in the same room. After seeing how this affected every girl at 
the meet, I decided to stand up and speak out. I resolved to do 
everything I could to ensure that no other girls feel alone in 
the fight for their right to compete on a level playing field.
    Describe that locker room experience to this committee, 
please.
    Ms. Gaines. First of all, we were not forewarned we would 
be sharing a changing space. No one told us. No one asked for 
our consent. We did not give our consent to undress in front of 
a male. Yet the only time we became aware of this was when it 
was presented in front of us and it was too late. So what that 
kind-of looked like in the vein of being extremely transparent, 
at 64"--he's actually taller than 61"--a 64" male walks in, 
disrobes and is fully intact with male genitalia, while we were 
simultaneously undressing as 18- to 22-year-old girls, and we 
could do nothing about it. I actually immediately left the 
locker room and I went up to one of the officials on the pool 
deck and I said how is this allowed to happen? I understand the 
guidelines for the competition, but what are the guidelines in 
regards to the locker room. He looks at me and, word for word, 
says, oh, we actually got around this by making the locker 
rooms unisex, so it's not a big deal.
    I thought about that--unisex. So this meant that any man 
could have walked into our locker room, not just a self-
identifying female, any man, any coach, any parent, any 
official, any man who wanted to, would have had full access to. 
Bare minimum, we weren't forewarned. Actually Lia Thomas' 
teammates who dealt with this every single day all year, when 
they expressed their discomfort to their administration and 
they sent an email--and I swear I have a screenshot of their 
response, their administration responded back with, if you feel 
uncomfortable seeing male genitalia, here's some counseling 
resources that you should seek. That's the general consensus of 
what's happening around the country, which is why I felt it 
necessary to get in front of colleges and speak. I think it's 
so important to engage people my age, 22 years old, to 
understand what's happening, because that's not what you're 
hearing in the media.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you for your courage. Please do not give 
up your fight. Please do not be afraid to share your testimony. 
Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Ms. Gaines. Thank you.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Ms. Ramirez of Illinois for her 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman.
    Recognizing that my colleague, who was just right of me, 
almost spent 5 minutes giving names of people who have 
experienced the worst of the worst threat to our democracy and 
to themselves through right-wing white supremacist ideas, it is 
clear that the replacement theory and other white supremacist 
ideas are leading to an increase in violence targeted toward 
black and brown people and immigrants specifically.
    In 2019, a far-, far-right terrorist killed 23 people at a 
Walmart in El Paso, Texas. His hate-filled anti-immigrant 
manifesto referenced a Hispanic invasion of Texas. That word 
invasion is a word that I hear frequently in this committee 
room, in the U.S. Congress, by Republican Members referring to 
immigrants, to asylum seekers. These kind of anti-immigrant 
attacks have not stopped.
    Less than 2 weeks ago, a man in Brownsville, Texas, drove 
an SUV into a group of migrants, killing 8 people. Police are 
investigating reports that he yelled anti-immigration rhetoric 
at the group. This dangerous and disgusting white supremacist 
rhetoric has fueled deadly violence again and again. White 
supremacy is antisemitic, it is xenophobic, it is racist, it is 
sexist, it is homophobic, and it is actively harming our 
communities right before our eyes with multiple instances of 
extreme violence.
    I will just mention a couple because otherwise I will run 
out of time. The 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, 
Virginia, that resulted in 9 injured and the murder of Heather 
Heyer, the 2018 antisemitic attack on the Tree of Life 
Synagogue in Pittsburgh that led to 11 people dying and 
injuring 6 more, the 2019 mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, 
predominantly a Latino neighborhood, where a gunman murdered 23 
people and injured 3 more, the 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo, 
New York, that we have heard about, where the gunman killed 10 
black people and injured 3 more. This is not a complete list by 
any means. That is why I am honored to be co-leading a 
resolution that is condemning the great replacement theory that 
Congressman Jamaal Bowman of New York is introducing again, 
along with other Democratic colleagues. I strongly urge any of 
my Republican colleagues here to join us in opposing white 
supremacy. It shouldn't be hard to do so.
    As a woman, I take allegations of violence against women 
very seriously, and as I am sure you do as well, Ms. Gaines. 
You said that you are a spokeswoman for the Independent Women's 
Forum, correct?
    Mrs. Ramirez. Yes, correct.
    Ms. Gaines. That is the same Independent Women's Forum that 
opposed the 1994 Violence Against Women Act because, ``wives 
instigate violence, including severe violence against husbands, 
more often than husbands do against wives''. Is that correct?
    Ms. Gaines. What year was this?
    Mrs. Ramirez. This was in 1994.
    Ms. Gaines. I was not born yet, so I'm unsure.
    Mrs. Ramirez. We have got to do research before we start 
joining organizations, because if we are going to be fighting 
violence against women and we are joining organizations that 
incite violence, that is inconsistent with who we say we are.
    Mr. Chair, I would like to submit for the record 
Independent Women's Forum statement articulating the reasons 
why they oppose VAWA.
    Chairman Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
               Article Submitted by Hon. Delia C. Ramirez
                 there are real reasons to oppose vawa
By Gayle Trotter
April 27, 2012
    You might wonder who could oppose the Violence Against Women Act. 
Is anybody in favor of violence against women?
    Yet there are real issues here, the law's title aside. The VAWA has 
a sunset provision that requires Congress to reauthorize the law, which 
is why it is now under debate. The Senate passed a version of it on 
Thursday, and the House will take up another version next month, 
sponsored by Cong. Sandy Adams.
    This issue deserves serious analysis.
    Since the statute's enactment in 1994, observers have pointed out 
that the law:
    Federalizes a problem that would be better handled at the State 
level; embraces gender stereotypes by casting women as victims and men 
as abusers; and, wastes money on programs that have little to do with 
actually discouraging violence.
    And now, bill supporters have used the occasion of the 
reauthorization to add unrelated and extraneous provisions, including 
an expansion of the prosecutorial power of American Indian courts that 
could deny due process to non-American Indians.
    VAWA now touches hot-button immigration issues, which have the 
potential to encourage immigration fraud, false allegations of abuse, 
and denial of a rebuttal by the accused spouse, whether male or female.
    Americans all want to deter violence, but we also need to protect 
that foundational principle of the presumption of innocence. As Frances 
McInnis wrote in Slate: ``People who are wrongly accused can face high 
legal fees, a ruined reputation, and even jail time.'' Needed resources 
like shelters and legal aid can be taken by false accusers, denying 
real victims of abuse access to these supports. That result runs 
directly counter to the VAWA's spirit.
    ``The American people deserve results, not reckless demagoguery,'' 
Senator John Cornyn wrote. IWF agrees and supports looking at the true 
provisions of the law, and not letting the name of the bill eliminate 
our faculty to critically investigate whether the law accomplishes its 
goals and whether it is the least intrusive and cost-effective manner 
of achieving the envisioned ends.

    Mrs. Ramirez. Today's hearing is about organized violence, 
but I am not sure how the Independent Women's Forum is relevant 
to today's topic other than it has opposed legislation aiming 
at preventing violence.
    This is your first time presenting in a hearing in 
Congress, correct?
    Ms. Gaines. At the Congressional level, yes.
    Mrs. Ramirez. Yes. So I just want to make sure that I 
document here that as we are talking about violence, as we are 
talking about left-wing violence, violence against women should 
be No. 1 issue for all of us. But this is your first time here, 
but it is not your first time in the political spotlight. I 
noticed that you spoke not one, but on two CPAC panels in 
March, and you just got off the campaign show for a matter of 
candidate for Kentucky Governor Kelly Craft, who said that if 
she were elected Governor, we would not have transgenders in 
our school system.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record an article from The Nation titled ``Meet the Feminists 
Doing the Koch Brothers' Dirty Work.''
    Chairman Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
               Article Submitted by Hon. Delia C. Ramirez
       meet the ``feminists'' doing the koch brothers' dirty work
August 18, 2016
By Joan Walsh
            The Independent Women's Forum has leveraged its ``non-
                    partisan'' brand to become an aggressive player in 
                    Republican politics.
    If you watch cable news, you've seen someone from an outfit called 
the ``Independent Women's Forum'' promoting a conservative take on the 
women's issue of the day. It's no secret that the group leans right; it 
grew out of ``Women for Judge Thomas,'' which formed during Anita 
Hill's testimony about Clarence Thomas at his 1991 Supreme Court 
confirmation hearing, and was formally launched in 1992 by the late 
Barbara Olson and Rosalie ``Ricky'' Silberman, along with a cadre of 
powerful conservative women that included former second lady Lynne 
Cheney. Still, it's always billed itself as ``non-partisan'' and 
``independent.'' In its early years, it promoted IWF-affiliated author 
Christina Hoff Sommers's brand of ``equity feminism'' and opposed the 
``radical feminism'' of the 1990's women's movement, which it argued 
was pushing myths about sexual harassment, pay inequities, and 
discrimination in the workplace and widespread abuse on college 
campuses. For years it played no formal role in electoral politics.
    But an analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), 
provided exclusively to The Nation, reveals that since 2010, IWF and 
its political arm, Independent Women's Voice, have become aggressive 
players in Republican politics, embedded in the network of 
organizations backed by Charles and David Koch, advocating for the Koch 
brothers' myriad concerns, and playing on their ``independent'' label 
to elect GOP candidates. If this country is to elect its first woman 
president, Hillary Clinton will have to face down this powerful 
conservative women's group to get there.
    ``Our value here . . . is taking a conservative message and 
packaging it in a way that will be acceptable''--Heather Higgins
    Increasingly, IWF and IWV are playing a bigger and more open role 
in Republican politics--while boasting about the way their 
``independent'' label gives them access to voters that groups 
``branded'' as Republican can't reach. As IWV president Heather Higgins 
told a convening at the David Horowitz Freedom Center late last year 
(captured in this video): ``Our value here, and what is needed in the 
Republican conservative arsenal, is a group that can talk to those 
cohorts [non-Republican women] that would not otherwise listen, but can 
do it in a way that is taking a conservative message and packaging it 
in a way that will be acceptable and will get a hearing.''
    And at a recent gathering of the Koch-backed American Legislative 
Exchange Council (ALEC), IWF Executive Director Sabrina Schaeffer 
similarly bragged about her group's success bringing an ``independent'' 
message on issues like paid family leave to even ``progressive'' women. 
Once IWF provided (highly debatable) information about how such 
legislation hurts women, ``we were able to drop support by a double-
digit spread,'' Schaeffer told the group, according to notes taken at 
the event obtained by CMD.
    Using their ``independent'' label to help Republicans isn't the 
groups' only misrepresentation. Although it claims to be neutral on 
abortion--``The IWF has never taken a stance on abortion,'' Sabrina 
Schaeffer told the pro-choice website Rewire last year--since 2012, all 
but one of the GOP congressional candidates backed by IWV have had a 
zero rating from NARAL Pro Choice America, or were newcomers who 
support strict limits on abortion (the exception was Massachusetts GOP 
Senator Scott Brown). And while an IWF editor blasted Donald Trump as 
``Todd Akin on steroids'' earlier this year, IWV even spent money to 
help Akin's disastrous Senate campaign in 2012.
    Despite many conservative leaders' uneasiness with Trump, Heather 
Higgins is now an enthusiastic supporter of the man her colleague 
labeled ``Todd Akin on steroids.'' Though she once mocked Trump as 
``the Kardashian of politics,'' she's done a full Kanye West and now 
supports him--passionately.
    ``Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good,'' she told a panel 
titled ``Will Conservatives Support Trump?'' at the GOP convention in 
Cleveland last month, according to audio taken there. ``Your choice is 
Hillary Clinton who will be wrong on all issues . . . Trump will 
surround himself with principled, savvy advisers who will lead us to 
the best possible outcomes on a wide range of [issues] and his judicial 
picks.'' Though conservatives may be balking now, she said, by 
November, Trump will win in a ``landslide.'' To that end, Higgins has 
turned her Twitter feed into a running defense of Trump, praising his 
call to ``Second Amendment people'' to ``do something'' about Hillary 
Clinton as ``brilliant,'' defending his claim that calling President 
Obama the ``founder'' of ISIS was sarcasm, and attacking Trump's 
detractors. Remarkably, Trump just made IWF board member Kellyanne 
Conway his campaign manager.
    ``It's clear that IWF and IWV are in the business of saying one 
thing, but doing another.''--Lisa Graves
    ``It's clear that IWF and IWV are in the business of saying one 
thing, but doing another,'' said CMD Executive Director Lisa Graves, 
who co-authored the report, ``The Not-So-Independent Women's Forum/
Voice.'' ``They call themselves `independent,' while IWF backs policies 
that echo the corporate lobbying agenda and IWV tells donors it's a 
crucial part of the `Republican conservative arsenal.' ''
    The Nation sent three e-mails and made two phone calls to IWF/V 
asking for comment. One of the e-mails wrongly stated that the group 
had only helped Republicans. In fact, according to CMD research, it 
once aided a Libertarian. Communications Director Victoria Coley sent 
this reply:

``It's tough to respond to the CMD report that we haven't yet seen, 
especially when one of the only things we know about it--its claim that 
IWV spends money politically ``exclusively on behalf of Republicans''--
is demonstrably false. If they can't even get that right--especially 
when it's so easy to check--we can't help but wonder what else the 
report asserts that just is not so?''

    I told Coley that was my mistake, not CMD's, and sent a list of 
questions, but heard nothing more.
* * *
    In the 1990's, IWF was a plucky organization devoted to debunking 
``radical'' feminism, promoting the work of IWF author Christina Hoff 
Summers--remember ``Who Stole Feminism?'' and ``The War Against 
Boys''?--and railing against new laws prohibiting sex discrimination 
and sexual harassment, showing (with questionable data) how they would 
actually hurt women. IWF lobbied against the 1994 ``Violence Against 
Women Act,'' claiming ``wives instigate violence, including severe 
violence, against husbands more often than husbands do against wives.'' 
It opposed the gender integration of the Virginia Military Institute 
and joined with men's sports organizations to attack Title IX education 
regulations that protected funding for female sports teams as unfair to 
men.
    But with the arrival of Koch Industries lobbyist Nancy Pfotenhauer 
in 2001, the group began to affiliate itself more with the issues on 
the Kochs' agenda, as well as with groups that the brothers fund. Since 
then there's been a steady connection of IWF/V staffers and board 
members with various Koch affiliates. Pfotenhauer even took over as 
president of the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity in 2003, running it 
jointly with IWF from the same office into 2005.
    More than half of IWF's current board members have either received 
funding from Koch groups or worked for one of them.
    Today, the IWF website looks like it still shares content with 
Americans for Prosperity, with posts devoted to lowering corporate tax 
rates and ending the ``death tax,'' criticizing food stamps, promoting 
gun rights and fracking--alongside screeds against Hillary Clinton and 
on how Title IX hurts boys. On its website, IWV says its five core 
issues areas are ``healthcare, responsible government, workplace 
regulation, energy and economic literacy,'' which are all core concerns 
of the Kochs and their allies. ``Economic literacy,'' for instance, is 
defined as the Kochs do: by adherence to free-market principles and 
opposition to public-employee unions. More than half of IWF's current 
board members have either received funding from Koch-affiliated groups 
or worked for one of them, CMD says, as have roughly half of the IWF 
staff.
    Still, with the hiring of attorney Michelle Bernard as president in 
2006, IWF made an attempt to craft a new, genuinely ``independent'' 
middle stance, at least on a few issues, to try to bring together women 
of more diverse points of view. Bernard, who is African-American, 
expanded outreach to women of different races and classes and succeeded 
in reaching even some liberal women with her emphasis on education 
reform and school choice, a cause that in those years began to attract 
some neoliberal Democrats and frustrated African Americans. A grant 
from the State Department to work on human-rights issues with Muslim 
women in Iraq and elsewhere also took the group beyond its normal 
issues. In 2008, Bernard proved her own independence by backing Obama 
for president.
    But the election of Obama along with the elevation of 
pharmaceutical heiress and former investment adviser Heather Higgins to 
chair the IWF board and lead Independent Women's Voice changed the 
group's approach. Pfotenhauer had founded IWV, the group's 501(c)(4), 
in 2004, but IWV took a back seat to the more prominent activities of 
IWF. But the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling unleashed a tide of 
dark money, and IWV became a conduit, raising and spending money, and 
sometimes passing it along to affiliated conservative groups.
    Under Higgins, IWF and IWV joined the cadre of right-wing players 
devoted to blocking Obama's agenda, particularly the Affordable Care 
Act. IWF produced and ran an ad charging that the ACA would hurt women 
with breast cancer, for instance. That ad was called ``really faulty'' 
by the American Cancer Society and drew a ``false'' rating from 
Factcheck.org. Bernard left the group in October 2010. Soon the IWV, 
under Higgins, would out-raise and outspend IWF, the sister group, 
according to CMD.
    Some of IWV's moves would even seem to undermine IWF's stated 
principles. The group has, controversially among conservatives, stayed 
away from the issue of abortion. ``It . . . sets us apart from other 
organizations, because we don't talk about abortion and gay marriage 
and some of those social issues that are in many ways are very 
alienating to women,'' IWF director Schaeffer told Glamour magazine in 
2013. ``So many people are so discouraged when you have people on the 
fringe saying comments that are obviously offensive, saying things 
about `legitimate rape.' I don't know what inspires anybody to say 
words like that.''
    But, in fact, CMD found that IWV spent $850,000 in 2014 supporting 
GOP Senate candidates who had a zero rating from NARAL, except for 
Scott Brown. And though Schaeffer specifically criticized Missouri GOP 
Representative Todd Akin's ``obviously offensive'' remarks about 
``legitimate rape'' to Glamour in 2013, the previous year IWV spent 
$67,000 to help Akin in his unsuccessful fight to unseat Senator Claire 
McCaskill. IWV invested another $177,000 in Indiana Representative 
Richard Mourdock's Senate race, even after he said rape ``is something 
God intended to happen,'' which was also judged by many to be obviously 
offensive and likely cost Mourdock the election.
    ``Our investigation showed that Higgins uses IWV's independent 
brand name to reach independent or Democratic voters and spends money 
to help anti-choice extremists,'' CMD's Lisa Graves notes, ``while IWF 
claims it is not anti-abortion and there is no GOP `war on women.' ''
* * *
    Indeed, at the David Horowitz event where Higgins bragged about her 
group's role in the ``Republican conservative arsenal,'' she explained 
that IWV has success ``with audiences that normally don't tend to like 
to hear from Republicans and conservatives'' because ``branding matters 
. . . We have worked hard to create a branded organization that does 
not carry partisan baggage. It's called `Independent Women's Voice.' 
Being branded as neutral, but having the people who know, know that 
you're actually conservative, puts us in a unique position.''
    Higgins took credit for turning around Scott Brown's 2010 Senate 
campaign in Massachusetts (by figuring out that the most important 
issue to voters was giving Republicans ``the 41st vote'' against the 
ACA) and for helping Kentucky GOP Governor Matt Bevin squeak by last 
year mainly by targeting ``Democrats, liberals, and independents,'' she 
said. ``Having this branding, you can go places where, if you're the 
[Republican National Committee] or the [Republican Governors 
Association] . . . they can't get access that we can.''
    Spending for both IWF and IWV grew by more than 400 percent from 
2011 to 2012.
    Spending for both IWF and IWV grew by more than 400 percent from 
2011 to 2012, according to CMD, reflecting the new investment in 
electioneering. The two groups have raised $16 million since 2010. 
Since the Citizens United decision that year, groups like IWF and IWV 
don't have to disclose many of their donors, so it's hard to know who's 
behind the funding explosion. Higgins's Randolph Foundation is a big 
donor, directing $3.78 million to IWF since 1998. The Koch-allied anti-
Obamacare Center to Protect Patient Rights gave IWV $250,000 in 2009 to 
fund its push against the ACA, according to CMD, and the National Right 
to Work Committee has also funded the group in 2012 and 2013. Donors 
Trust and Donors Capital Fund, which secretly direct the funding of 
wealthy conservatives, including the Kochs, gave the groups $5.3 
million between 2002 and 2014, the most recent year for which they have 
filed data. Although IWV boasts of accepting ``no Koch money,'' IWF 
received more than $800,000 from Koch-controlled family foundations 
between 2001 and 2012, CMD says.
    In 2016, IWF and IWV have turned to the threat of Democratic 
Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, as well as the pro-family agenda 
she and her allies are pushing with her campaign. The groups are 
uniquely placed to try to fight the gender gap that may doom Donald 
Trump and cost the GOP the Senate. As IWF's Schaeffer told ALEC in 
July, ``The war on women narrative has shifted from a focus entirely on 
reproductive rights to a focus on making the workplace fair for women. 
And I don't need to tell you issues of pay equity, childcare subsidies, 
paid leave mandates, flexibility, overtime regulation, licensing, 
retirement--these are all now sort of the new front in the war on 
women, and we are doing our best to push back on that.''
    IWF told women in focus groups that paid family leave actually 
hurts rather than helps the working poor.
    Unfortunately for Republicans, Schaeffer noted, IWF polling shows 
that ``people are overwhelmingly supportive of laws like the Healthy 
Families Act [which would mandate paid sick leave], and that includes 
conservatives, and so we have to do a much better job of talking about 
them.'' When IWF told women in focus groups that paid family leave 
actually hurts rather than helps the working poor--Schaeffer offered no 
evidence for that claim--support dropped, she told the ALEC meeting. 
Even among ``progressive women,'' Schaeffer said, a message that paid 
leave both hurts the working poor, and limits their own work 
flexibility--again, she shared no evidence--reduced support by double 
digits.
    The popularity of Democrats' family support legislation led IWF to 
put together its own ``limited government'' family support package, 
named ``Working for Women,'' consisting of programs accomplished 
through the tax codes, like ``personal care accounts'' that would let a 
woman save for a family leave tax-free, as well as pushing for comp 
time rather than overtime, plus deregulating child care to make it more 
affordable. Schaeffer offered to help ALEC members find ways to push 
these ``limited government'' alternatives, rather than have nothing to 
counter the popular family support proposals put forward by Democrats.
    ``In my opinion that's deceptive, although unfortunately it is not 
usual for Koch-connected groups to behave like front groups that use 
appealing names that cloak their real agendas, especially to try to win 
elections,'' CMD's Lisa Graves said.
    Meanwhile, Heather Higgins keeps up her Twitter advocacy of Donald 
Trump.

    Mrs. Ramirez. Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record a press release regarding a UCLA School 
of Law study titled ``Transgendered People Are Over Four Times 
More Likely Than Cisgender People to be Victims of Violent 
Crime.'' While they are 1 percent, they are 4 times more.
    Chairman Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
               Report Submitted by Hon. Delia C. Ramirez
transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to 
                      be victims of violent crime
March 23, 2021
    Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender 
people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual 
assault, and aggravated or simple assault, according to a new study by 
the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. In addition, households 
with a transgender person had higher rates of property victimization 
than cisgender households.
    Researchers analyzed pooled data from the 2017 and 2018 National 
Crime Victimization Survey, the first comprehensive and nationally 
representative criminal victimization data to include information on 
the gender identity and sex assigned at birth of respondents.
    Results showed that both transgender women and men had higher rates 
of violent victimization than their cisgender counterparts, but there 
were no differences between transgender men and women.
    ``The media has rightly given attention to the 2020 increase in 
murders of transgender women of color,'' said lead author Andrew R. 
Flores, Affiliated Scholar at the Williams Institute. ``Our study shows 
that both transgender women and men are also highly vulnerable to non-
fatal physical and material victimization.''
Key Findings
   Transgender people (16+) are victimized over four times more 
        often than cisgender people. In 2017-2018, transgender people 
        experienced 86.2 victimizations per 1,000 people compared to 
        21.7 victimizations per 1,000 people for cisgender people.
   Transgender women and men had higher rates of violent 
        victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1,000 people, respectively) 
        than cisgender women and men (23.7 and 19.8 per 1,000 people, 
        respectively).
   One in four transgender women who were victimized thought 
        the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten 
        cisgender women.
   In 2017-2018, transgender households had higher rates of 
        property victimization (214.1 per 1,000 households) than 
        cisgender households (108 per 1,000 households).
   About half of all violent victimizations were not reported 
        to police. Transgender people were as likely as cisgender 
        people to report violence to police.
    ``Research has shown that experiences of victimization are related 
to low well-being, including suicide thoughts and attempts,'' said 
study author Ilan H. Meyer, Distinguished Senior Scholar of Public 
Policy at the Williams Institute. ``The results underscore the urgent 
need for effective policies and interventions that consider high rates 
of victimization experienced by transgender people.''
    Contact Rachel Dowd at [email protected]. for the full report.
About the Study
    The report, ``Gender Identity Disparities in Criminal 
Victimization: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017-2018'' appears 
in the American Journal of Public Health and is co-authored by Andrew 
R. Flores, Ph.D., Ilan Meyer, Ph.D., and Lynn L. Langton, Ph.D., and 
Jody L. Herman, Ph.D.

    Chairman Bishop. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Bishop. I now recognize Mr. Strong for his 5 
minutes of questioning.
    Before he begins, I would like to remind all Members that 
the witnesses are the guests of the committee and to maintain 
the decorum of the committee during questioning of the 
witnesses.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Erickson, based on your experience in both DHS 
leadership and local law enforcement, what type of DHS 
assistance would be helpful to local law enforcement dealing 
with extreme left-wing violence?
    Mr. Erickson. Well, as I'm sure you're aware, the DHS's I&A 
is the only statutorily-mandated member of the intelligence 
community that is required to share information with State and 
local partners. That's really the crux of where they can be 
most helpful. It's sharing articulable specific and actionable 
intelligence to State and local partners so that they can 
actually make use of that intel.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. Have you heard from local law 
enforcement who have dealt with extreme left-wing violence 
about assistance that would help and be helpful to them to deal 
with this?
    Mr. Erickson. Well, again, it really boils down to the 
nature of the intelligence that's being shared downstream. It 
has to be tailored to the consumer, in this case, the State or 
local law enforcement agency. So the more specific, the more 
detailed in nature that the information or intelligence can be, 
the more that the receiving agency can make use of it.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. There have been many comments and 
questions from my colleagues across the aisle focusing on 
right-wing violence and domestic extremism. In your opinion, 
should the political beliefs of a group inform DHS's decision 
to take action against violence, or should extremism be 
addressed consistently?
    Mr. Erickson. It should be addressed consistently.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you.
    Mr. Rosas, in your time on the ground reporting on violent 
incidents, have you heard from police or other first responders 
regarding the challenges they face dealing with extreme left-
wing violence?
    Mr. Rosas. Yes, because part of the problem is that a lot 
of people that show up at these violent events, when it comes 
to the far left, they're not from the local area. So sometimes 
they're not even aware that they're supposed to be on the 
lookout for these types of people. I mean, here with the recent 
case in Atlanta, we had people from Canada and France. Right. 
So, I mean, that's like a DHS-level type thing.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. Do you have an opinion on what types 
of resources may be helpful for them?
    Mr. Rosas. I mean it's kind-of similar with--a lot has been 
talked about with gun violence. A lot of it just needs to--I 
mean we don't need anything particularly new, we just need laws 
to be enforced. When people are attacking private property or 
individuals, you arrest them and you charge them and you go 
through the court system. In Portland, what was it, the local 
DA office dropped over 80 percent of the cases that were 
brought to them. So they were able to go out and continue that 
again and again. So it's not that we need anything new. It's 
just similar with gun control laws, we just need to enforce the 
ones on the books as opposed to trying to--we do that first 
before we look at other solutions.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. Thank you. As someone who is deeply 
familiar with the groups like Antifa and the threats they 
present, what can we in Congress be doing to help confront 
those threats?
    Mr. Rosas. I mean just be consistent in the fact that, 
again, when you--I mean, I find a little disingenuous to hear 
some of the Members on the other side of the aisle expressing 
grief over recent crime incidents when last I checked all the 
Members on this committee voted against the recent House 
resolution that was against the D.C. crime bill.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Rosas.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back a minute and 45 seconds.
    Chairman Bishop. So you are yielding that to me, is that 
correct? Not back to the Chair?
    Mr. Strong. Yes, sir, I am yielding back to you.
    Chairman Bishop. As we get at--I know you don't have a 
whole lot of--you are not impressed by the topic, the notion of 
left-wing violence, you sort-of suggested it is a distraction. 
Someone was furnishing me some of your tweets. In March, 
Governor DeSantis had this quote that was, quote, tweeted by 
you, I don't know what's going to happen. The Manhattan 
District Attorney is a Soros-funded prosecutor. That is an 
example of pursuing a political agenda and weaponizing the 
office. Your comment on that was, of course, DeSantis is using 
the exact same antisemitic white supremacist rhetoric about the 
Soros-funded black DA. Then you had another tweet in which you 
said white supremacy and the anti-abortion movement have always 
been inextricably linked. There is just no quiet part anymore 
among GOP officials.
    So when you are talking about white supremacist violence, 
are you referring just sort-of to the conservative half of the 
political spectrum or are you talking about something 
different? In other words, you say anti-abortion views or white 
supremacist views about Soros, DAs, or of white supremacists, 
can you explain what that means to you?
    Ms. Spitalnick. Absolutely.
    Thank you, Chairman, and I'm very glad you asked that 
question.
    When I refer to white supremacist violence, I'm talking 
specifically about the murders and other violence that we've 
seen at exponential levels over the last few years, including, 
again, in 2022. Every single extremist murder in this country 
was committed by a right-wing----
    Chairman Bishop. How about 2023?
    Ms. Spitalnick. In 2023--well, I don't have the statistics 
for 2023 yet, but if you----
    Chairman Bishop. You know about Nashville.
    Ms. Spitalnick. But I also know about Allen, Texas and a 
variety of other----
    Chairman Bishop. I don't disagree that you may have--it 
looks like I have expired the time. If we get another 
opportunity to speak, maybe we will do some more, but my time 
is up.
    Ms. Spitalnick. Look forward to it.
    Chairman Bishop. Or the gentleman's time is up, but the 
gentleman's time having expired, I now recognize Ms. Clarke of 
New York for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
thank you to our panelists today.
    Mr. Chairman, I have heard oftentimes, particularly when 
dealing with this subject matter of left-wing organized 
violence, a lot of time spent on talking about violence that 
has caused damage to property. But colleagues seem to be 
omitting certain examples. So I want to make sure that we 
correct the record here.
    Here we have an example--and this is the aftermath of the 
Oklahoma City bombing. That is some serious property damage. As 
a matter of fact, it is $652 million worth in fact. The 
Oklahoma City bombing was famously a right-wing attack against 
the Federal Government, which may be why my colleagues don't 
talk about it. Though, to be honest, I care much less about 
property than I do about human lives. Tragically, the Oklahoma 
City bombing was also incredibly lethal, killing approximately 
168 people and injuring an additional 680, making it the 
deadliest act of domestic terrorism in United States history.
    I highlight this to show that right-wing movements in this 
country have a long history of violence, a long history of 
being more violent than left-wing movements. But this is 
nothing new. What is new, though, is the extent to which the 
Republican Party has enhanced and embraced and encouraged 
violence, especially under the extreme MAGA cult of Donald 
Trump.
    Let's talk about what has happened to the GOP over the past 
several years. In 2015 and 2016, throughout his campaign for 
president, Donald Trump encouraged violence against protesters 
at his rallies, saying protesters should be roughed up and that 
his supporters should, ``knock the hell out of them''. He said 
attacks on protesters were ``very, very appropriate'' and 
something that ``we need to do a little bit more of''. 
Republicans had plenty of opportunity and time to recognize 
what kind of politician Donald Trump was, and they fell in line 
to support him.
    After Trump was elected, right-wing violence went from bad 
to worse. Here, we all know this photo, this is the photo from 
the Unite the Right rally held in 2017, during which a self-
identified white supremacist rammed his car into a group of 
counter-protesters, killing one person and injuring dozens of 
others. Call that a domestic terrorist attack. In fact, the 
driver pled guilty to 29 Federal hate crimes, and Ms. 
Spitalnick helped hold the rally's planners liable for planning 
a violent attack. I want to thank you for your hard work and 
dedication to our Nation. At this time President Trump said in 
the aftermath of the rally that there were very fine people on 
both sides of the rally, which encouraged white nationals.
    Here is a photo of Portland, Oregon, in 2020. My Republican 
colleagues have highlighted property damage resulting from 
these protests. But to me, the most troubling aspect of these 
protests was that Trump's Department of Homeland Security 
confirmed that police without identification were using 
unmarked vehicles to arrest protestors. Unidentified Federal 
police were kidnapping protesters in unmarked vehicles and the 
Trump administration's actions in responding to these protests 
encouraged vigilante justice, chaos, and violence, not law and 
order.
    While in office, Trump also did the following to encourage 
violence, labeled the news media, ``the enemy of the people'', 
encouraged police officers to be tough with people they arrest, 
encouraged the shooting of looters, praised law enforcement for 
an extrajudicial killing, and told the Proud Boys, a group so 
vile as have been labeled a terrorist entity in Canada, to 
stand back and stand by, galvanizing the group according to 
their own words in helping to instigate planning for January 6. 
That brings us to one of the darkest days in American history, 
the failed insurrection of January 6.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Clarke. Right, but we have many examples, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Bishop. I recognize Mr. Crane of Arizona for his 5 
minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you guys for coming today. I appreciate 
you guys being here on Police Week.
    Mr. Erickson, the lady sitting to your left, Ms. 
Spitalnick, stated on Twitter that white supremacism is the 
most dangerous terror threat. Do you agree or disagree with 
that statement?
    Mr. Erickson. I think, again, it depends on what context 
you're looking. Globally I would probably disagree with that.
    Mr. Crane. Well, just look at what she tweeted. Is the most 
dangerous terrorist threat. What do you think about that?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes, I would probably disagree with that.
    Mr. Crane. Why is that, Mr. Erickson?
    Mr. Erickson. Because the global view of threats that we 
face in this country is much larger than the domestic extremism 
that we're talking about today. I think that's a completely 
different hearing, a completely different topic to have. But I 
think we tend to get myopia when we start talking about 
specific things that we start talking in hyperbole. That's what 
I would assume.
    Mr. Crane. Yes. Yes, you are right. We do that a lot around 
here. We do that a lot around here. That seems like that is one 
of the predominant themes in this chamber, which is ironic for 
some of us that have actually been around the world chasing 
down real terrorists.
    Mr. Rosas, what do you think about that? What do you think 
about that tweet from Ms. Spitalnick? White supremacism is the 
most dangerous terror threat. What do you think about that? Yes 
or no?
    Mr. Rosas. I would agree with Mr. Erickson. If we're 
talking about--I mean just--I mean globally, there's a lot of 
bad people out there that want to hurt us. I would also just 
say that herein the District, just walking down on the street, 
with homicides being up 7 percent and along with other crimes 
being up, I wouldn't be stabbed or carjacked or shot, 
statistically by a white guy in a red hat screaming, this is 
MAGA country.
    Mr. Crane. Yes, no, exactly. We all know that is the case. 
I mean, it is not the reason you can't walk down the street in 
Chicago, New York, Baltimore, et cetera, because of white 
supremacy. It is just sad, because here is the deal, white 
supremacy is disgusting. It is disgusting. I look across the 
aisle at some of my brothers and sisters that don't have the 
same skin color as me, and you know what I see? I see men and 
women that were created in the image of God, just like I was. 
You may have a little more melanin in your skin than I do, I 
could care less. Even though I don't agree with you politically 
or your political worldview, you guys are my brothers and 
sisters and I think it is disgusting.
    That being said, you guys are playing a very dangerous game 
by continually overstating--continually overstating the threat 
of white supremacy when there are massive threats. It is not 
white supremacists that are killing tens of thousands of our 
children in pill form called fentanyl, it is not white 
supremacy that is storming over our Southern Border right now, 
it is not white supremacy that is trafficking sex slaves into 
this country at record numbers, and on and on and on. But if 
you guys want to keep beating that drum, you are more than--
that is your right, that is your right. But it is a reason that 
a lot of Americans don't take you guys seriously. My brothers, 
my brothers and sisters, it is a reason why America doesn't 
take you guys seriously, because you keep beating that drum. It 
wasn't white supremacists that flew airliners into the World 
Trade Centers. Guess what? They are still out there. A lot of 
those folks--because I have actually chased a lot of them 
overseas, they would love to come into a room like this with an 
S vest on and clack it off and kill every single one of us. 
Black, brown, white, they could care less, because you don't 
share the same religious ideology as them.
    So we can keep playing these games. But you guys have seen 
the CBP individuals in here telling you how many individuals on 
the terror watch list has come over that Southern Border. I am 
telling you, my brothers and sisters of different colors than 
me, of the same color as me, if we are going to get serious 
about homeland security, we need to stop. We need to be 
realistic. Yes, I don't know a Member on this side or that side 
that doesn't think legitimate real white supremacy is 
disgusting, because it is. Any type of supremacy is disgusting. 
Any time we devalue anybody or hurt them or harm them with 
violence because of their skin color is disgusting.
    Ms. Gaines, thank you so much for what you are doing. As a 
dad to two little girls, it is pretty cool to see young women 
like yourself that have the courage to stand up to what you 
face on a daily basis. I have said it many times. You know what 
the No. 1 ingredient missing in this town is, ma'am? It is not 
intelligence. Do you know what it is?
    Ms. Gaines. What is it?
    Mr. Crane. It is courage.
    Ms. Gaines. I agree.
    Mr. Crane. You have it.
    Thank you. Thank you guys for showing up today.
    Ms. Gaines. Thank you.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentleman's very consequential time 
has expired.
    I now recognize Mr. Goldman of New York for his 5 minutes 
question.
    Mr. Goldman. While I really appreciate the lecture from my 
colleague from Arizona, the problem is that he is speaking, of 
course, anecdotally.
    So let's look at what our actual Executive branch agencies 
in charge of overseeing white supremacy, overseeing the 
homeland. Let's look at the homeland threat assessment, which 
says among DVEs, domestic violent extremists, racially and 
ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically white 
supremacist extremists will remain the most persistent and 
lethal threat in the homeland, confirmed by the director of the 
FBI.
    Now, I know all of a sudden you all on that side want to 
defund the FBI, you want to defund the ATF, but the director of 
the FBI, a Trump appointee, has said that the biggest threat to 
our homeland is not global terrorism, it is domestic terrorism. 
We have these witnesses up here who are trying to tell us--and 
Mr. Erickson, in his opening statement--let me just point this 
out--this is the big example that we need to be so worried 
about, because in Atlanta, apparently, there were 23 
individuals arrested for crimes ranging from vandalism to 
assault. We have 650 people who are murdered in mass shootings 
every single year, almost 2 per day. Mass shootings. Sorry, 600 
mass shootings, far more people. We are supposed to be talking 
here about vandalism. Give me a break. You can't even say--you 
can't sit here--Mr. Erikson, you were an employee of the 
Department of Homeland Security, and I want to get to that in a 
minute--you can't even acknowledge what your own agency said, 
that the biggest domestic terror threat is white nationalism, 
white supremacy. You are trying to gaslight us up here as if 
Antifa, which Mr. Rosas, apparently the expert now in organized 
terrorist activity, has overruled the FBI director, who says--
there is a headline says Antifa is an ideology, not an 
organization. No, no, no, let's not listen to the FBI director, 
let's listen to--sorry, what is your title--senior writer at 
Townhall, who is going to tell us that the FBI director is 
wrong.
    Mr. Rosas. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. I would like to introduce--there is no 
question--I would like to introduce by unanimous consent an AP 
article saying the FBI director says Antifa is an ideology, not 
an organization.
    Chairman Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
              Article Submitted by Hon. Daniel S. Goldman
      fbi director says antifa is an ideology, not an organization
By ERIC TUCKER and BEN FOX
Published 10:07 PM EDT, September 17, 2020
    WASHINGTON (AP)--FBI Director Chris Wray told lawmakers Thursday 
that antifa is an ideology, not an organization, delivering testimony 
that puts him at odds with President Donald Trump, who has said he 
would designate it a terror group.
    Hours after the hearing, Trump took to Twitter to chastise his FBI 
director for his statements on antifa and on Russian election 
interference, two themes that dominated a congressional hearing on 
threats to the American homeland.
    Referring to antifa, the president wrote: ``And I look at them as a 
bunch of well funded ANARCHISTS & THUGS who are protected because the 
Comey/Mueller inspired FBI is simply unable, or unwilling, to find 
their funding source, and allows them to get away with ``murder''. LAW 
& ORDER!''
    The Twitter barbs thrust Wray again into a spotlight that he has 
spent 3 years trying to avoid after his predecessor, James Comey, 
became entangled in politics before being ultimately fired. Though Wray 
said as recently as Thursday that the FBI made unacceptable mistakes 
during its investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and 
Russia, Trump nonetheless has intermittently lashed out at Wray over 
the pace of fixing those problems and continues to regard his 
intelligence community with suspicion because of the Russia probe.
    Wray did not dispute in his testimony Thursday that antifa 
activists were a serious concern, saying that antifa was a ``real 
thing'' and that the FBI had undertaken ``any number of properly 
predicated investigations into what we would describe as violent 
anarchist extremists,'' including into individuals who identify with 
antifa.
    But, he said, ``It's not a group or an organization. It's a 
movement or an ideology.''
    That characterization contradicts the depiction from Trump, who in 
June singled out antifa--short for ``anti-fascists'' and an umbrella 
term for far-left-leaning militant groups--as responsible for the 
violence that followed George Floyd's death. Trump tweeted that the 
U.S. would be designating antifa as a terrorist organization, even 
though such designations are historically reserved for foreign groups 
and antifa lacks the hierarchical structure of formal organizations.
    The hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee--
established after the Sept. 11 attacks to confront the threat of 
international terrorism--focused almost entirely on domestic matters, 
including violence by white supremacists as well as anti-government 
extremists. The topics underscored the shift of attention by law 
enforcement at a time of intense divisions and polarization inside the 
country.
    But one area where foreign threats were addressed was in the 
Presidential election and Russia's attempts to interfere in the 
campaign.
    Wray sought to make clear the scope of the threats the country 
faces while resisting lawmakers' attempts to steer him into 
politically-charged statements. When asked whether extremists on the 
left or the right posed the bigger threat, he pivoted instead to an 
answer about how solo actors, or so-called ``lone wolves,'' with easy 
access to weapons were a primary concern.
    ``We don't really think of threats in terms of left, right, at the 
FBI. We're focused on the violence, not the ideology,'' he said later.
    The FBI director said racially motivated violent extremists, such 
as white supremacists, have been responsible for the most lethal 
attacks in the U.S. in recent years. But this year the most lethal 
violence has come from anti-government activists, such as anarchists 
and militia-types, Wray said.
    Wray also affirmed the intelligence community's assessment of 
Russian interference in the November election, which he said was taking 
the form of foreign influence campaigns aimed at sowing discord and 
swaying public opinion as well as efforts to denigrate Democratic 
Presidential nominee Joe Biden.
    He said that the U.S. had not yet seen targeting of election 
infrastructure like in 2016, but efforts to sow doubt about the 
election's integrity are a serious concern, he said.
    ``What concerns me the most is the steady drumbeat of 
misinformation and sort of amplification of smaller cyber intrusions,'' 
Wray said. ``I worry that they will contribute over time to a lack of 
confidence of American voters and citizens in the validity of their 
vote.''
    ``I think that would be a perception,'' Wray added, ``not a 
reality. I think Americans can and should have confidence in our 
election system and certainly in our democracy. But I worry that people 
will take on a feeling of futility because of all of the noise and 
confusion that's generated.''
    Trump has resisted the idea of Russian interference aimed at 
benefiting his campaign and has been eager, along with other 
administration officials, to talk about intelligence officials' 
assessment that China prefers that Trump lose to Biden.
    He responded on that front Thursday evening, tweeting: ``But Chris, 
you don't see any activity from China, even though it is a FAR greater 
threat than Russia, Russia, Russia. They will both, plus others, be 
able to interfere in our 2020 Election with our totally vulnerable 
Unsolicited (Counterfeit?) Ballot Scam. Check it out!''
    Though intelligence officials said in a statement last month that 
China prefers that Trump lose, they appeared to stop short of accusing 
Beijing of directly interfering in the election in hopes of swaying the 
outcome.

    Mr. Erickson. Yes. Can I respond to that?
    Mr. Goldman. No, you cannot. I didn't ask a question.
    Chairman Bishop. It is the gentleman's time. He can spend 
it any way he chooses.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Erickson, you went to a meeting at the 
White House on December 18, 2020, did you not?
    Mr. Erickson. I'm not sure which meeting you're speaking 
of.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, there is the same day that a group of 
Trump advisers, Sidney Powell and Patrick Byrne, met with the 
President in the Oval Office and they discussed the prospect of 
seizing voting machines. Did you participate in that meeting?
    Mr. Erickson. No.
    Mr. Goldman. Did you hear anything about that plan to seize 
voting machines?
    Mr. Erickson. No.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. So were you working at the Department of 
Homeland Security on January 6?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Goldman. Because it is interesting to me you talk a lot 
about left-wing extremist activity in your statement, but you 
actually worked for the Department of Homeland Security on 
January 6, and there was no mention of what happened on January 
6 in your testimony. It is fair, that is not the topic of--this 
title of this hearing. I think that is the problem with the 
hearing, but that is not your fault.
    So I just want to be clear. You have no idea--you were not 
involved in any discussions about seizing voting machines while 
you were working at the Department of Homeland Security?
    Mr. Erickson. That is correct.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. When did you leave the Department?
    Mr. Erickson. January the 20th, 2021, at noon.
    Mr. Goldman. Why did you leave then?
    Mr. Erickson. There was an inauguration that occurred at 
that time.
    Mr. Goldman. So a lot of people are held over, right?
    Mr. Erickson. No, that's incorrect. Not political 
appointees.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. Everyone was out?
    Mr. Erickson. Basically everybody, yes, to the best of my 
knowledge.
    Mr. Goldman. So let me ask you something. Would you 
consider the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to be an organized 
group?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Their leaders have been convicted of seditious 
conspiracy at this point, right?
    Mr. Erickson. To my knowledge, correct.
    Mr. Goldman. Yes, based on what they did on January 6?
    Mr. Erickson. Correct.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. Have any left-wing, Antifa, or any other 
people been convicted of conspiracy?
    Chairman Bishop. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
committee will proceed----
    Mr. Goldman. Can he answer the question?
    Chairman Bishop. Well, actually, your question was outside 
of your time as well, so.
    Mr. Goldman. So the answer is no, he cannot?
    Chairman Bishop. We will proceed to another round, so you 
can get another opportunity to follow that up as you would 
wish.
    Mr. Goldman. I figured as much.
    Chairman Bishop. We will proceed to a second round of 
questioning.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes or what portion of that I 
might consume.
    Ms. Spitalnick, let me go back and give you--because I 
didn't give you a full opportunity to answer. Just by way of 
reintroducing the topic, and it sort-of builds off of what Mr. 
Crane said to some degree. But here is another tweet that you 
did on April 24. When reporters write the story of Tucker 
Carlson, do not gloss over who he is. He is a raging white 
supremacist, misogynist, and bigot who has done more to 
normalize violent extremism and hate over the last few years 
than nearly anyone else. I think what I am trying to get at 
from you, ma'am, and you may not wish to draw such a 
distinction, but isn't there a distinction between the white 
supremacy that Mr. Crane was talking about that the Oklahoma 
City bomber may have been or actually, I guess he was an anti-
Government, whether it was white supremacy, I don't recall, I 
don't know enough about him. But there certainly are malignant 
theories and groups out there, the New Zealand attacker, so 
forth. I am not an encyclopedia of that, obviously, but there 
is a lot of that. But you seem, in your political advocacy to 
draw an equivalence between that and sort-of right-wing views, 
conservative views.
    So abortion, somebody who is pro-life is a white 
supremacist to you, at least judging from that tweet. If you 
object to Soros-funded prosecutors who have sort-of overturned 
the way prosecutorial activity goes on, you are a white 
supremacist. If you are Tucker Carlson, you are a white 
supremacist, misogynist, bigot, et cetera. Is there a 
distinction or are we talking--Again is that just--are you 
referring to the whole center right range of the ideological 
spectrum in the country?
    Ms. Spitalnick. Well, there's a distinction between white 
supremacist views and white supremacist violence. So when we 
talk about views, those are precisely the views that you just 
cited. The tweets that you referenced. People like Tucker 
Carlson, elected officials, pundits, candidates, others who 
have normalized and mainstreamed the white supremacist views, 
like the great replacement theory, talking about things like 
invasion, talking about things like a globalist effort to 
change our demographics, change our electorate, talking about--
using terms like Soros or the Rothschilds as subs for the 
Jewish community as part of this great replacement theory, 
which is deeply antisemitic, racist, and xenophobic. So when 
something like that gets a home on primetime news, gets 
espoused by elected officials and candidates, what that does is 
then give license to the violent extremists, like those who 
marched on Charlottesville or shot up the synagogue in 
Pittsburgh or Chabad of Poway, or the supermarket in Buffalo, 
who in their manifestos, use that very same great replacement 
theory to justify the murder of Jewish people, black people, 
immigrants, and so many others.
    Chairman Bishop. OK, so just to clarify, let's take anti-
abortion pro-life, someone of pro-life views, that is 
equivalent to white supremacy, in your judgment?
    Ms. Spitalnick. There are some in the anti-abortion 
movement who have trafficked in white supremacist views, who 
have talked about things like white birth rates and the 
replacement of the white population and the importance of, 
``banning abortion in order to protect the white population''. 
I am not saying that everyone who opposes abortion is a white 
supremacist, but there are absolutely many in the anti-abortion 
movement who utilize white supremacy to further their goals.
    Chairman Bishop. What percentage?
    Ms. Spitalnick. I couldn't tell you a percentage, but 
historically there is a deep interconnection between the white 
supremacist movement and the anti-abortion movement. There's 
been a lot written about this as well.
    Chairman Bishop. I mean, you can find exceptions. I am 
sure--Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, wasn't she?
    Ms. Spitalnick. She could have been. She was, I believe.
    Chairman Bishop. OK, so she was pro-abortion?
    Ms. Spitalnick. So, of course, there are exceptions to 
every rule.
    Chairman Bishop. Let me ask----
    Ms. Spitalnick. But, that doesn't change the fact that 
there are those who use white supremacy as a means to further 
an anti-abortion agenda.
    Chairman Bishop. Mr. Rosas, let me ask you to comment on 
the, sort-of the subject matter. I don't even know if I can 
frame a question. It seems to me troubling. I mean, I am 
accustomed--I have been in politics a few years, and so there 
came to pass that every person who is a conservative is 
referred to as a racist repeatedly. Now, the term sort-of 
evolved to white supremacy. Seems to me that that is 
destructive for the dialog. Do you not think so?
    Mr. Rosas. Well, yes, because it seems someone sneezes the 
wrong way and they're accused of white supremacy. I mean, the 
most prominent example that I was personally witnessed to was 
the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting. He was immediately labeled as a 
white supremacist. I believe one of the members of the squad--
name not coming to mind--but she said that he was a white 
supremacist terrorist, completely neglecting the fact that the 
people that he shot in self defense were all white.
    Chairman Bishop. My time has nearly expired, so I will 
yield back.
    I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Ivey, for his 
second round, 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to do a little housekeeping here. I have got a 
couple of pieces to offer for the record. I ask unanimous 
consent to offer these statements from the Brookings 
Institution, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Global 
Project Against Hate and Extremism.
    Chairman Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
  Statement of Daniel Byman, Professor and Director, Security Studies 
Program of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown 
         University; Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution
                              May 16, 2023
    Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Ivey, and Members of this 
distinguished subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit a 
statement for the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This statement reflects my own personal views only, not those 
of any of my current or past employers. In addition to the sources 
cited in this statement, my findings draw on my book, Spreading Hate: 
The Global Rise of White Supremacist Terrorism (Oxford, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Political violence in the United States is a grave threat not only 
to the lives of Americans, but also to the health of American 
democracy. Violence poses a threat to political leaders and to 
Americans who participate in politics. It polarizes our already-divided 
county and undermines political discourse.
    Although this hearing focuses on left-wing violence and movements 
like Antifa, it is vital to recognize that in recent years violence 
linked to white supremacist, anti-government, and other causes lumped 
under the label ``right-wing'' have proven far more lethal and more 
politically consequential. Congress must use its powers to bolster law 
enforcement, improve our understanding of the threat, and otherwise 
fight the scourge of extremism. All political leaders must reject those 
who espouse violence and extremism, creating a clear line between 
legitimate politics and illegitimate extremism.
    The remainder of this statement has three sections. I first provide 
some caveats on the labels used, as both ``right-'' and ``left-'' wing 
movements are divided, and the uses of terms are politicized. In the 
second section, I compare left-wing and right-wing political violence, 
noting in particular the grave danger that anti-government and white 
supremacist violence has posed in recent years. In the final section, I 
offer recommendations for reducing the threat of political violence in 
the United States.
                         some caveats on labels
    Using the labels ``left-wing'' or ``right-wing'' to describe 
political violence invariably leads to the conflation, sometimes 
accidental and sometimes deliberate, of extremist activity with the 
actions of legitimate political activists. To be clear, the 
overwhelming majority of the millions of Americans who are concerned 
about police violence against minority communities and similar 
legitimate causes associated with the political left in the United 
States have nothing to do with the violent extreme; similarly, the 
overwhelming majority of the millions of Americans who favor strong gun 
rights, are concerned with Federal Government overreach, worry about 
the level of immigration, and otherwise share concerns associated with 
the political right have nothing to do with the violent extreme. We 
can, and should, have a robust debate with people espousing their 
views, even if unpopular, without the threat of violence. By using the 
labels ``left'' and ``right'' to describe violence extremists I am 
trying to separate out legitimate politics from illegitimate violence.
    Making this more difficult, and in contrast to jihadist groups like 
al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS), both left- and especially right-
wing extremists are difficult to categorize, with few robust 
organizations but strong informal networks. ``Antifa'' is a label under 
which left-wing extremism is often lumped. Contrary to much commentary, 
Antifa is not a group or an organization in any traditional sense; 
rather, it is a set of beliefs shared by a few activists, many of whom 
disagree with one another considerably. Antifa is short for anti-
fascist (itself a word used broadly and inconsistently), and many of 
its members today focus on what they consider to be anti-racist 
activism. They do not have a tight organization or coherent command and 
control, and indeed the concept of hierarchy is anathema to many local 
groups. In a few cities their ranks are slightly coherent, but in most 
places it is a small group of informal activists. Much of the 
information put out about Antifa, including by prominent figures such 
as President Trump, has exaggerated its coherence and reach.\2\ Russian 
influence operations have also attempted to amplify disinformation 
linked to Antifa.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Michael Kenney and Colin Clarke, ``What Antifa Is, What It 
Isn't, and Why It Matters,'' War on the Rocks, June 23, 2020, https://
warontherocks.com/2020/06/what-antifa-is-what-it-isnt-and-why-it-
matters/.
    \3\ Michael Grynbaum, ``One America News: The Network that Spreads 
Conspiracies to the West Wing,'' The New York Times, June 9, 2020, 
https://www.nytimes.com/article/oann-trump.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many Antifa adherents do not favor violence of any sort. Others 
argue it is necessary to be prepared for violence in self-defense. Some 
of these attend rallies, such as those protesting police brutality, 
prepared to defend protesters against groups like the Proud Boys. They 
are prepared, indeed at times eager, to brawl with them. Others 
``Doxx'' their opponents, publishing embarassing private information 
(usually on their neo-Nazi or other right-wing extremist activities) to 
get them fired or shamed in their communities.\4\ A smaller number do 
use violence without even the excuse of self-defense, such as the 
Antifa adherents who joined broad, and mostly peaceful, anti-Trump or 
pro-Black Lives Matter protests and smashed the windows of local 
businesses or threw Molotov cocktails. In a very small--but still 
notable--number of cases, Antifa activists have used more lethal forms 
of violence. In July 2019, one activist attacked an Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement detention center in Tacoma, Washington with a rifle 
and bombs. As this spectrum of activity related to violence suggests, 
using the label ``Antifa'' thus tells us little about the specifics of 
an adherent's goals or methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Nellie Bowles, ``How `Doxxing' Became a Mainstream Tool in the 
Culture Wars,'' The New York Times, August 30, 2017, https://
www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/technology/doxxing-protests.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This organizational chaos is even more pronounced among right-wing 
extremists. Some are anti-immigrant, some focus on the Black community, 
and many are anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim. Some hate all these 
communities. Others are strongly opposed to the Federal Government to 
the point that they see government officials as agents of tyranny. 
Making this more complex, many among these extremists embrace a range 
of conspiracy theories, and some embrace a virulent form of male 
supremacy. Organized groups themselves are weak: almost every major 
attack involving right-wing terrorism in the United States was 
conducted by individuals with little or no group involvement--so-called 
``Lone Wolf'' attacks.\5\ An important exception to this was the 
January 6, 2021 insurrection, in which violent groups like the Proud 
Boys and Oath Keepers played leading roles, although even there the 
majority of participants were not affiliated with these extremist 
groups.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Daniel Byman and Mark Pitcavage, ``Identifying and Exploiting 
the Weaknesses of the White Supremacist Movement'' (Brookings, April 
2021), https://www.brookings.edu/research/identifying-and-exploiting-
the-weaknesses-of-the-white-supremacist-movement/.
    \6\ For information on the role of these groups and the attack in 
general, see information at the ``Capitol Hill Siege'' website 
maintained by the Program on Extremism at George Washington University 
at https://extremism.gwu.edu/Capitol-Hill-Siege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   left wing vs. right-wing political violence: comparing the dangers
    There are different ways to measure the danger posed by political 
extremists, but one of the simplest is to look at the number of people 
they kill. In the post-9/11 era, on the left the United States has seen 
one murder, which occurred when Michael Forest Reinoeh, a left-wing 
extremist, shot and killed a member of the right-wing extremist 
organization Patriot Prayer in Portland in 2020. The killer had 
previously provided ``security'' for left-wing protests. He described 
himself as anti-fascist, but he was not a member of any local Antifa 
group.
    Numbers for right-wing extremist violence are far higher, with 
numerous high-profile terrorist attacks as well as lower-level 
assaults, vandalism, and other forms of violence. Since the 9/11 
terrorist attacks, far-right extremists have killed 130 people in the 
United States, more than any other political cause, including 
jihadists.\7\ Notable attacks in recent years include the 2018 
Pittsburgh Synagogue attack, the 2019 El Paso mall killings, and the 
2022 Buffalo market attack. A range of far-right extremists, including 
organized groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers as well as 
hundreds of unaffiliated conspiracy theorists, anti-government 
extremists, and ordinary supporters of President Trump, also stormed 
the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 in a direct assault on American 
democracy. Far-right extremist violence has not abated: earlier this 
month, on May 6, 2023, an apparent neo-Nazi with misogynist leanings 
shot up a Texas mall, killing 8 people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See data from the New America Foundation, available at https://
www.newamerica.org/intemational-security/reports/terrorism-in-america/
what-is-the-threat-to-the-united-states-today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another concern is the role of right-wing extremism in the ranks of 
the military and among police officers. Although the overwhelming 
majority of law enforcement and military personnel reject extremism, 
even small numbers of extremists in uniform are of concern given the 
important role these entities play in American society, including their 
position at the front line of the battle against violent extremism 
itself. Here the difference with left-wing extremism is considerable: 
many left-wing adherents reject authority, see the police and military 
as instruments of authoritarianism, and otherwise are far less likely 
to join their ranks. Many right-wing extremists, in contrast, glorify 
military and police forces in theory, though in practice they have 
attacked them. Violent extremist crimes among those with U.S. military 
backgrounds have increased significantly in the last decade, and such 
members have played important roles in anti-Government extremist groups 
like the Oath Keepers and disorganized anti-Government movements like 
the Boogaloos.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Written testimony of Dr. Michael A. Jensen, ``Radicalization in 
the Ranks: The Military Backgrounds of the January 6 Capitol 
Defendants,'' National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and 
Responses to Terrorism (START), April 7, 2022, prepared for the House 
Select Committee to Investigation the January 6th Attack on the United 
States Capitol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In contrast to far-right extremists in the past, today's violent 
far-right often targets law enforcement. On January 6, 2021, of course, 
far-right extremists were responsible for the death of a Capitol police 
officer and the wounding of over 100 others. A right-wing extremist 
also threatened an FBI facility in Cincinnati in 2021.\9\ Anti-
Government extremists have regularly attacked and killed local police, 
questioned their authority to enforce the law, resisted arrest, and 
otherwise pose a grave threat to law enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Jacob Ware, ``The Violent Far-Right Threat to American Law 
Enforcement,'' Council on Foreign Relations, January 4, 2023, https://
www.cfr.org/blog/violent-far-right-terrorist-threat-american-law-
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another danger of violence is that it infects and degrades 
politics. After the 9/11 attacks, Americans of all political beliefs 
came together, supporting a strong response to jihadist terrorism. 
Unfortunately, during its 4 years in office, the Trump administration 
increased public fears of white supremacist and anti-Government 
violence because of its perceived toleration, and at times even 
encouragement, of these causes. President Donald Trump's rhetoric 
matched some white supremacist talking points, playing down police 
violence against Black people, calling Mexican immigrants ``rapists,'' 
declaring COVID-19 to be a ``Chinese virus,'' telling Black and other 
minority Members of Congress to ``go back'' to their home countries, 
claiming a mythical ``deep state,'' and demonizing the FBI. When 
violence occurred, as it did during a 2017 ``Unite the Right'' rally in 
Charlottesville, Virginia organized by white supremacists, Trump opined 
that their ranks included ``very fine people.''
    Political support, or at least toleration, of extremism also occurs 
at the State and local level: political figures have at times embraced 
racist and anti-Government ideas, and a few even have ties to violent 
organizations.\10\ The demonization of the FBI when it carries out 
legitimate investigations of American politicians is another instance 
of how politics can degrade an effective response against extremism. At 
times, the effects are simply to turn good Americans off politics, with 
many who would otherwise engage in local politics afraid of, or simply 
disgusted by, the constant stream of abuse from extremists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Anti-Defamation League, ``Right-Wing Extremism in the 2022 
Primaries,'' August 4, 2022, https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/right-
wing-extremism-2022-primaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Extremism of one political variety encourages its opposite. Antifa, 
in fact, rose in both its appeal and its activism with the rise of the 
white nationalist ``alt-right'' early in the administration of 
President Trump.\11\ Similarly, many right-wing extremists claim they 
are acting in self-defense, often promoting outlandish conspiracy 
theories to prove that Antifa and others are controlling events and 
thus justifying their violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Kenney and Clarke, ``What Antifa Is, What It Isn't, and Why It 
Matters.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         recommendations for better fighting political violence
    The U.S. Government, including the U.S. Congress, should take 
several steps to fight political extremism of all stripes.
    A first step is to understand the problem beyond isolated examples. 
Data on extremism are bad in the United States, and Congress should 
require and resource better reporting at the Federal, State, and local 
levels. Despite attempts such as the 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act, 
many local jurisdictions, including many that have troubling histories, 
simply do not report on hate crimes, and those that do report often are 
inconsistent.\12\ Legislation that required consistent reporting and 
resourced local jurisdictions would improve our understanding of 
violent extremism and allow a better distribution of resources. The FBI 
and the Department of Homeland Security should use this data to produce 
regular reports on the threat of extremism in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Cynthia Miller-Idriss, ``The FBI's 2021 Hate Crime Data Is 
Worse Than Meaningless,'' Lawfare, December 16, 2022, https://
www.lawfareblog.corn/fbis-2021-hate-crime-data-worse-meaningless and 
Marek N. Posard, Adrienne Payne, and Laura L. Miller, Reducing the Risk 
of Extremist Activity in the U.S. Military (Santa Monica, CA: The RAND 
Corporation, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ensuring the ranks of U.S. law enforcement and the U.S. military 
remain free from violent extremism of any sort is also vital. This 
requires careful screening of recruits, training that helps inoculate 
them against extremist recruitment, and other measures that reduce the 
danger to ensure that those charged with protecting America do so 
fairly and impartially.
    Existing laws offer law enforcement many ways to disrupt violent 
extremist activities. On social media, many openly threaten others in 
specific terms and otherwise reveal their intentions. Many extremists 
violate State gun laws and rules against private paramilitary 
militias.\13\ Congress should encourage Federal, State, and local 
officials to use their authorities to target those entities that have a 
propensity toward violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Amna Nawaz and Mary McCord, ``What legal standing do aimed 
civilian groups at protests have,'' PBS News Hour, August 31, 2020, 
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-legal-standing-do-armed-
civilian-groups-at-protests-have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Both right-wing and left-wing extremists use social media to 
publicize their messages and to harass their enemies. On-line 
harassment is especially common against people of color and women, 
making their lives far more difficult and discouraging many from 
engaging in political discourse. Social media companies should be 
strongly encouraged to crack down on such harassment.
    Political leaders should also work to delegitimize violent 
extremists of all stripes, drawing clear lines between those engaging 
in politics--even on contentious issues such as abortion, immigration, 
gun rights, and police abuse--and those who favor or legitimate 
violence. Leaders should disavow any connections to those who espouse 
violence against minorities, law enforcement, and others. A model is 
President George H. W. Bush, who declared neo-Nazi and former KKK 
leader David Duke a ``charlatan'' and called for him to be rejected by 
voters when Duke ran as the Republican candidate for Governor of 
Louisiana in 1991.\14\ Such condemnations are the right thing to do. 
They also discourage extremists from trying to take over the political 
process and ensure that U.S. law enforcement agencies know they can use 
the proper power of the law against violent extremists without 
political criticism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Robert Suro, ``Bush Denounces Duke as Racist and Charlatan,'' 
The New York Times, November 7, 1991, https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/
07/us/the-1991-election-louisiana-bush-denounces-duke-as-racist-and-
charlatan.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Strong leadership is necessary in the fight against extremism. It 
is my hope that hearings such as these can both identify weaknesses 
that must be collected and also educate the public on the need to stop 
political violence of any sort.
                                 ______
                                 
  Letter From the Southern Poverty Law Center Submitted by Honorable 
                               Glenn Ivey
                                      May 15, 2023.
The Honorable Dan Bishop,
Chair, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight, 
        Investigations, and Accountability, Washington, DC 20015.
The Honorable Glenn F. Ivey,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on 
        Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability, Washington, DC 
        20015.
    Dear Chair Bishop and Ranking Member Ivey:
    On behalf of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), we write to 
provide our insights for the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, 
and Accountability's hearings entitled `` `Mostly Peaceful': Countering 
Left-Wing Organized Violence.'' We appreciate the opportunity to share 
our expertise documenting the true threat of ideologically-motivated 
extremism and violence, to offer critical perspective on the history 
and recent trends of hard-right extremism and violence, and to offer 
several practical policy recommendations, including the need to address 
this threat from a public health and prevention approach. We 
respectfully request this statement be included as part of the official 
hearing record.
    SPLC has been closely tracking the uptick in hate-fueled activity 
which is part of a larger hard-right movement that stokes the fires of 
antisemitism, promoting racism, fear, and extremist violence. In the 
last year, we have seen hard-right extremists unleash horrific acts of 
violence--particularly directed at Black, Brown, and LGBTQ persons--
from Buffalo, New York to Allen, Texas. This hearing is just days after 
the 1-year anniversary of the murder of 10 Black people at a 
supermarket in Buffalo.\1\ And the country is still reeling from the 
latest in this series of white supremacist-motivated attacks.\2\ A man 
shot and killed 8 people and injured 7 others in a shooting spree at an 
outlet mall in Allen, Texas on May 6. The killer, who was shot and 
killed by police at the scene, had posted neo-Nazi and deeply 
misogynistic content to a Russian website and to YouTube.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Caleb Kieffer, Buffalo Massacre: A 
Year Later, White Supremacist Propaganda Continues to Spur Violence, 
May 14, 2023 https://www.splcenter.org/news/2023/05/11/buffalo-
massacre-year-later.
    \2\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Hannah Gais, Michael Edison 
Hayden, Rachel Janik and Megan Squire, Allen, Texas Killer Posted Neo-
Nazi, Incel Content Online, https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2023/
05/08/allen-texas-killer-posted-neo-nazi-incel-content-online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Established in 1971, the SPLC has been tireless in identifying and 
rooting out extremist groups to create a fair, inclusive, and unified 
nation. We are a nonprofit advocacy organization serving as a catalyst 
for racial justice throughout the South. We work in partnership with 
communities of color to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen 
intersectional movements through transformative policies and 
initiatives, and advance human rights of all people. We have deep 
expertise in monitoring the activities of domestic hate groups and 
other extremists--including the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazi movement, 
racist skinheads, anti-LGBTQ groups, anti-Muslim groups, anti-
Government militias, and others. We currently track and expose hundreds 
of extremist groups operating across the country and publish 
investigative reports, share key intelligence, and offer expert 
analysis to the media and public to help prevent and counter the impact 
of hate.
    broad consensus on the most lethal domestic extremist threat now
    The SPLC condemns violence in all its forms. In recent years, 
intelligence community reports,\3\ assessments,\4\ Congressional 
testimony,\5\ and the White House National Strategy for Countering 
Domestic Terrorism \6\ have all emphasized that the two most lethal 
elements of today's domestic terrorism threat are (1) racially or 
ethnically motivated violent extremists who advocate for the 
superiority of the white race and (2) anti-Government or anti-authority 
violent extremists, such as militia violent extremists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Domestic Violent Extremism Poses Heightened Threat in 2021, 
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (March, 2021), https://
www.dni.gov/files/ODNl/documents/assessments/-
UnclassSummaryofDVEAssessment-17MAR21.pdf.
    \4\ Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic 
Terrorism, Federal Bureau of Investigation & Department of Homeland 
Security (October, 2022), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defaut/files/2022-
10/22_1025_strategic-intelligence-assessment-data-domestic-
terrorism.pdf.
    \5\ Christopher A. Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
Science, and Related Agencies, Federal Bureau of Investigation Budget 
Request for Fiscal Year 2024, May 10, 2023. https://
www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
FBI_FY_2024_Budget_SFR_Senate_- Approps_CJS_FINAL.pdf.
    \6\ ``Among that wide range of animating ideologies, racially or 
ethnically motivated violent extremists (principally those who promote 
the superiority of the white race) and militia violent extremists are 
assessed as presenting the most persistent and lethal threats.'' White 
House, National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, June, 2021, 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/National-
Strategy-for-Countering-Domestic-Terrorism.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SPLC's own deep longitudinal ethnographic research aligns with the 
overwhelming evidence of expert researchers, the intelligence 
community, DHS, and FBI assessments: the most significant source of 
targeted violence and the greatest threat to democracy and the security 
of our Nation is coming from hard-right extremism, animated by white 
supremacist ideology which sees America's diversity as a threat.
    In this statement, our focus is on the ideologies which are 
infecting and galvanizing violence, the organized groups and individual 
actors who are using and promoting violence, and the deadly harms 
inflicted on our democracy.
                    white nationalist organizations
    Neo-Nazis and white nationalists are becoming increasingly 
emboldened and aggressive as the larger far-right movement embraces 
their ideas. Over the course of the last year, neo-Nazi and white 
nationalist groups have descended into public space, often to protest 
LGBTQ-inclusive events. The most active groups performing public 
displays of hatred in 2022-2023 include white nationalist Patriot 
Front,\7\ neo-Nazi National Socialist Club,\8\ anti-Semitic Goyim 
Defense League, and general hate group the Proud Boys.\9\ In public, 
these groups antagonize participants, shout slurs and obscenities, 
chant hate slogans, and wave hate symbols including the Nazi swastika. 
The events are meant to up-the-ante and inspire further violence. In 
particular, SPLC's time line on the activities and history of Patriot 
Front, is the most active white nationalist group in the United States, 
documents over 10,000 pieces of racist propaganda flyering incidents 
since 2018.\10\ Patriot Front members regularly engage in intimidation 
and vandalism in public. In private, Patriot Front members use racial 
slurs, idolize Adolf Hitler, and share violent imagery about Black 
people, migrants, LGBTQ people, and Jews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Patriot Front, https://
www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist/files/group/patriot-front.
    \8\ Southern Poverty Law Center, National Social Club (NSC-131), 
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting/hate/extremist-files/group/
nationalist-social-club-nsc-131.
    \9\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Cassie Miller, SPLC Statement for 
the Jan. 6 Select Committee on Proud Boys (June 10, 2022), https://
www.splcenter.org/news/2022/06/10/splc-statement-jan-6-select-
committee-proud-boys.
    \10\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Jeff Tischauser, Patriot Front 
Timeline (April 11, 2023), https://www.splcenter.org/patriot-front-
timeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These incidents are racist and often are indicative of the broad 
scope of hard-right beliefs that rejects equality and pluralism and is 
instead exclusion-seeking to limit the rights of many people through 
force. These violent trends show a movement that is authoritarian, 
reactionary, conspiratorial, and nationalistic. In addition to white 
supremacist ideas, many of the actors and groups responsible express 
misogyny, anti-LBTQ bigotry, and antisemitic sentiment.
    For example, the Proud Boys have led a coordinated attack on gender 
equity and bodily autonomy, protesting or threatening reproductive 
justice and LGBTQ events around the country.\11\ Altogether the Proud 
Boys participated in at least 58 LGBTQ and reproductive justice 
demonstrations of counter protests throughout 2022. So far in 2023, 
that number stands at 27--putting them on track to surpass last year's 
level of activism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Cassie Miller, Proud Boys Aid the 
Right-Wing Assault on the LGBTQ Community and Reproductive Justice 
(July 13, 2022), https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/07/13/proud-
boys-aid-right-wing-assault-lgbtq-community-and-reproductive-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     record levels of hate violence
    The FBI has been collecting hate crime data from the Nation's 
18,000 Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies since 
1991. The most recent data, from 2021, documented the highest number of 
reported hate crimes ever--the highest number of race-based crimes, the 
highest number of anti-AAPI communities hate crimes, the highest number 
of anti-Hispanic hate crimes, and the highest number of crimes directed 
at individuals on the basis of their gender identity.\12\ Crimes and 
murders of transgender people have increased significantly in the 
United States in recent years. A recent study found that transgender 
women and men were over four times more likely than cisgender people to 
be victims of violent crime.\13\ Black trans women accounted for nearly 
three-quarters of the known victims.\14\ In recognition of the need to 
highlight prevention of hate violence, the FBI recently designated 
civil rights and hate crime as a Level 1 National Threat, its highest 
threat priority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2021 Hate Crime Statistics 
Act Supplemental Report (March, 2023), https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/
webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/hate-crime.
    \13\ American Journal of Public Health, Andrew R. Flores, Ph.D., 
Ilan Meyer, Ph.D., Lynn L. Langton, Ph.D., and Jody L. Herman, Ph.D. 
``Gender Identity Disparities in Criminal Victimization: National Crime 
Victimization Survey, 2017-2018'' https://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans/press-release/.
    \14\ Everytown for Gun Safety, How does gun violence impact the 
communities you care about? https://everystat.org/#transhomicide.
    \15\ U.S. Department of Justice: Combatting Hate Crime, Department 
of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/tile/1428666/
download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  the impact of anti-lgbtq extremists
    These deadly statistics are coupled with a documented prevalence of 
anti-LGBTQ hard-right extremist organizing in the country. A political 
atmosphere of anti-LGBTQ sentiment has dominated the media landscape 
and microphones of sympathetic politicians. In March 2023, the 
Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) featured anti-trans 
speakers who referenced a hard-right trend of falsely portraying LGBTQ 
people as a threat to children.\16\ Michael J. Knowles, a Daily Wire 
host, said ``transgenderism'' must be removed from public life.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Cassie Miller, Proud Boys Aid the 
Right-Wing Assault on the LGBTQ Community and Reproductive Justice 
(July 13, 2022), https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/07/13/proud-
boys-aid-right-wing-assault-lgbtq-community-and/reproductive-justice.
    \17\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Creede Newton, CPAC Hosted 
Convicted Sex Offender Amid Calls to Protect Children (March 7, 2023), 
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2023/03/07/cpac-hosted-convicted-
sex-offender-amid-calls-protect-children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, in the past 2 years, an unprecedented amount of anti-
LGBTQ legislation has been introduced and adopted \18\ at the State 
level targeting LGBTQ families and children for harassment by the 
State,\19\ depriving fundamental rights to speech and assembly,\20\ and 
even limiting participation in America's democratic institutions by 
restricting voting access.\21\ Along with these legislative attacks on 
LGBTQ freedoms and the violent attacks on LGBTQ spaces like nightclubs 
and Pride events, extremist groups like the Proud Boys and Patriot 
Front--some of whom were instrumental in the deadly January 6 
insurrection--are also targeting the institutions of American civil 
society like schools, libraries, and children's hospitals in an effort 
to drive LGBTQ people out of American society.\22\ SPLC continues to 
monitor a significant number of anti-LGBTQ hate groups and their 
activities each year.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ American Civil Liberties Union, ``Legislation Affecting LGBTQ 
Rights Across the Country,'' (December 2, 2022). https://www.aclu.orq/
legislation-affecting-lgbtq-riqhts-across-country.
    \19\ Sneha Dey and Karen Brooks Harper, Transgender Texas Kids are 
Terrified after Governor orders that Parents be Investigated for Child 
Abuse, (February 28, 2022), The Texas Tribune, https://
www.texastribune.org/2022/02/28/texas-transgender-child-abuse/.
    \20\ Jaclyn Diaz. Florida's Governor Signs Controversial Law 
Opponents Dubbed `Don't Say Gay', (March 28, 2022). NPR. https://
www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089221657/dont-say-gay-florida-desantis.
    \21\ Kathryn K. O'Neill, Nathan Cisneros, Will Tentindo, and Jody 
L. Herman, The Potential Impact of Voter Identification Laws on 
Transgender Voters in the 2022 General Election, (September 2022), 
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-voter-id-
impact/.
    \22\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Cassie Miller, Proud Boys Aid the 
Right-Wing Assault on the LGBTQ Community and Reproductive Justice, 
(July 13, 2022), https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/07/13/proud-
boys-aid-right-wing-assault-lgbtq-community-and-reproductive-justice.
    \23\ Southern Poverty Law Center, R.G. Cravens and Susan Corke, 
Statement submitted for the record, House Committee on Oversight and 
Reform Hearings on The Rise of Anti-LGBTQI+ Extremism and Violence in 
the United States (December 14, 2022), https://www.splcenter.org/sites/
default/files/statement-house-oversight-hearinqs-rise-anti-lgbtqi-
extremism-violence-us.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Institutionalized leadership organizations in the hard-right anti-
LGBTQ movement have created an ``us'' vs. ``them'' understanding of the 
world that wrongly blames LGBTQ and insinuates religious divisions. 
These groups also minimize violence against LGBTQ and further amplify 
the ideas that underpin the bigotry that motivates violent actors--like 
pseudoscience about transgender people.
              the ``great replacement'' conspiracy theory
    Social and political movement research and analysis by SPLC's 
Intelligence Project subject-matter experts have long documented that 
the motivations and ideological underpinnings of the hard right 
movement's violent actors are often predictable. The great replacement 
narrative provides the central framework for the global white 
supremacist movement. This racist conspiracy says there is a 
systematic, global effort to replace white, European people with 
nonwhite, foreign populations.\24\ The purported ultimate goal of those 
responsible--Democrats, leftists, ``multiculturalists,'' and Jews--is 
to reduce white political power and, ultimately, to eradicate the white 
race.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Jason Wilson, and Aaron Flanagan, 
The Racist `Great Replacement' Conspiracy Theory Explained (May 17, 
2022), https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/17/racist-great-
replacement-conspiracy-theory-explained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once a fringe idea propagated by hate groups and other extremists--
frequently in on-line message boards--the ``great replacement'' theory 
and ideas akin to it have been normalized and dragged into the 
mainstream, in part, with the help of conservative political figures, 
media personalities, lawmakers, and anti-immigrant lobbying groups.
    This month, the accused murderer of 11 Jewish people at the Tree of 
Life synagogue in Pittsburgh on October 27, 2018, is facing the legal 
consequences of ideologically-inspired violence.\25\ The details of 
this act of mass-violence are chilling. He allegedly yelled, ``all Jews 
must die'' allegedly due to his fixation on the Jewish community's 
humanitarian refugee efforts. He believed in the so-called ``great 
replacement'' conspiracy theory, which falsely posits that elites--or 
sometimes, as the accused murderer believed, explicitly Jewish people--
are conspiring to bring non-white people into Western countries as a 
way of breeding white people out of existence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Michael Edison Hayden, 
Antisemitic Mass Shooting Suspect Faces Death Penalty in Trial (April 
21, 2023), https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2023/04/21/antisemitic-
mass-shootinq-suspect-faces-death-penalty-trial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Tree of Life murders--the most deadly anti-Semitic attack in 
U.S. history--were not alone as domestic extremist incidents inspired 
by hard-right hate and the false ``great replacement theory.''
   The man accused of murdering 49 worshippers and injuring 
        dozens of others in two Christchurch, New Zealand mosques on 
        March 15, 2019, had posted a manifesto steeped in white 
        supremacist propaganda and references to ``white genocide,'' 
        underlining his belief that white people are being 
        systematically replaced across the world by non-whites. The 
        alleged killer also espoused a belief in ``accelerationism,'' 
        the idea that violence should be used to push Western countries 
        into becoming failed states. Adherents hope the collapse will 
        give rise to radical, presently unthinkable changes in our 
        society.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Michael Edison Hayden, New 
Zealand Terrorist Manifesto Influence by Far-Right Online Ecosystem, 
Hatewatch Finds (March 15, 2019), https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/
2019/03/15/new-zealand-terrorist-manifesto-influenced-far-right-online-
ecosystem-hatewatch-finds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   On the last day of Passover in 2019, a gunman entered the 
        Chabad of Poway synagogue in Poway, California, and opened 
        fire. The April 27 attack claimed the life of a woman and left 
        three others injured--including the rabbi. Before the attack, 
        the 19-year-old alleged murderer posted what he described as an 
        ``open letter'' on the white supremacist-friendly forum 8chan, 
        according to NBC News.\27\ Like the alleged New Zealand 
        murderer, the alleged Poway synagogue murderer's statement also 
        included the hallmarks common among radicalized white 
        supremacists, such as adulation of suspected or convicted mass 
        murderers and propagation of the false claims of a global plan 
        to replace white people. He praised the carnage in 
        Christchurch, citing that live-streamed act of violence as an 
        influence on his own attack. He also referenced the alleged 
        perpetrator of the murderous Tree of Life synagogue attack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ NBC News, Ben Collins and Andrew Blankstein, ``Anti-Semitic 
open letter posted online under name of Chabad synagogue shooting 
suspect'' (April 27, 2019), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/anti-
semitic-open-letter-posted-online-under-name-chabad-synagogue-n999211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The accused mass shooter of over 20 people at a Walmart in 
        El Paso, Texas, on August 3, 2019 allegedly said in a manifesto 
        left behind that the ``attack is a response to the Hispanic 
        invasion of Texas.''\28\ The shooter reportedly drove more than 
        9 hours to target a heavily Hispanic shopping center that he 
        believed would be full of Mexican nationals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Hate is Alive in America--El Paso 
Shooting (August 5, 2023), https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/08/05/
hate-alive-america-el-paso-shooting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   And on May 14, 2022, a gunman carried out a horrific, 
        racially-motivated attack, killing 10 Black people and wounding 
        3 others at a Tops Friendly Markets grocery store in east 
        Buffalo, New York. The gunman left behind an on-line screed 
        suggesting the attack was motivated by the same racist 
        conspiracy theory that had previously inspired other white 
        supremacist acts of terror in El Paso, Texas and Poway, 
        California.\29\ The Buffalo suspect also cited immigration as a 
        key driver of alleged white displacement in the United States 
        in a document circulated online.\30\ He allegedly chose his 
        target location because the ZIP code that includes the store, 
        14208, is 78 percent Black--the highest percentage of Black 
        population of any ZIP code in up-State New York, according to 
        the Census Bureau's 2020 American Community Survey.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Caleb Kieffer, Buffalo Massacre: 
A Year Later, White Supremacist Propaganda Continues to Spur Violence 
(May 14, 2023), https://www.splcenter.org/news/2023/05/11/buffalo-
massacre-year-later.
    \30\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Caleb Kieffer, Cadre of Nativist 
Groups, Figures Have Long Pushed Replacement-By-Immigration Ideas Into 
the Mainstream (July 14, 2022), https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/
2022/07/14/cadre-nativist-groups-figures-have-long-pushed-replacement-
immigration-ideas-mainstream.
    \31\ CNN, Shimon Prokupecz, Christina Maxouris, Dakin Andone, 
Samantha Beech, and Amir Vera, What we know about Buffalo supermarket 
shooting suspect Payton Gendron (June 2, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/
2022/05/15/us/payton-gendron-buffalo-shooting-suspect-what-we-know/
index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 6, Representative Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the 
House Oversight and Accountability Committee, sent a letter signed by 
all committee Democrats to Representative James Comer, the committee 
Chairman, asking him and his Republican colleagues to denounce the 
white nationalist ``great replacement'' conspiracy theory.\32\ The 
letter said that during one hearing, on February 7, Republicans 
``invoked dangerous and conspiratorial rhetoric echoing the racist and 
nativist tropes peddled by white supremacists and right-wing 
extremists.''\33\ This included warnings about ``invasion'' and 
accusing the Biden administration of implementing a plan ``to 
deliberately open our border'' for purposes of ``changing our 
culture.'' Rep. Comer and all the other Republicans refused to sign, 
calling it an attempt to ``distract'' from issues about the border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2023-03-
05%20JBR%20to%20Comer%20re%20GRT%20FINAL%20Version.pdf.
    \33\ House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, On The Front 
Lines of the Border Crisis: A Hearing with Chief Patrol Agents 
(February 7, 2023) https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/on-the-front-
lines-of-the-border-crisis-a-hearing-with-chief-patrol-agents/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tucker Carlson, the now-former Fox News commentator, was one of the 
biggest media purveyors of ``great replacement'' ideas. He used his 
prime-time spot to stoke fear about immigration at the Southern Border 
and falling birthrates as existential threats to white people. While 
Carlson was careful to avoid using the more overt terms favored by 
avowed white nationalists, these extremists have praised him for 
mainstreaming their ideas.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Caleb Kieffer, Buffalo Massacre: 
A Year Later, White Supremacist Propaganda Continues to Spur Violence, 
May 14, 2023, https://www.splcenter.org/news/2023/05/11/buffalo-
massacre-year-later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yet, behind right-wing media influencers like Carlson, according to 
an April 2022 poll conducted by SPLC and Tulchin Research, there is 
disturbing, unnerving support for the conspiracy theories and 
ideologies that motivated these murderous acts.\35\ The poll found that 
the ideas underpinning the white nationalist ``great replacement'' 
narrative have become thoroughly mainstream on the political right. 
Nearly 7 in 10 Republicans surveyed agree to at least some extent that 
demographic changes in the United States are deliberately driven by 
liberal and progressive politicians attempting to gain political power 
by ``replacing more conservative white voters.'' Across the political 
spectrum, the poll documented substantial support for threatening or 
acting violently against perceived political opponents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Cassie Miller, SPLC Poll Finds 
Substantial Support for `Great Replacement' Theory and Other Hard-Right 
Ideas (June 1, 2022), https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/06/01/poll-
finds-support-great-replacement-hard-right-ideas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        anti-government movement
    For decades, the anti-Government movement has formed militias and 
engaged in paramilitary training, using their expertise to target and 
terrorize Federal, State, and local government officials, agencies, and 
facilities.\36\ As we documented in our extensive statement for May 26, 
2021 House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties hearings, ``Confronting Violent White Supremacy (Part V): 
Examining the Rise of Militia Extremism,'' these groups have regularly 
cited what they perceive as government tyranny as their motive--
including, but not limited to, what they believe is an intent by 
government officials, to create a one world government.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Antigovernment General, https://
www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/
antigovernment-general.
    \37\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Susan Corke, and Rachel 
Goldwasser, House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Civil Rights and 
Civil Liberties, ``Confronting Violent White Supremacy (Part V): 
Examining the Rise of Militia Extremism'' (May 26, 2023) https://
www.splcactionfund.org/sites/default/files/
final%20SPLC%20Action%20Fund%20'State- 
ment%20House%20Oversiqht%20Civil%20Rights%20and%20Civil%20Liberties%20Ri
se%20of%- 20Militia%20Extremism.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Oklahoma City bombing remains the deadliest act of domestic 
extremist violence in the U.S. history. The bombing of the Alfred P. 
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April 19, 1995, 
killed 168 people--including 19 children--and injured more than 650 
others. The bombing is the hallmark event cauterizing the extreme risk 
of violence and death that is posed by the anti-Government movement.
    In recent years, militias and anti-Government adherents have openly 
promoted and emphasized the prospect of an impending second civil war. 
Over the course of 2020 and during January 2021, movement members, many 
of them armed with guns or explosives, conspired to commit insurrection 
against the United States Government (Washington, DC), kidnap a sitting 
Governor (Michigan), bomb a Federal building (Nevada), murder law 
enforcement and security personnel (California), and intimidate 
civilians and Government employees in the streets, at their homes, and 
at their places of employment in California, Washington, DC, Idaho, 
Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 
Washington.
    Here are some of the leading hard-right anti-Government extremist 
groups and driving ideologies:
The Oath Keepers
    Now with leaders convicted of seditious conspiracy for their 
January 6th associated activities, the Oath Keepers has steeped itself 
in conspiracy theories and trained for a revolution against the 
state.\38\ Like the rest of the anti-Government militia movement, Oath 
Keepers use fear of gun confiscation, globalization, and other anti-
Government conspiracy theories (often rooted in coded antisemitism) to 
organize outside legitimate channels. The group uses a military-style 
hierarchical structure, arms training, and emergency response events to 
engage members.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Oath Keepers, https://
www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/oath-keepers.
    \39\ Testimony of Susan Corke, Director, Southern Poverty Law 
Center Intelligence Project before the House Committee on Homeland 
Security ``Countering Violent Extremism, Terrorism, and Antisemitic 
Threats in New Jersey'' (October 3, 2022), https://www.splcenter.org/
sites/default/files/corke_countering-violent-extremism-terrorism-
antisemetic-threats-jersey.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers (CSPOA)
    This group of sheriffs believe in the false notion of county 
supremacy, which submits that county authority supersedes Federal 
authority.\40\ This belief has animated portions of the anti-Government 
movement since the 1970's. Adherents believe counties are entitled to 
control land that is currently owned and preserved by the Federal 
Government. This assertion by members of the anti-Government movement, 
chiefly militias, has led them to conduct various skirmishes and 
standoffs against Federal agencies and agents, particularly in the West 
where Bureau of Land Management (BLM) staff are habitually villainized 
by the anti-Government movement. According to a 2017 report by the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO), from 2013 to 2017 at least 360 
threats and assaults were directed toward Federal land management 
employees.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Constitutional Sheriffs, https://
www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/
constitutional-sheriffs.
    \41\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Countering Violent 
Extremism: Actions Needed to Define Strategy and Assess Progress of 
Federal Efforts (April 2017). https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-
300.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sovereign Citizen Movement
    One of the most violent factions of the anti-Government movement is 
the sovereign citizen movement, whom has a documented history of 
inflicting violence against law enforcement. Some sovereign citizens 
have turned to violence. When a sovereign feels particularly desperate, 
angry, battle-weary, and cornered, his next Government contact, no 
matter how minor, can be his final straw--and the resulting rage can be 
lethal. Research indicates a new and growing adherence to the 
movement.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Sovereign Citizen Movement. 
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/
sovereign-citizens-movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Immigrant Groups and Border Vigilantes
    Anti-immigrant hate groups are the most extreme of the hundreds of 
nativist and vigilante groups that have proliferated since the late 
1990's, when anti-immigrant xenophobia began to rise to levels not seen 
in the United States since the 1920's.\43\ As militias on the border 
have become more brazen in recent months, SPLC and others have raised 
concerns about apparent coordination and cooperation with some Border 
Patrol agents.\44\ SPLC has also documented that some border vigilantes 
have reportedly adopted the wide-spread practice of collecting the 
personal details of intercepted migrants--as well as the details of 
their U.S.-based relatives--in a move to reinforce their savior 
fantasies of tracking pedophiles and identifying drug trafficking 
rings,\45\ drawing on conspiracies that are rooted in the early days of 
the QAnon movement.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Immigrant, https://
www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/anti-
immigrant.
    \44\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Freddy Cruz, In Plain Sight: 
Uncovering Border Patrol's Relationship with Far-Right Militias at the 
Southern Border (July 29, 2021), https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/
2021/07/29/plain-sight-uncovering-border-patrols-relationship-far-
right-militias-southern-border.
    \45\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Freddy Cruz, How Antigovernment 
Extremists and QAnon Took Over the Southern Border (August 8, 2022), 
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/08/08/how-antigovernment-
extremists-and-qanon-took-over-southern-border.
    \46\ Southern Poverty Law Center, What You Need to Know about QAnon 
(October 27, 2020), https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/10/27/
what-you-need-know-about-qanon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         the january 6 deadly insurrection at the u.s. capitol
    The anti-Government movements coalesced with the white nationalist 
hate movement to bring about the deadly January 6th insurrection. The 
events were like no other in U.S. history and represent the clear and 
present threat of these hard-right movements to our democracy, the U.S. 
Government, and the rights of people in the United States. A toxic soup 
of ideas from racism to anti-Government sentiment to white Christian 
nationalism sought on January 6th to manipulate people into acting in 
opposition to a free democratic election.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Joseph Wiinikka-Lydon, Dangerous 
Devotion: Congressional Hearing Examines Threat of White Christian 
Nationalism, (December 28, 2022), https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/
12/28/dangerous-devotion-congressional-hearing-examines-threat-white-
christian-nationalism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the 18 months of its tenure, the bipartisan House Select 
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States 
Capitol conducted 10 public hearings, interviewed over 1,000 witnesses, 
and reviewed more than one million pages of background information.\48\ 
This was the most important Congressional investigation since the 9/11 
Commission. The final report, issued late last year, established 
essential facts about the deadly attack--and provided us with a road 
map for this important national reckoning.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-january6th?path/
browsecommittee/chamber/- house/committee/january6th/collection/CRPT
    \49\ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkq/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-
REPORT.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The violence on January 6th was planned and was never meant to be 
the end goal. The committee report documented in great detail how 
former President Trump called for his supporters to come to Washington 
on that fateful day and then knowingly inspired an armed mob of his 
followers to go to the Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of 
power.
    SPLC has documented how far-right anti-Government extremists--and 
former President Trump himself--had laid the foundation for the violent 
insurrection in the years before.\50\ The lies of a stolen election and 
the extremist ideologies and conspiracy theories that fueled the attack 
were the culmination of a months-long, coordinated strategy by Trump 
and his allies to overturn the 2020 election and steal the Presidency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Southern Poverty Law Center, The Road to Jan. 6: A Year of 
Extremist Mobilization, https://www.splcenter.org/news/2021/12/30/road-
jan-6-year-extremist-mobilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The committee report also documented that Trump and his allies used 
racism as a principal driver in immediate post-election efforts to 
disenfranchise voters in major urban areas in Michigan, Georgia, 
Pennsylvania, and other States. Over the next months, the false 
allegation of a stolen election led many State legislatures with 
Republican majorities (including in Deep South States where the SPLC 
operates) to enact discriminatory anti-voter laws and create new, 
racially gerrymandered Congressional districts. These new districts 
disproportionately disenfranchise voters of color and are designed to 
undermine elections and control election outcomes in 2024 and 
beyond.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Michael Lieberman, Jan. 6 
Anniversary: Two Years Later, We Must Hold Capitol Insurrectionists 
Accountable (January 6, 2023), https://www.splcenter.org/news/2023/01/
06/jan-6-anniversary-two-years-later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beyond the essential historical record, the true measure of the 
committee's work will be whether the planners, perpetrators, funders, 
and those who inspired the insurrection--including former President 
Donald Trump, his allies and other politicians who sought to forcibly 
uphold white supremacy and overturn the 2020 election--are held 
accountable, with serious consequences. The committee's report and 
accompanying materials have provided a blueprint toward these 
objectives for Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice. The 
committee's investigation, final report, and accompanying criminal 
referrals are essential steps toward transparency and accountability.
                        promoting male supremacy
    In the past, in both SPLC and the field of extremism research as a 
whole, analyses of the far right have often neglected to fully account 
for the innumerable ways gender, misogyny, and gender-based violence 
manifest within and operate alongside other forms of racially- and 
religiously-motivated hate.\52\ It is now impossible to ignore the 
centrality of male supremacy in the hard-right movement.\53\ Our 
research has documented that many in the hard right want to revive an 
older social order, before the Civil Rights Movement, women's and gay 
liberation movements, and other social and political transformations 
that have upset what was a thoroughly white-dominated, patriarchal 
society. In this worldview, Christianity should hold a preeminent place 
in our society and even form the basis for our laws. White people, they 
(often implicitly) suggest, deserve to hold a dominant position in 
society because of their supposed innate superiority. White supremacy 
is central to the hard right, but so is a desire to maintain a 
patriarchal society where people adhere to strictly-defined gender 
roles and men act from a position of dominance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Lydia Bates, Patriarchal 
Violence: Misogyny from the Far-Right to the Mainstream (February 1, 
2021), https://www.splcenter.org/news/2021/02/01/patriarchal-violence-
misogyny-far-right-mainstream.
    \53\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Cassie Miller, Male Supremacy is 
at the Core of the Hard Right's Agenda, (April 18, 2023), https://
www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2023/04/18/male-supremacy-core-hard-rights-
agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This has been made clear by the right's campaign to strip people of 
their reproductive autonomy, to demonize LGBTQ people, and to deny 
trans people every opportunity to express their gender identity. This 
is a campaign imposed through legislation, but also through violence, 
including increasing protests, threats, and violence aimed at LGBTQ 
people (including the November 2022 mass shooting that left 5 people 
dead at a queer club in Colorado \54\), reproductive rights advocates, 
and abortion providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Jason Wilson, Colorado Springs: 
Far-Right Influencers Made LGBTQ People Into Targets (November 22, 
2022), https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/11/22/colorado-springs-
far-right-influencers-made-lgbtq-people-targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              antisemitism
    Antisemitism serves as a connective tissue between hate groups that 
are otherwise seemingly unconnected. Particularly among white 
supremacist groups, antisemitism is often the entry point into the hate 
movement and is the fuel the feeds white nationalism. We saw this in 
Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 (``Jews will not replace us'') and 
in Washington, DC, on January 6 (many breaching the Capitol flaunted 
antisemitic imagery).\55\ In recent Congressional testimony, Eric Ward, 
now executive vice president for Race Forward, poignantly said, `` . . 
. antisemitism is the loom on which other hatreds are woven, so 
essential that it is easy to ignore. If we seek to counter domestic 
extremism, we must recognize that antisemitism remains the energizing 
principle behind white nationalism.''\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Susan Corke and Michael Lieberman, Antisemitism: An Engine for 
Anti-Black Racism, National Urban League, 2023 State of Black America, 
https://soba.iamempowered.com/antisemitism-engine-anti-black-racism.
    \56\ Eric K. Ward, Executive Director, Western States Center, U.S. 
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 
``Domestic Extremism in America: Examining White Supremacist Violence 
in the Wake of Recent Attacks'' (June 9, 2022), https://
www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Ward-
2022-06-09.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Throughout 2022, celebrities, politicians, and other public figures 
promoted and embraced antisemitic rhetoric. This mainstreaming and 
normalization of antisemitism has boosted the profile of many extremist 
groups and has resulted in direct threats to the Jewish community. The 
antisemitic tirades and on-line threats from Ye--formerly known as 
Kanye West--for example, appear to have had real-world 
consequences.\57\ Another example of the normalization of antisemitism; 
in the 2022 election cycle, no name was invoked more in association 
with dirty money, control of media and politics, or the existence of a 
``deep state,'' than George Soros, the Hungarian American Jewish 
financier and philanthropist. Right-wing media and politicians have 
consistently positioned Soros as a boogeyman whose influence and ideas 
will destroy American democracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ Anti-Defamation League, Center on Extremism, ``Ye is Right'' 
Antisemitic Campaign Continues, (February 12, 2023), https://
www.adl.org/resources/blog/ye-right-antisemitic-campaign-continues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As SPLC has relayed to Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff and other 
members of the White House interagency working group on antisemitism, 
Jews are not responsible for antisemitism--and Jews cannot end it by 
themselves. The recognition that anti-Jewish hatred is a core facet of 
other bigoted ideologies reinforces the need for a more robust 
interracial and intersectional approach to combating antisemitism in 
America. To advance the goal of a multi-racial, inclusive democracy, 
fighting antisemitism is at the heart of the fight against structural 
racism.
                         policy recommendations
    We offer these policy recommendations which we hope will promote 
long-term investments and initiatives that will move our Nation closer 
to fulfilling its highest ideals and promise of equality.
    expand anti-racism education and upstream prevention initiatives
    To bolster community well-being and ensure that all individuals are 
prepared to inoculate young people against radicalization, funding for 
prevention and education initiatives is imperative. We applaud the 
White House's recent announcement of $1 billion in new funding through 
the Safer Communities Act ``to support safer and healthier learning 
environments,'' as well as new funding through the Department of 
Commerce to improve digital literacy and for the Department of Health 
and Human Services to ``support student well-being and resilience in 
the face of hate and trauma.''\58\ The SPLC has partnered with American 
University's Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab 
(PERIL) to produce resources for adults caring for and/or working with 
youth to assist them in helping to steer young people away from 
extremist propaganda and the supremacist narratives they encounter on-
line and off through the building of resilient communities of 
inclusion.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ White House, FACT SHEET: New Actions from the Biden-Harris 
Administration and the Public and Private Sectors to Foster Unity and 
Prevent Hate-Motivated Violence, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2022/09/15/fact-sheet-new-actions-from-the-
biden-harris-administration-and-the-public-and-private-sectors-to-
foster-unity-and-prevent-hate-motivated-violence/.
    \59\ https://www.splcenter.org/peril & https://www.splcenter.org/
peril-community-guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The White House must follow through on the wide array of 
        Government initiatives and public-private partnerships against 
        hate and extremism announced last September at the United We 
        Stand Summit.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ https://unitedwestand.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Department of Education and the Department of Justice 
        should fund programs aimed at preventing extremism and 
        promoting deradicalization respectively--and move from 
        punishment models to restorative justice initiatives that 
        repair harms, restore trust, and help communities build 
        resilience and reduce the likelihood of future harms. 
        Especially in these divided and polarized times, every 
        elementary and secondary school should promote an inclusive 
        school climate and activities that celebrate our Nation's 
        diversity.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Lydia Bates, Prevention and 
Resilience: Supporting Young People through Polarizing Times (Fall 
2022), https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/fall-2022/
prevention-and-resilience-supporting-young-people-through-polarizing-
times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Congress and the Department of Education should fund 
        programs to develop and promote civics education and develop 
        curricula addressing structural racism, as well as funding for 
        States to implement their own related initiatives.
   Congress and the Biden administration should fiercely oppose 
        efforts to ban books, to impose educational gag orders on 
        teaching truth and hard history, and other efforts to place 
        restrictions on inclusive education.
       speak out against hate, political violence, and extremism
    Words matter, especially from our leaders. It is impossible to 
overstate the importance of elected officials, business leaders, and 
community officials using their public platforms to condemn 
antisemitism, hate crimes, vandalism, and violence of all kinds, and 
false ideas like the ``great replacement'' theory. A year after the 
Tops supermarket shooting, far too many political figures and pundits 
continue to perpetuate this dangerous rhetoric.
                        enforce hate crime laws
    Enforcement of existing Federal and State hate crime laws--and 
training for judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials charged 
with enforcement--is critical, but insufficient. The law is a blunt 
instrument against hate and racism. We cannot legislate, regulate, 
tabulate, or prosecute racism, hatred, or extremism out of existence.
               improve hate crime data collection efforts
   After 30 years of incomplete data and consistent FBI HCSA 
        underreporting, Congress and the Biden administration should 
        support mandatory hate crime reporting. Until legislation to 
        require reporting can be enacted, expanded incentives are 
        needed--more carrots and more sticks--toward making hate crime 
        prevention initiatives and credible hate crime reporting by all 
        law enforcement agencies a condition precedent to receiving 
        Federal funds. Special attention should be devoted to large 
        underreporting law enforcement agencies that either have not 
        participated in the HCSA program at all or have incorrectly 
        reported zero hate crimes.
           improve government response to domestic extremism
   Though most hate crimes are not committed by individuals 
        affiliated with an organized hate group, the Biden 
        administration and Congress should continue to closely track 
        the nature and magnitude of the problem of domestic extremism 
        and should fund resilience and digital literacy initiatives 
        \62\ as well as Government and academic research on the best 
        evidenced-based prevention programs.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Parents & Caregivers Guide to 
Online Radicalization: Assessments and Impact, https://
www.splcenter.org/peril-assessments-impact.
    \63\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Lydia Bates, Conversations about 
Gun Violence, Disinformation and Extremism (February 27, 2023), https:/
/www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/conversations-about-gun-violence-
disinformation-and-extremism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Every State prohibits private militias, and many States have 
        laws prohibiting political violence, restricting firearms in 
        the State capital/government buildings and near polling places, 
        and banning paramilitary training for civil disorder.\64\ 
        Federal and State authorities should raise awareness about 
        these laws--and enforce them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Georgetown Law, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and 
Protection, Addressing Political Violence, Unlawful Paramilitaries, and 
Threats to Democracy, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/
addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-militias/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            defend and promote inclusive, truthful education
    As many States push new laws to restrict inclusive education and 
restrict teaching about difficult history in the United States, more 
needs to be done to ensure young people are presented the unvarnished 
facts about this country's history--both good and bad--to shape a 
better future.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ Southern Poverty Law Center, Learning for Justice, Freedom to 
Learn, https://www.learningforjustice.org/freedom-to-learn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    promote on-line safety and hold tech and social media companies 
                              accountable
    Social media companies should not enable the funding or amplifying 
of white supremacist ideas or provide a safe haven for extremists. 
Consistent with the First Amendment and privacy considerations, Federal 
and State government officials should implement rules and regulations 
to ensure that tech companies comply with civil rights laws prohibiting 
discrimination. Law enforcement should scrutinize platforms and ensure 
they are enforcing prohibitions on activities that endanger the public 
or conspire against the rights of others.
    We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement. For more 
information about SPLC's work to address right-wing hate and extremism, 
please contact R.G. Cravens, senior research analyst, Lead, 
Intelligence Project [] or Michael Lieberman, senior policy counsel, 
Hate & Extremism []. We stand ready to work with subcommittee Members 
to address these critical issues.
                                 ______
                                 
    Statement of Heidi L. Beirich, Ph.D. Co-Founder/Executive Vice 
          President, Global Project Against Hate and Extremism
                              May 16, 2023
    Chairman Dan Bishop, Ranking Member Glenn Ivey, and esteemed 
Members of the House Homeland Security Committee's Oversight, 
Investigations, and Accountability Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to submit a written statement. My name is Heidi Beirich. I 
hold a Ph.D. in political science from Purdue University and am the co-
founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE). I am 
an expert on white supremacist and far-right extremist movements, 
having served as an advisory board member of the International Network 
for Hate Studies, a co-founder and co-chair of the Change the Terms 
Coalition, which advocates for solutions to on-line extremism, and the 
author of numerous academic studies on extremism as well as co-editor 
of Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction.
    My organization is a member of the Christchurch Call Advisory 
Network, an international body created by the governments of France and 
New Zealand after the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks, which the 
United States joined in 2021, that advises on the handling of on-line 
terrorist content and activity and is also a member of President 
Biden's Summit for Democracy. I have testified in front of 
Congressional committees on extremist threats to the military and 
veterans and the dangers posed by accelerationist neo-Nazi and militia 
movements. I also submitted solicited testimony to the January 6th 
Select Committee on the role of the white supremacist Proud Boys in the 
Capitol insurrection and, co-written with my colleague Wendy Via, 
testimony on how rising far-right extremism threatens democracy. My 
research has been cited in hundreds of academic pieces and news reports 
and I have served as an expert witness on far-right extremist groups in 
legal proceedings. I am honored to submit this statement.
    This hearing is dedicated to ``Countering Left-Wing Organized 
Violence'' and though all political violence is deplorable and must be 
countered, I believe the focus is misguided as it does not align with 
what political violence data tells us is most threatening to our 
Nation. In announcing this hearing, the Chairman's media advisory said, 
``The left-wing lawlessness Americans experienced during the summer of 
2020 was, unfortunately, only the beginning of a long season of 
political violence and intimidation . . . This increasing political 
violence cannot remain unchecked.'' The advisory specifically points to 
violence against law enforcement and other Americans from an organized 
left-wing movement. However, political violence from an ``organized 
left'' is not the real threat that Americans and law enforcement are 
facing. Data on acts of political violence clearly shows that it is the 
far right that is driving terrorism in the United States, including 
targeting and, in certain cases, murdering law enforcement. That is not 
to say there is no violence from far-left actors, it is just simply not 
on the scale or as deadly as what is coming from far-right actors. 
Indeed, organized far-right actors have recently been convicted of 
seditious conspiracy for involvement in an insurrection against our 
democracy, surely something that directly threatens all of us.
    For some time now, the main threats to our country in the form of 
``organized violence,'' specifically domestic terrorism, have come from 
the far right. This is not only my assessment. The FBI, DHS, and the 
National Counterterrorism Center have all come to this same conclusion 
in recent years, citing white supremacist and anti-Government extremism 
as the main threats. And the United States is not alone in facing 
rising terrorism and violence from the far right. In June 2020, the 
State Department announced that white supremacist terrorism is ``a 
serious challenge for the global community'' and in 2020 added the neo-
Nazi Russian Imperial Movement and some of its leadership to its 
Specially Designated Global Terrorist list.
    Some very recent examples of far-right extremist violence or 
attempted violence are illustrative of the threat. Less than 2 weeks 
ago, a neo-Nazi and misogynist killed 8 people at a mall outside of 
Dallas in a shooting spree. In early March, members of the LGBTQ+ 
community holding a Drag Queen story hour were attacked by white 
supremacists shouting ``Heil Hitler.'' In mid-March, a leader in the 
neo-Nazi Feuerkrieg Division was arrested for threatening to kill a 
journalist. And in late March, a self-identified White Lives Matter 
member was arrested for trying to burn down an Ohio church that was 
hosting an LGBTQ+ event. In February, a founder of the neo-Nazi 
Atomwaffen Division was arrested in a plot to destroy Baltimore's power 
grid (he had served time in prison for possession of illegal weapons 
and bomb-making materials and may have been targeting a Florida nuclear 
power station in 2017). Last October, former Speaker of the House Nancy 
Pelosi's husband, Paul, was viciously attacked in his home by a man 
steeped in far-right conspiracy theories such as QAnon and who believed 
former President Donald Trump's lies that the 2020 election had been 
stolen. In June 2022, masked members of the white supremacist Patriot 
Front were arrested near an Idaho Pride event for conspiracy to riot 
and found to have smoke grenades, riot shields, and other concerning 
materials in their possession. The police who handled the arrests 
received multiple death threats. This is far from a comprehensive list 
of far-right violent incidents over the last year.
    Additionally, the most serious mass terrorist attacks in recent 
years have been perpetrated by white supremacists. In May 2021, a 
shooter targeted Black shoppers in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY, 
killing 10 people. He was motivated by the most dangerous white 
supremacist conspiracy theory, the ``Great Replacement,'' which argues 
falsely that white countries are being ``invaded'' and white people 
``replaced'' by people of color and immigrants, a process they lay at 
the feet of ``globalists'' or Jews. That same idea motivated terrorist 
attacks at a synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, a Walmart in El Paso in 
2019, and others both in the United States and abroad. It is the most 
violence-inspiring idea circulating on the far right.
    We should not forget that far-right extremists have also targeted 
our most fundamental political institution, our democracy. The January 
6 insurrection, which attempted to stop a peaceful transfer of power, 
was the deadliest attack on the Capitol ever and killed 5 people and 
injured 140 police officers. Members of two far-right organized 
extremist groups--the anti-Government Oath Keepers and the white 
supremacist Proud Boys--have been convicted for seditious conspiracy, 
meaning they were found responsible for acts to ``conspire to 
overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the 
United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the 
authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the 
execution of any law of the United States.'' And members of another 
far-right extremist group, the Three Percenter militia, have been 
indicted for conspiracy for their acts on January 6, with at least one 
having pleaded guilty. Far-right extremists have also killed law 
enforcement officers and extremist members of the military have engaged 
in plots to kill their fellow soldiers. Just this year, an Air Guard 
member with extremist views leaked sensitive national security 
documents. These examples show that far-right activities are 
multifaceted and threaten our national security.
    This is the real extremist political violence that Americans are 
facing. And that threat has been escalating in recent years and needs 
the most attention and resources to counter. This assessment does not 
make light of violence coming from the left, and in past eras there was 
significant terrorism and violence including murders by left-wing 
groups in the 1970's and threats and property destruction by anarchist, 
environmental, and animal rights extremists in the 2000's. But it is 
simply a fact that in recent years, the left is less connected to 
deadly acts, and when engaged in criminality, is more prone to property 
destruction and street-violence (which far-right groups also engage in 
with deadly results) than murder. To counteract these real threats to 
Americans, it is imperative that data drives the decision making.
    Additionally, as it is a focus of this hearing, it is important to 
note that a significant amount of far-right violence was perpetrated or 
attempted against racial justice protesters in 2020. On June 3, 2020, 
Federal authorities arrested three individuals allegedly associated 
with the Boogaloo Bois, a loosely organized group of far-right 
extremists preparing for a civil war, for conspiring to cause violence 
during Las Vegas Black Lives Matter protests using incendiary devices. 
Less than a week later, law enforcement officials near Richmond, 
Virginia, arrested a Ku Klux Klan leader for driving a vehicle into 
peaceful protesters. And two law enforcement officers were killed in 
California by members of the Boogaloo Bois. In 2020, far-right 
extremists also used cars as weapons against racial justice protesters, 
with reports of at least 50 vehicle-ramming incidents starting in May 
2000. At least 18 were categorized as deliberate. None of this excuses 
the violence that sometimes accompanied the protests, including 
officers injured and blinded, police cars set on fire, and property 
destruction, but there is no evidence these events were caused by left-
wing actors or members of antifa, as Trump so often exclaimed. An AP 
analysis of hundreds of arrests for illegal activities during the 
protests including arson, assault, rioting, and other charges, found 
most arrested weren't ``leftist radicals.'' Additionally, an analysis 
of racial justices protests in 2020 and 2021 found that ``94 percent of 
protests involved no participant arrests, 97.9 percent involved no 
participant injuries, 98.6 percent involved no injuries to police, and 
96.7 percent involved no property damage.'' Describing these events as 
lawless is simply false.
         terrorism data proves far-right extremists top threat
    Several analyses of political violence substantiate what the FBI 
and other Federal agencies have asserted, that the most lethal form of 
terrorism today is coming from the far right, particularly from white 
supremacists and anti-Government militias, but also inspired by other 
bigoted far-right ideologies such as male supremacy.
    In the Center for Strategic and International Studies' (CSIS) 
assessment of ideological motivation based on data on terrorist attacks 
and plots from 1994 to May 2020, they found, ``right-wing attacks and 
plots were predominant from 1994 to 1999 and accounted for more than 
half of all incidents in 2008 as well as every year since 2011, with 
the exception of 2013. Most right-wing attacks in the 1990's targeted 
abortion clinics, while most right-wing attacks since 2014 focused on 
individuals (often targeted because of religion, race, or ethnicity) 
and religious institutions. Facilities and individuals related to the 
Government and police have also been consistent right-wing targets, 
particularly for attacks by militia and sovereign citizen groups.''
    CSIS also found that the number of incidents had increased since 
2014: ``This increase is reminiscent of the wave of right-wing activity 
in the 1990's that peaked with 43 right-wing incidents in 1995. The 
Oklahoma City bombing, which occurred on April 19, 1995, was the 
second-most deadly terrorist attack in U.S. history, after September 
11, 2001. In three recent years--2016, 2017, and 2019--the number of 
right-wing terrorist events matched or exceeded the number in 1995, 
including a recent high of 53 right-wing terrorist incidents in 2017. 
Despite a moderate decrease in 2018 to 29 incidents, right-wing 
activity again increased in 2019 to 44 incidents.'' In 8 of the years 
from 1994 to 2019, all fatalities were caused by right-wing attackers, 
and in 3 more, including 2018 and 2019, these actors caused more than 
90 percent of annual fatalities. CSIS found that while religious 
terrorists caused the largest number of total fatalities because of 9/
11, right-wing perpetrators were ``most likely to cause more deaths in 
a given year.''
    CSIS also documented 25 left-wing attacks in 2020. Those incidents 
included attempts to derail trains in efforts to stop pipeline 
construction and at least 7 incidents in which police and their 
facilities were attacked with incendiary devices and weapons fire. The 
incidents included the burning of a Minneapolis police precinct during 
the racial justice protests in 2020 and the killing of a Trump 
supporter in Oregon by a suspected gunman who was a self-described 
antifa supporter, the only death that year connected to far-left 
violence. In 2020, CSIS made the following conclusions: far-right 
terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of 
perpetrators, such as far-left or Islamic extremists, right-wing 
attacks and plots are the majority of all terrorist incidents since 
1994, right-wing attacks and plots have grown significantly, and 
finally, right-wing extremists perpetrated over 90 percent of these 
incidents between January 1 and May 8, 2020. In 2021, CSIS further 
found that violent far-right attacks and plots remained the most 
frequent type of domestic terrorism, and they were responsible for 28 
of 30 fatalities from terrorism in 2021. As a Washington Post analysis 
of CSIS data concluded, ``The surge [of terrorist violence] reflects a 
growing threat from home-grown terrorism not seen in a quarter-century, 
with right-wing extremist attacks and plots greatly eclipsing those 
from the far left and causing more deaths.''
    It is notable that CSIS found that far-left perpetrators motivated 
by anarchism, anti-fascism, or anti-law enforcement beliefs committed a 
growing percentage of attacks in 2021. Although these actors were 
behind a higher than usual number of terrorist attacks and plots in 
2021, only one committed by a Black nationalist and anti-police 
activist resulted in a fatality. In 2021, violent far-right attackers 
primarily used highly lethal weapons, such as firearms, while far-left 
attackers mainly used weapons such as knives or bludgeons, leading to a 
higher number of deaths by far-right actors.
    Data from other sources supports CSIS' analysis that far-right 
terrorism is the most frequent and deadly. In 2021, the Anti-Defamation 
League (ADL) reported that over the prior decade, there were about 450 
U.S. murders committed by political extremists. Of these murders far-
right extremists were responsible for about 75 percent, Islamic 
extremists for about 20 percent, and left-wing extremists for 4 
percent. White supremacists committed nearly half of the murders. In 
2022, the ADL identified 62 extremist-connected mass casualty incidents 
since 1970, with 46 of them being far-right ideologically-motivated, 
more than half having occurred in the prior 12 years. All of the 
extremist-related murders in 2022 were committed by far-right 
extremists. Left-wing extremists engaged in violence ranging from 
assaults to fire-bombings and arsons, but since the late 1980's, have 
rarely targeted people with deadly violence.
                       government analyses concur
    Government analyses agree with CSIS and the AOL. In an October 2022 
threat assessment from the FBI and DHS, it was reported that, ``In 
2021, the FBI and DHS assessed RMVEs [Racially-Motivated Violent 
Extremists] advocating the superiority of the white race and anti-
authority or anti-Government violent extremists, specifically militia 
violent extremists, presented the most lethal threat categories.'' The 
assessment also pointed out that these far-right extremists, ``were 
most likely to conduct mass-casualty attacks against civilians, and 
militia violent extremists would typically target law enforcement and 
government personnel and facilities.'' A March 2023 GAO report 
assessing data on the threat notes, ``According to DHS, there were 231 
domestic terrorism incidents between 2010 and 2021. Of these, about 35 
percent (the largest category) were classified as racially or 
ethnically motivated. These attacks were also the most lethal.'' The 
report further notes that, ``Anti-Government or anti-authority 
motivated violent extremism was the second largest category of 
incidents, and resulted in 15 deaths over the same time period.'' On 
left-wing animal rights extremism the report says, ``There were also 
domestic terrorism incidents linked to animal rights extremists and 
abortion-related violent extremists, among other motivations. Animal 
rights-related incidents did not result in any deaths during this time 
period; incidents related to abortion-related violent extremists led to 
3 deaths.''
    Academic research studying world-wide data on terrorism 
substantiates that left-wing extremism is less deadly. An analysis 
published in 2022 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences that looked at far-right, far-left, and Islamist extremism 
found that ``radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with 
left-wing causes are less likely to be violent.''
    Given this data it is unsurprising that in May 2021, Attorney 
General Merrick Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro 
Mayorkas both told a Senate committee that the greatest domestic threat 
facing the United States came from what they called ``racially or 
ethnically motivated violent extremists,'' meaning far-right actors. 
Garland emphasized that the greatest threat is from ``those who 
advocate for the superiority of the white race.'' In February 2022, DHS 
issued a bulletin saying of the domestic terrorism threat, ``The 
convergence of violent extremist ideologies, false or misleading 
narratives, and conspiracy theories have and will continue to 
contribute to a heightened threat of violence in the United States.''
    The rising tide of far-right domestic terrorism is also reflected 
in the FBl's caseload as the lead agency investigating terrorism and 
political violence. In January 2022, FBI officials reported that their 
domestic terrorism investigation caseload had more than doubled from 
1,000 to 2,700 over the prior 18 months, leading to a 260 percent 
increase in personnel. The agency also reported that of its 2,700 open 
cases, where an individual or group of individuals has been designated 
domestic terrorists, almost a third were involved in the January 6th 
insurrection and subsequent political activity connected to it. To help 
manage the surge in far-right extremism cases, the DOJ created a new 
domestic terrorism unit in 2022. ``January 6th was not an isolated 
event,'' FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Judiciary 
Committee on March 2, 2021. ``The problem of domestic terrorism has 
been metastasizing across the country for a long time now and it's not 
going away anytime soon.''
    It is relevant that hate crimes, which are predominantly motivated 
by the same hatreds white supremacists hold and can be considered mini-
domestic terrorist attacks for their targeting of specific protected 
classes, have also been on the rise. The FBI reported in March that 
hate crimes rose from more than 8,000 in 2020 to nearly 11,000 in 2021, 
the eighth year in a row that the numbers have gone up. This is 
particularly troubling given that we know from multiple Bureau of 
Justice Statistics analyses that hate crimes are underreported by 
around 90 percent.
    The data is clear. Terrorism from the far-right is more frequent, 
deadlier, and has been increasing in recent years. There is left-wing 
violence, but it does not in any way compare with the volume and 
deadliness of far-right violence. These numbers justify the conclusions 
reached by Federal agencies that countering far-right domestic 
terrorism must be the priority in law enforcement and other efforts, 
such as those outlined in President Joe Biden's 2021 National Strategy 
for Countering Domestic Terrorism. There is no evidence to conclude 
that left-wing organizations and individuals or their associated 
violence should be a priority in the battle against political violence.
  importance of assessing the threat of political violence accurately
    For policy reasons, it is critical that responses to political 
violence line up with the available evidence of where the threat is 
most dire. Through administrations of both parties after the 9/11 
attacks, far-right violence was ignored as the focus moved entirely to 
Islamist extremism, obviously also a very serious threat, but not the 
only one. Just 6 years prior to 9/11, Timothy McVeigh, inspired by a 
neo-Nazi race war novel and anti-Government militias, committed the 
largest domestic terrorist attack in American history up to that time. 
But the reality of such violence was forgotten in the wake of 9/11. 
Taking our eye off far-right violence meant that agencies that protect 
us from political violence were understaffed and lacking in expertise 
as far-right attacks began to metastasize during the Obama 
administration.
    But there was a deeper problem in this reluctance to accept rising 
far-right violence as a growing threat. Emblematic of this was the 
Obama administration's decision to withdraw a DHS report in 2009 that 
correctly anticipated that this type of violence would be on the rise. 
In the wake of multiple attacks on the DHS report by conservatives, the 
Washington Post reported that DHS ``cut the number of personnel 
studying domestic terrorism unrelated to Islam, canceled numerous State 
and local law enforcement briefings, and held up dissemination of 
nearly a dozen reports on extremist groups.'' Obama officials also did 
not seem to understand the new landscape they were facing. During its 
February 2015 White House summit on countering violent extremism, Obama 
only mentioned one far-right attack, Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City 
bombing. Just a few months later, white supremacist Dylann Roof killed 
9 in a Black church in Charleston, SC. And shockingly, just 2 weeks 
after the Charleston massacre, the House Committee on Homeland Security 
released a Terror Threat Snapshot that contained no mention of 
Charleston or the threat of far-right terrorism.
    Because of a politicized refusal to confront the available data on 
the source of the threat, Federal agencies were completely unprepared 
for the mass attacks and far-right violence that has exploded in recent 
years. And today, the head-in-the-sand attitude toward far-right 
extremism continues to be a problem. A 2022 report from the Senate 
Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee determined that 
although DHS and FBI have identified white supremacist and other far-
right violence as ``the most persistent and lethal terrorist threat,'' 
the Federal Government has continued to prioritize Islamist terrorist 
threats when allocating resources. Facts must be the basis of analysis 
and lead policies that can protect the American people from the actual 
threats they face.
    Officials, predominantly Republican, who refuse to accept that data 
shows far-right extremism is most connected to terrorism are misleading 
the public. Research has shown that most Americans understand extremist 
violence inaccurately, largely along partisan lines. For example, a May 
2022 YouGov poll measured whom Americans blame for extremist murders. 
The poll asked people to assess whether extremist murders were 
committed by left-wing or right-wing extremists and found that only a 
fraction of Americans viewed one side as more likely to engage in such 
violence. Most 2020 Trump voters said that more than half of murders 
linked to extremism were committed by left-wing actors, a view likely 
shaped by such things as Trump falsely claiming antifascist groups 
stormed the Capitol on January 6, have been responsible for 
considerable violence, and ``antifa'' should be labeled a terrorist 
organization. Most Democrats and Biden voters were better informed, 
saying right-wing extremists were more likely to commit extremist 
murders. In total, only 18 percent of respondents agreed with what 
facts tell us, that almost all extremist murders were a function of 
far-right actors. Another 21 percent said that more than half were. 
Given the relevant data, many Americans, particularly those on the 
right, have been seriously misinformed about the nature of political 
violence and the fact that it is mostly perpetrated by those on the far 
right.
    This obfuscation and disinformation about the real threats our 
country faces from the far right comes with a price. It has hampered 
efforts to address extremism in the military, misinformed the public on 
what happened on January 6, the most serious attack on our democracy, 
and impeded bipartisan efforts to investigate the attack, and thus how 
to prevent further such situations, and left communities targeted by 
the far right vulnerable to violence. The latter is particularly 
inflamed by politicians and far-right activists who endorse the white 
supremacist ``Great Replacement'' conspiracy theory, a shameful fact 
considering how this idea has spawned terrorist attacks against Jews, 
Latinos, Black people, and others in the United States and abroad.
    Accurately and honestly assessing terrorist threats is of vital 
importance to protecting the safety of our communities, our national 
security, and our democracy. If the subcommittee's Republicans cared 
about keeping Americans and our law enforcement professionals safe from 
extremist violence, this hearing would address the significant threat 
from the far right. Hearings designed to fuel disinformation are 
unworthy of our elected leaders, a waste of taxpayer resources, and 
dangerous.

    Mr. Ivey. I would ask to offer this joint intelligence 
bulletin. This is ``Some Domestic Violence Extremists Adopt 
Boogaloo and Accelerationism Concepts To Justify or Promote 
Violence.''
    Chairman Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The document has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Ivey. Ms. Spitalnick, I don't know if you are familiar 
with the Boogaloo and Accelerationism concepts. They were new 
to me, but I was wondering if you could expound on and talk 
about how they are connected to these issues.
    Ms. Spitalnick. Absolutely. Look, the Boogaloo Boy 
movement, which became more prominent in the public discourse 
in 2020, is a deeply anti-law enforcement, anti-Government, 
right-wing extremist movement. It specifically came to 
prominence in summer of 2020 when there were some extremists 
affiliated with the Boogaloo movement who murdered two 
California law enforcement officers. This movement specifically 
believes in the idea of inciting a civil war. Some of them 
identify as white supremacists, some of them don't, but they 
are all part of this broader right-wing, anti-Government, 
extremist movement. I think it's indicative of the broader 
anti-law enforcement sentiment that exists among many right-
wing extremists.
    All you need to do is look at what happened here on January 
6 to understand that the law enforcement injured, and some who 
ultimately died from those injuries that day, weren't 
accidental, they weren't collateral damage, they were 
considered a target by many of the insurrectionists on January 
6. So it's important to be very clear-eyed about the anti-law 
enforcement sentiment that exists among many of these right-
wing extremists.
    Mr. Ivey. All right. Then I wanted to--I have got another 
article here that--it is called ``Alleged Leaker Fixated on 
Guns and Envisioned Race Wars.'' This is an article from the 
Washington Post dated May 14. I would like to offer this for 
the record as well.
    Chairman Bishop. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
               Article Submitted by Honorable Glenn Ivey
        alleged leaker fixated on guns and envisioned `race war'
By Shane Harris, Samuel Oakford, and Chris Dehghanpoor
Updated May 14, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. EDT/Published May 13, 2023 at 6 
        o'clock a.m. EDT
    Jack Teixeira, dressed in camouflage fatigues, his finger wrapped 
around the trigger of a semiautomatic rifle, faced the camera and spoke 
as though reciting an oath.
    ``Jews scam, n--rs rape, and I mag dump.''
    Teixeira raised his weapon, aimed at an unseen target and fired 10 
times in rapid succession, emptying the magazine of bullets.
    The 6-second video, taken at a gun range near Teixeira's home in 
Massachusetts, affords a brief but illuminating glimpse into the 
offline world of the 21-year-old National Guard member, who stands 
accused of leaking a trove of classified military intelligence on the 
group-chat platform Discord.
    Previously unpublished videos and chat logs reviewed by The 
Washington Post, as well as interviews with several of Teixeira's close 
friends, suggest that he was readying for what he imagined would be a 
violent struggle against a legion of perceived adversaries--including 
Blacks, political liberals, Jews, gay and transgender people--who would 
make life intolerable for the kind of person Teixeira professed to be: 
an Orthodox Christian, politically conservative and ready to defend, if 
not the government of the United States, a set of ideals on which he 
imagined it was founded.
    Teixeira's love of guns, which first drew him to an online 
community of friends, was intertwined with a deep suspicion of the 
government that he served as an enlisted member of the Air National 
Guard. But Teixeira did not consider himself a whistleblower, according 
to friends.
    By the time of his arrest, filings by Federal prosecutors show that 
Teixeira had amassed a small arsenal of rifles, shotguns and pistols, 
as well as a helmet, gas mask and night-vision goggles, all under the 
roof of the house where he lived with his mother and stepfather. The 
Post obtained and verified two videos taken at their home in Dighton, 
Mass., where the FBI arrested Teixeira last month.
    Filmed from the shooter's perspective, the first video shows a 
person identified by a Discord user as Teixeira firing an AR-style 
weapon into the forest. Another video shows the gunman firing a pistol 
into the woods behind Teixeira's home, including two rapid volleys that 
suggest the weapon may have been modified. It isn't clear what legal or 
illegal modifications Teixeira may have made, though devices like 
binary triggers and typically illegal auto sear accessories can make 
semiautomatic guns fire quicker than they are designed to shoot. A 
separate photograph shows an AK-style weapon resting on a table outside 
the family home next to a helmet with attached night-vision goggles.
    For Teixeira, firearms practice seemed to be more than a hobby. 
``He used the term `race war' quite a few times,'' said a close friend 
who spent time with Teixeira in an online community on Discord, a 
platform popular with video game players, and had lengthy private phone 
and video calls with him over the course of several years.
    ``He did call himself racist, multiple times,'' the friend said in 
an interview. ``I would say he was proud of it.''
    The friend, like others on the server, spoke on the condition of 
anonymity to avoid being associated publicly with Teixeira, who faces a 
potential sentence of 25 years in prison. The friend gave a video 
interview to The Post and requested that their face be obscured and 
their voice modified.
    In the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, Teixeira told friends 
that he saw a storm gathering. ``He was afraid they would target White 
people,'' his friend said. ``He had told me quite a few times he 
thought they need to be prepared for a revolution.'' The friend said 
Teixeira spoke approvingly of Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager who shot 
three people, two fatally, during protests that summer in Kenosha, 
Wis., claiming that he had acted in self-defense. A jury acquitted 
Rittenhouse of five counts, including intentional first-degree 
homicide, in 2021.
    Teixeira's preparations for civil chaos weren't limited to arms; 
knowledge was also power. His job as a computer technician at Otis Air 
Force Base, on Cape Cod, gave him access to the Pentagon's network for 
top-secret information, where, according to his friends, Teixeira 
viewed thousands of classified documents on a vast range of topics, 
from the war in Ukraine to North Korean ballistic missile launches to 
attempts by foreign governments to interfere in U.S. elections. 
Teixeira shared some of this intelligence bounty with a band of about 
two dozen people in a Discord server he came to control called Thug 
Shaker Central. (The server's name, the most often used of several, is 
a racist allusion.) Teixeira's goal, they said, was to reveal truths 
that powerful people had hidden from ordinary ones.
    Teixeira wanted his online companions, many of them teenage boys, 
to ``be prepared for things the government might do, reinforcing to 
them that the government was lying to them,'' said the close friend, 
who was also a member of the server. Beginning in 2022, the year after 
Teixeira was granted a top-secret government security clearance 
following a standard background investigation, he began posting 
classified documents in the server, first typing them out by hand and 
later uploading photographs of printed documents bearing classification 
markings and restrictions on their distribution. He also shared video 
from the base, showing friends on the server where he worked and 
allegedly secreted away classified intelligence.
    The Post obtained hundreds of documents, as well as text messages, 
that Teixeira shared on the server over the course of several months. 
Teixeira's lawyers declined to comment. Teixeira, who remains in 
Federal custody, has not entered a plea.
    Teixeira occasionally augmented his leaks with sober analysis. He 
once confidently predicted that China ``will be trying to avoid 
sanctions and appease us in the near term'' in light of new laws and 
regulations aimed at blunting the country's semiconductor manufacturing 
industry.
    But Teixeira's missives also revealed a conspiratorial streak.
    ``Recently a Al-Qaeda sympathizer moved nearby my area, immigrant 
and we're finding more about their organization,'' he wrote in October 
2022, apparently referring to the U.S. Government. ``Any sand n--r like 
that we will watch them[.]''
    On Discord, an account with the handle ``Jack the Dripper,'' one of 
Teixeira's known monikers, shared an image titled ``payback,'' showing 
a large passenger jet careening toward the Kaaba in Mecca, Islam's 
holiest site.
    Teixeira asserted that ``lots of FBI agents were found to have 
sympathized with the Jan 6 rioters,'' and he said naive members of the 
intelligence community, of which he was technically a part, had been 
``cucked.'' He referred to mainstream press as ``zogshit,'' 
appropriating a popular white-supremacist slur for the ``Zionist 
Occupied Government.'' Friends said that during live video chats, 
Teixeira expounded on baseless accusations of shadowy, sinister control 
by Jewish and liberal elites, as well as corrupt law enforcement 
authorities.
    ``He had quite a few conspiratorial beliefs,'' the close friend 
said, adding: ``I remember him multiple times talking about things like 
Waco and Ruby Ridge, and talking about how the government kills their 
own people,'' referring to a pair of notorious armed standoffs that the 
far right has held up as emblematic of government oppression.
Polarized by the pandemic
    Already united by their love of guns and their Orthodox Christian 
faith, two members of Thug Shaker Central said their nascent political 
beliefs became hardened and more polarized during the isolation of the 
pandemic. Unable to see their local friends in person, the young 
members spent their entire days in front of screens and came under the 
influence of outsize online figures like Teixeira. Some on the server 
saw him as an older brother--others, friends said, like a father 
figure.
    The Post obtained previously unpublished screenshots from the 
server and recordings of members playing games together. Racist and 
antisemitic language flowed through the community, as did hostility for 
gay and transgender people, whom Teixeira deemed ``degenerate.'' The 
line between sarcasm and genuine belief became increasingly blurred. On 
video calls, users held up a finger, jokingly imitating members of 
ISIS. In their rooms were flags associated with Christian nationalism 
and white power.
    In interviews, some of the members struggled to explain worldviews 
that had developed largely online, and expressed remorse. Several 
admitted they had become radicalized during the pandemic and were 
influenced by Teixeira, whose own politics seemed animated by social 
grievances and an obsession with guns.
    The members may have sensed they were treading into dangerous 
political waters, even before leaked classified documents started 
circulating. During video chats, some hid their faces behind masks, 
fearful of being publicly identified with a group of self-professed 
bigots, Teixeira's close friend said.
    After he enlisted in the U.S. Air National Guard in September 2019, 
Teixeira also feared that his own racist and violent statements would 
jeopardize his chances of getting a security clearance. ``He was 
worried something from Discord would come up during his interview,'' 
said the friend, who met him when the application was still pending. 
Teixeira changed his online handle to an innocuous version of his 
surname and became ``less active'' in the community for a time, the 
friend added, in an effort not to create more incriminating evidence.
    But Teixeira already had an offline record that arguably should 
have raised concerns for the officials who approved his security 
clearance. In March 2018, Teixeira was suspended from his high school 
``when a classmate overheard him make remarks about weapons, including 
Molotov cocktails, guns at the school, and racial threats,'' according 
to a Justice Department filing last month that argued Teixeira should 
remain in jail while he faces charges under the Espionage Act stemming 
from his alleged leaks.
    Federal prosecutors noted that, according to local police records, 
Teixeira claimed that he had been talking about a video game when he 
made the alarming comments. But other students disputed that 
characterization, prosecutors said. And Teixeira's close friend, who 
knew him after he had graduated high school, said he had confessed to 
wanting to take a gun to school and carry out a shooting.
    ``He had told me multiple times about when he was younger, his 
desire to shoot up his school,'' the friend said. ``He hated his 
school.''
    ``To my knowledge, he never hurt anyone physically, but he 
absolutely talked about it pretty often,'' the friend added. Other 
friends confirmed Teixeira talked about attacking his school, but they 
said they didn't take his threats seriously.
    It remains unclear how Teixeira obtained a clearance and what 
consideration, if any, adjudicators gave to his history of violent 
remarks.
    Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman, said Teixeira is subject to 
``potential discipline,'' considering he was working under active duty. 
After the Air Force concludes an investigation, she said, a commander 
will determine if Teixeira should face charges in the military. The 
service is coordinating closely with the FBI in the leak investigation, 
she said.
    Teixeira remains an airman first class, a low-ranking enlisted 
service member, as he awaits trial on the leaking charges.
    The military has, in the past, struggled to track down individuals 
who have espoused racist or white-nationalist ideologies. Service 
members have faced charges that include dereliction of duty and 
misconduct for racist rants.
    After Teixeira got his privileged access, he sought out another 
official license that had eluded him: a firearms identification card, 
which, in the State of Massachusetts, permits the possession of ``non-
large-capacity rifles, shotguns, and ammunition.''
    Teixeira's application had been turned down in 2018 due to the 
concerns of local police about his violent remarks at his high school, 
court records show. But in a letter to a local police officer in 2020, 
Teixeira argued that his new career in the Air Force, and the security 
clearance that came with it, demonstrated his trustworthiness.
    ``I now represent much more than myself and need to watch what I 
say and do both in public and in private, as it affects more than just 
myself,'' Teixeira wrote in November 2020. He allegedly began divulging 
classified information online a little more than a year later.
A second server
    The pandemic refuge of Thug Shaker Central wasn't the only place 
Teixeira appears to have spilled protected information.
    According to court documents and online records reviewed by The 
Post, Teixeira posted intelligence on another Discord server as early 
as February 2022. This community of gamers contained hundreds of 
people, exposing official secrets to a much larger audience than his 
tight circle of friends, who said they understood they should keep the 
classified documents to themselves.
    The server, called Abinavski's Exclusion Zone, is associated with a 
YouTube streamer who plays the video game War Thunder, known for its 
realistic models of tanks, fighter jets and other military vehicles. A 
member of the server, who asked not to be identified, said a user 
believed to be Teixeira posted intelligence in a channel called 
``civil-discussions,'' usually in a running thread.
    Abinavski's Exclusion Zone remained active this month. When The 
Post reviewed the server on Tuesday, it listed 627 members, of whom 150 
were online at the time.
    On April 6, a Discord user informed Teixeira that he had seen 
material he believed the service member had shared show up on another 
social media platform, Telegram, in a channel devoted to pro-Russian 
topics.
    ``Is it actually one of them btw,'' the unidentified user asked, 
according to court documents.
    ``Not commenting,'' Teixeira wrote in reply. The user then asked, 
``[D]id you share them outside of abis,'' an apparent reference to 
Abinavski.
    In chat logs made public by prosecutors, Teixeira repeatedly makes 
reference to ``the thread'' where he had posted material starting in 
2022. In a March 19, 2023, exchange, Teixeira wrote that he'd ``decided 
to stop with the updates,'' thanking ``everyone who came to the thread 
about the current event,'' an apparent reference to the Russian 
invasion of Ukraine that had begun a year earlier.
    ``I was very happy and willing and enthusiastic to have covered 
this event for the past year and share with all of you,'' Teixeira 
wrote, in comments that match messages the New York Times first 
reported he had made on that date in what it identified as a second 
server but didn't name as Abinavski's Exclusion Zone. In an email to 
The Post, Abinavski said a user believed to be Teixeira left the server 
in early April.
    Abinavski said the civil-discussions channel had a thread for 
conversations around the Ukraine war, created roughly the time Russia 
invaded. ``Members confirmed with me . . . that photos of documents 
were posted'' to the channel, Abinavski said.
    The YouTuber added that Discord deleted the civil-discussions 
channel on April 24 after ``multiple members'' received notices from 
the company.
    In a statement, a spokesperson for Discord said: ``We have removed 
content, terminated user accounts, and are cooperating with the efforts 
of the United States Departments of Defense and Justice in connection 
with this incident.''
    ``In this instance, we have banned users involved with the original 
distribution of the materials, deleted content deemed to be against our 
Terms of Service and issued warnings to users who continue to share the 
materials in question,'' the spokesperson added.
    As classified documents began popping up across the internet, 
Teixeira asked an unnamed user to help him delete en masse the posts 
that Teixeira had made in civil-discussions, according to court 
documents. ``If anyone comes looking, don't tell them shit.''
    But the leak that led the authorities to the young National Guard 
member appears to have come not from Abinavski's larger group but 
within Teixeira's trusted circle. The classified information that 
showed up on Telegram, and later circulated more broadly online, came 
from a young Thug Shaker Central member, several other members of the 
server said, who broke the club's unwritten rule not to share the 
documents and set off a chain of events that led to Teixeira's arrest 
the following month.
Moving from online to IRL
    The civil-discussions channel gave Teixeira a large audience. But 
in Thug Shaker Central, he seemed to feel he was in a more intimate 
environment, able to share his love of guns and express his political 
views to a sympathetic audience. Teixeira posted videos and photographs 
taken at his mother and stepfather's home in Dighton and clips he 
recorded at the nearby gun range, where Teixeira made his ``mag dump'' 
video.
    Teixeira developed an offline relationship with at least one friend 
on the server: Henry Adams, 18, who lives with his family about an 
hour's drive from Dighton in Hanover, Mass.
    Three former members of Thug Shaker confirmed Adams's identity, as 
well as his close ties with Teixeira and activity on the server. An 
attorney for Adams, Max Perlman, confirmed that his client knew 
Teixeira for ``around 3 years,'' bonding over shared interests. Through 
his attorney, Adams denied being a member of Thug Shaker Central, 
claimed to be unaware of its existence and said he had never seen any 
``illicit material'' posted by Teixeira on any server.
    According to a former member of the server, Adams tried to obtain 
support for Teixeira following his arrest. Asked if Adams had contacted 
anyone on the server, Perlman said his client had spoken ``to one minor 
individual and asked for letters of support because Mr. Teixeira's mom 
ask[ed] him to see if people would do that and get them to his 
lawyer.''
    Perlman said Adams and Teixeira visited a shooting range in 
Raynham, Mass., ``many, many times,'' accompanied by Adams's mother, 
Lisa, his father, Richard, or Teixeira's biological father, Jack 
Michael Teixeira.
    Reached by phone, Adams's mother didn't dispute that her son knew 
Teixeira. But she denied that he was active on Thug Shaker Central and 
said he ``saw nothing.''
    Referring to Teixeira, she asked, ``When did serving your country 
and being a Christian become a bad thing?''
    Attempts to reach Jack Michael Teixeira were unsuccessful.
    Additional videos obtained and verified by The Post showed Teixeira 
and Adams at the gun range, owned by Taunton Rifle and Pistol Club. In 
one, Adams fires a Soviet-era SKS rifle. In another, Teixeira fires a 
pump action shotgun.
    The club president, Eric Dewhirst, confirmed that the footage was 
taken at the members-only facility. In an interview at the 
organization's clubhouse, Dewhirst said there was no record of Teixeira 
being a member, suggesting that he and his friend were probably taken 
there by someone else. Dewhirst, who said he had read about Teixeira's 
alleged crimes and his life online, described the 21-year-old as 
``young and head full of mush.''
`He absolutely enjoyed gore'
    When Teixeira wasn't firing guns in the real world, he was playing 
with them online.
    ``He played a lot of video games, mostly shooters,'' his close 
friend said, noting that Teixeira preferred games from the shooter's 
point of view.
    Teixeira's gaming and political cultures overlapped, the friend 
observed. ``Once you start getting into the more niche video games, a 
lot of those communities are much more conservative. I think he found a 
small place where his views got echoed back to him and made them 
worse.''
    The interest in video games and conservative politics was 
accompanied by an acute obsession with violence, the friend said. ``He 
would send me a video of someone getting killed, ISIS executions, mass 
shootings, war videos. People would screen-share it, and he would laugh 
very loudly and be very happy to watch these things with everyone else. 
He absolutely enjoyed gore.''
    Friends may not have taken seriously Teixeira's threats against his 
high school. But he voiced approval of some shooters, particularly when 
they targeted people of different races and faiths. Teixeira was 
especially impressed by a gunman's rampage at two mosques in 
Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019, which left 51 people dead and 40 
injured. ``He was very happy that those people died,'' the friend said, 
because they were Muslim. The shooter live-streamed his massacre as 
though he were in a video game.
    The line between condoning violence and making light of it was 
slippery. When Teixeira was waiting on approval of his security 
clearance, he told his friend that he was particularly concerned that 
``jokes'' he had made in the server might surface about ``shooting up 
buildings'' and ``wanting to kill government agents.'' These were 
frequent subjects of amusement.
    ``Most of the jokes he would make were about the ATF,'' the friend 
said, referencing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives, the Federal Government's premier gun control agency and a 
bete noire of the far right.
    ``He was very against gun control. And so he would talk about 
wanting to kill ATF agents or when ATF agents would show up to his 
house, like theoretically preparing your house so that they would die 
in some strange trap.''
    In arguing that Teixeira should remain in jail while he faces 
charges, Federal prosecutors pointed to his threats of violence in high 
school. But among online communities whose members hold ``more 
extremist conservative views,'' the friend said, ``it's really common 
to joke about killing government agents like that, so it never seemed 
worrying to me.''
    Teixeira's alleged hostility toward the government doesn't explain 
his motivation for disclosing classified information. Other convicted 
leakers, including those like Teixeira who served in lower-level 
positions but had some of the highest levels of security clearance, 
were self-described whistleblowers trying to check perceived abuses or 
wrongdoings. Teixeira was trying to impress, and apparently mold, a 
group of teenagers.
    ``I think he did think it made him special,'' the close friend 
said. ``I think there was a part of him that felt like he was cool or 
important because he got that access.''
    For the teenagers Teixeira had taken under his wing, the classified 
documents offered an education about how the world secretly worked. 
``He wanted to be seen as someone who's powerful or looked up to,'' the 
friend said. ``He wanted them to be what he thought was the ideal, the 
ideal man.''
    Dalton Bennett, Evan Hill, Alex Horton, Andrew Ba Tran, Alice 
Crites, Nilo Tabrizy, Jon Gerberg and Dan Lamothe contributed to this 
report.

    Mr. Ivey. The point I wanted to make on this one, because I 
didn't know this was there, this is about Jack--I think it is 
pronounced Teixiera, who is the individual who worked in 
national security, stole documents, and then leaked them to the 
public. Apparently what motivated him was--I will just read a 
little bit here--Jack Teixiera, dressed in camouflage fatigues, 
his finger wrapped around the trigger of a semiautomatic rifle, 
faced the camera and spoke as though reciting an oath, ``Jews, 
scam, n-word, rape, and mag dump''. Then he used his weapon 
aimed at an unseen target and fired it ten times, emptying the 
magazine. The article goes on to talk about his interactions 
with the group of young men that he shared these documents 
with. Preliminarily he wasn't apparently planning to release 
them to the public, but he did release them to these friends, 
and they got out eventually. Then a little later in the 
article, it talks about his comments about the Black Lives 
Matter protest. He told his friends he saw a storm gathering. 
One friend said he was afraid they would target white people. 
He had told me quite a few times he thought they need to be 
prepared for a revolution.
    So I guess there is a commonality here, actually traits all 
the way back to McVeigh and beyond, about sort-of an 
apocalyptic vision about what is going to happen with the 
United States, the second Civil War and the like, that sort-of 
leads to these kinds of dangerous responses. Teixiera didn't 
actually kill anybody, but many of the people that we are 
talking about today did. It seems to me that that is an 
important line of distinction to draw when we are trying to 
separate out these issues.
    But at the end of the day, and as I said at our last 
hearing, Mr. Chairman, I think there is a good hearing in here 
somewhere with respect to how the Homeland Security Committee 
can address these types of problems and move forward.
    Mr. Erickson, you raised concerns about the Government 
issuing information and responding to false information, 
misinformation. That is fine. I have a different view on some 
of these, but I think there is a point where, especially if it 
is drawing a distinction about who is politically right or 
making those kinds of evaluations, I do think there are 
definitely scenarios where the Government can and should be 
issuing information, especially where it creates, I will say, a 
clear and present danger with respect to the community.
    I do share your view that it should be addressed 
consistently, and by that I mean violence, especially murder, I 
think should be prosecuted as such. I think vandalism and other 
types of crimes should be prosecuted as such. I think the point 
of the testimony I have heard so far today and the data we 
presented was there is a clear distinction between the right-
wing extremism violence, which has been in many instances, 
results in homicide, sometimes targeting police. I think what 
you all have said with respect to Antifa and the like, that 
tends to be vandalism, theft. I think there is some arson and 
property crimes, but different. But at the end of the day, I 
think we need to address both.
    So with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Bishop. I thank the Ranking Member for the 
ecumenical sort-of concession there. I appreciate that. I think 
the gentleman's style is one that I appreciate.
    With that I recognize Ms. Greene for 5 minutes of 
questioning, second round.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just while we have been sitting in this committee room 
having this hearing today about left-wing extremism and 
violence, literally as we were being gaveled in, we experienced 
some left-wing extremism of our own on the second floor of this 
building while we have been in here. The Center for Popular 
Democracy invaded our office building this afternoon to push 
their extreme agenda on everything from climate to the debt 
ceiling. Approximately a dozen were arrested while we were 
sitting in this hearing room. Thankfully, my staff brought over 
pictures to share with you all. This happened right here in the 
rotunda of the Cannon building while we were sitting here in 
this hearing, having this hearing on left-wing extremism. I 
mean, you kind-of can't even make this up, but George Soros 
funded it. It is the open society that funds this group. Here 
they are being arrested by Capitol Police. We really appreciate 
their work. Here they are being loaded into the vans, 
thankfully, and here are some of their signs that they left 
here in the Cannon building. I don't know if we call that an 
insurrection, left-wing extremism, violence, I am not sure what 
we call it.
    But I would like to remind--or I would like to remind 
everyone that while we are talking about white supremacy, Ms. 
Spitalnick, you were talking about white supremacy----
    Ms. Spitalnick. It's Spitalnick.
    Ms. Greene. Oh, I apologize, Spitalnick. Ms. Spitalnick, 
while you were talking about white supremacist in abortion, I 
totally agree with you. There are a lot of white supremacists 
in the abortion movement and abortionists, because they have 
murdered over 20 million black babies in America since Roe 
versus Wade in 1973. That is on average 900 black babies are 
aborted, they are ripped apart inside their mother's wombs. So 
I would agree with you, that could be labeled white supremacy, 
or we could just label it murder. It should never be happening. 
So if you want to talk about white supremacy and the abortion 
movement, you should really analyze that in your human rights 
groups that you run as you collect donations from people with 
your nonprofit. Because I think that is something extremely 
important to talk about, is the right for those black babies to 
have lives as American citizens, the right for them to be born, 
the right for them to be given a chance to live as free 
Americans instead of murdered.
    You think this is funny, Ms. Spitalnick? Is this funny to 
you? Is babies being murdered in the womb funny to you? Because 
you are smirking and laughing at me right now.
    Ms. Spitalnick. What's not funny are the black people and 
Hispanic people and Jewish people and Muslim people who have 
been murdered in synagogue, in church, in supermarkets, in 
mosque, by white supremacists.
    Ms. Greene. Are you aware that all color people are 
murdered? That is a fact. That every single color person has 
been murdered. That is not unusual. It is not just that people 
of color are murdered. White people are murdered, too. Murder 
is not just for minorities. That may be a shock to you because 
you seem to dive deeply into all kinds of misinformation and 
seem to be uninformed yourself.
    But if you are going to talk about white supremacy and 
abortion, you need to study very hard about who the targets 
are, and it is not just black women and it is not just black 
babies, it is Hispanics as well. I think that is important for 
you to understand.
    If you apparently care about human rights and you care 
about studying extremism, let's have a little talk about 
extremism, shall we? I think that is important because that is 
what this hearing is all about? I would like to inform you--or 
maybe you don't know, maybe you do know--I doubt it, you mostly 
care about white supremacists and white wing extremism, but 
there is quite a pattern of left-wing, violent protest on 
college campuses today. Ms. Gaines here was the victim of it. 
Do you support what they did to Ms. Gaines, these trans 
terrorists chasing her into a room? Do you support their 
movement?
    Ms. Spitalnick. I am absolutely sorry that Ms. Gaines felt 
threatened and unsafe while she was on a college campus, and 
that is not acceptable. But again, the statistics tell us that 
when it comes to politically-motivated violence in 2022 was 
committed by a right-wing extremist.
    Ms. Greene. Every single murder in America was committed by 
a right-wing extremist?
    Ms. Spitalnick. Every single politically-motivated murder 
was committed by a right-wing extremist.
    Ms. Greene. Are you sure about that?
    Ms. Spitalnick. I am----
    Ms. Greene. Are you aware that the Tennessee shooter just 
recently identified as a man, and she was a biological woman? 
Was she a right-wing extremist as well?
    Chairman Bishop. The gentlelady's time has expired. I will 
allow the witness to answer the question.
    Ms. Spitalnick. So that was a shooting that happened in 
2023.
    Ms. Greene. OK.
    Ms. Spitalnick. There is no evidence as to what ideology 
motivated that shooting. What we do know is that cisgender 
males are responsible for the vast majority of mass shootings 
in this country.
    Ms. Greene. I am sorry, I don't know what a cisgender male 
is. There are only two genders, it is male and female. That 
would be--so one knows what a cisgender male is. It is a made-
up idea.
    Ms. Spitalnick. Unfortunately, the anti-trans invasion 
language that you've been using----
    Chairman Bishop. The gentlelady from Georgia yields back.
    Ms. Spitalnick [continuing]. Does nothing but normalize the 
issues we're talking about here today.
    Chairman Bishop. I recognize Mr. Strong for his 5 minutes 
of questioning. I beg your pardon, Mr. Ezell. I missed you over 
there. Thank you.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Erickson, as a sheriff and a police chief and a law 
enforcement professional, I believe this day in history that 
the police are better trained and better equipped and better 
prepared than any time in our history. The attack on law 
enforcement is nothing new. We have been attacked many times 
over the years that we have policed this great country. What is 
new is a lack of support that has come to us from the Federal 
Government, namely this Biden administration.
    Law enforcement officers work many long hours and to 
protect their communities. It has been very disheartening to 
see what has come out of Washington over the last several years 
and the major cities in this country. This should be concerning 
to all Americans. Could you speak to some of these effects, how 
they have affected the ability to recruit and retain police 
officers?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes, absolutely. Everything you've said is 
correct. I've said it before. I think we're facing a 
generational crisis in recruiting and retention. Not just major 
cities in this country, but communities of all sizes are having 
a more and more difficult time getting qualified young folks to 
enter into the profession. There's a lot of reasons why, in no 
small measure, it has to do with the negative atmosphere that's 
been born out of this more modern incarnation of the anti-
police movement. There have been anti-police movements over 
decades and decades, but the modern movement began probably 7, 
8 years ago and it's had a debilitating effect on recruiting 
and retention. You can understand why.
    But compounding that, you have the problem with a lack of 
support throughout the arc of the criminal justice system. Law 
enforcement is only the first part of that justice system. So 
you can arrest all the people you want, if prosecutors aren't 
going to charge them and they are going to be let out, that has 
a demoralizing effect on the profession. Again, it's sort-of a 
self-fulfilling cycle where it keeps feeding into itself.
    So it's a huge problem. I think we need to change the tone 
and the rhetoric about how we describe law enforcement across 
the board. I think we need to universally support and uphold 
the work that they're doing and make sure that they're funded 
and resourced appropriately.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you very much.
    We can all agree on that, you know, our law enforcement 
needs continually-updated training. This is a very complex time 
that we are living in. Law enforcement is being required to do 
more than we have ever been asked in my 42-year history as a 
law enforcement officer. I think that is something that we have 
got to come together on, is that the police officers get up 
every day and go to work to serve their community. They work 
long hours, they get tired just like everybody else. But during 
some of these protests and some of the things that we have seen 
around the country, the police are baited, they are pushed. 
Sometimes it is not very easy to respond in what people would 
think is a normal manner if you feel your life is threatened.
    So what I just want everybody to understand is that law 
enforcement in this country is here for everybody in this room. 
What I will say about some of these extremists on both sides, 
they need to be put in prison. They need to be left in prison 
so they won't be out here terrorizing the good citizens, the 
taxpayers, and the hardworking people of this community. I 
think we could come to some sort of understanding on both sides 
about enforcing the law, charging people, giving them a trial, 
getting it done so that we can better protect society.
    Again, Ms. Gaines, I would like to commend you for your 
bravery, thank all the witnesses for being here today and let's 
figure this thing out. Let's get something done.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Bishop. I wonder if the gentlemen would yield to 
me individually before yielding back the--the remaining minute 
of your time?
    Mr. Ezell. Yes, I do, I yield back to that Chairman.
    Chairman Bishop. I thank you, sir.
    First thing, without objection, Ms. Greene will submit for 
the record the four photograph of the events she indicated were 
recorded earlier today in this building with the arrests of 
people who were intruders or protesters or whatever.
    [The information follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    

    Chairman Bishop. Ms. Gaines, the 30 seconds we have got 
left, and I think I focus on you. We see sort-of the nature of 
the dialog and politics that we are having right here and I 
guess I would say--again, I would join the others in commending 
you for your courage and ask you if you have any closing 
thoughts, in case I don't get another chance, to speak to what 
you think about the ability to have a dialog when we are 
calling each other the most horrific names and how we get to 
the right result.
    Ms. Gaines. Because I do think that the majority of people 
in this room agree on the same things, we all want everyone to 
be safe, we all want this sense of fairness. So it's kind-of 
discouraging for me being 23. I always kind-of joke and say I 
was naive before the Lia Thomas stuff, specifically. I wish I 
could go back to being naive of just how this system really 
works. It is pretty heartbreaking--and that's not to one side 
or the other--just seeing the kind-of going for the throats. I 
understand to a degree, but I think we all want the same thing. 
So I feel like we should be able to create solutions that--I 
know we can't appease everyone, that's very evident, but 
appease majority of people and keep majority of people safe.
    Chairman Bishop. Thank you, ma'am, for that.
    With that, I recognize for his second round 5 minutes of 
questioning, Mr. Strong.
    Mr. Strong. Ms. Gaines, as a father I can't imagine what 
happened that day in that dressing room. Your day started with 
a man that was average at best in the sport of swimming, then 
claiming to be a woman or a transgender, changing in front of 
you and your teammates. Then your day ended with a man that 
tied you for the fastest time being awarded first place by the 
NCAA. As a young lady, you were failed at a bunch of different 
levels. It is unbelievable what you have been through. I 
commend you and your family for being here today.
    I yield the rest of my time to Ms. Greene from Georgia.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Strong.
    I would like to continue back with talking about left-wing 
extremism. I think it is very important, this issue.
    I would would like to remind everyone here in the summer of 
2020, the protests and violence in major cities all over the 
country were so intense, it caused over $2 billion in damage in 
America. This was Nation-wide in cities all over our country. 
The far left groups that occupied Portland were there for over 
100 days, causing over $2 million in damage to the Federal 
buildings and local businesses. Seattle protesters claimed 
several blocks, literally took it over in a neighborhood that 
they called Capitol Hill Autonomous Zones, or CHAZ, which is 
something that no one can comprehend how an Antifa group and 
left-wing extremist group can come in and literally take over 
city blocks.
    I just wonder Ms. Spitalnick--I am sorry--a senior advisor 
on extremism at Human Rights First, which is a nonpartisan 
organization--nonpartisan--have you studied Antifa?
    Ms. Spitalnick. No, I have not studied Antifa, but I am 
aware of the research that those who do study extremism across 
the spectrum has done that tells us that while, yes, on the 
left, there is oftentimes to the extent left-wing violence 
exists, it tends to be focused on property damage and other 
acts along those lines, whereas on the right, for the most 
part, the violence tends to be manifesting in the sort-of 
deadly mass acts of violence that we've been talking about here 
today.
    So first and foremost----
    Ms. Greene. I reclaim my time, I reclaim my time. Thank 
you.
    You are with a nonpartisan organization, nonprofit, which 
means you raise money in a nonpartisan fashion for extremism 
and human rights. So you don't consider property damage--for 
the American people, by the way--I am a business owner, it is 
really hard to run a business, especially if the entire 
neighborhoods and area get set on fire night after night, the 
police officers are attacked, they are attacking Federal 
courthouses, and making the entire community literally 
unlivable. It is hard to have customers come in your store, 
especially when you own a store or maybe you have a Wendy's 
franchise that gets burned to the ground. So you don't consider 
that worth studying, the property damage and all of the 
violence that happens to the American people? I would think 
that you consider that something worth studying and caring 
about, especially in a nonpartisan organization.
    Ms. Spitalnick. Absolutely there is left-wing violence that 
does exist in certain ways. But the point that I am making is 
that we cannot draw false equivalencies between property damage 
and the death of people by mass shooters who are targeting them 
based on their race, their religion, or other characteristics.
    Ms. Greene. Well, what about their job or their profession, 
like being a police officer? We could talk about the city of 
Atlanta. That is the State I am from. I am from Georgia, as a 
matter of fact. There is an Atlanta Public Safety Training 
Center in Atlanta. The Atlanta City Council has proposed a $90 
million--that is taxpayer-funded, by the way--$90 million from 
the taxpayers for the protection and the safety of the city of 
Atlanta. Well, this Antifa group has come in there and decided 
to take it over because they call it Cop City. You want to talk 
about human lives? Well, it seems to be that being a police 
officer is a target for Antifa because they actually murdered 
someone there. They actually murdered a police--oh, you don't 
know--that is right, because you don't study left-wing 
extremism from your nonpartisan, so-called nonprofit. But let 
me tell you about it. There was a 26-year-old activist, Manuel 
Teran, shot and killed Georgia State Patrol Trooper there. That 
was this year--you are right, not last year, it was this year. 
So left-wing extremism is definitely on the rise, and murder is 
a big part of it.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentlelady yields back.
    I recognize Mr. Crane for his 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rosas, you spent a lot of time embedded on the ground 
in protests and riots throughout the unrest in 2020, including 
in Portland, Seattle, Kenosha. While most people in the protest 
march come with the intent of exercising their First Amendment 
rights, it seems that there is often a faction intent on taking 
advantage of the protest to engage in violence.
    Could you please describe some of the tactics you have seen 
left-wing groups employ in preparing to confront police?
    Mr. Rosas. So the common thing is to first initially arrive 
and organize in a peaceful way. We saw that in Portland. I saw 
that. They would organize themselves in the park right across 
from the Federal Courthouse, but then as time would go on, more 
and more people would start to try to tear down--they had the 
fence up by them, so they would try to tear down the fence, 
they would try to start fires, they would try to breach the 
perimeter. So I know Congresswoman Clarke was bemoaning the 
response to it, but from what I saw, the Federal officers that 
were protecting the Federal Courthouse, they only came out 
after the rioters attacked the courthouse first on those 
nights.
    Mr. Crane. Did you see anything to indicate that the 
violence in some of these situation was planned in advance?
    Mr. Rosas. Absolutely. I mean they are--again, when we're 
talking about Portland, they would have people organized to do 
specific jobs. Sometimes, again, there would be the arsonists, 
they would have people with umbrellas to try to counteract the 
40 millimeter less-than-lethal projectiles, they would have--
because they were using tear gas, the officers, they would have 
people with leaf blowers to try to blow away and direct the gas 
back. So they basically had, as you know, basically an MOS, 
military occupational specialty, during those times.
    Mr. Crane. How did the members of Antifa communicate with 
each other to coordinate and plan their attacks?
    Mr. Rosas. Again, a lot of it's through social media, a lot 
of it's through just regular phones and encrypted chats. One of 
the reasons why I personally do not livestream any of the riots 
that I covered is because they actually even have kind-of like 
a cyber intel unit, because they would watch the livestreams 
and if somebody wasn't--if there was a livestreamer who wasn't 
aligned with them or who was willing to actually show their 
their violent acts, they would tell the people on the ground 
that, hey, this person is here. They would be able to pinpoint 
where they are based on the livestreams. It is pretty much that 
sophisticated.
    Mr. Crane. Can you talk to us real quick about some of the 
weapons and tools that you have seen used? Also tactics 
employed by these Antifa groups?
    Mr. Rosas. So outside of Molotov cocktails, I mean, again 
in Portland, there was an actual IED thrown, not just a large 
grade firework, but an actual improvised explosive device 
thrown at the Federal courthouse. They would use crowbars, 
hammers, metal pipes, basically anything. Sometimes they would 
be armed with handguns. I saw that in Kenosha. So it's a wide 
range of weaponry. The reason why they like blunt instruments 
is because you often see them with backpacks, so they're able 
to quickly take the hammer or crowbar out of the backpack, do 
damage, or attack somebody with it, and then put it back. Since 
they're all wearing black, then kind-of blend in back in the 
crowd, so it's harder to--if they were caught on video, it's 
harder to pinpoint who it was.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you.
    Mr. Erickson, is it true that you were a law enforcement 
officer for a while?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes.
    Mr. Crane. Does it bother you, as somebody who wants to 
protect all people, to see law enforcement and protection 
become bipartisan and polarized--or partisan, I should say?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes, law enforcement officers--I never went 
to a call and asked somebody what their political registration 
was before I helped them. They're there to do their job. 
They're trying to keep communities safe. They don't want to get 
sucked into the partisan debate. They just want to do their 
jobs.
    Mr. Crane. Yes. When you were serving as a law enforcement 
officer, was that before or after the defund the police 
movement?
    Mr. Erickson. That was before.
    Mr. Crane. That was before.
    Mr. Erickson. Correct.
    Mr. Crane. What do you think about that whole defund the 
police movement?
    Mr. Erickson. I mean, I thought it was asinine. It made no 
sense. Politically, it made no sense. logically, it made no 
sense. But I didn't really make much of it other than 
disappointment that it actually manifested in the cutting of 
some budgets. I thought people had more common sense than to go 
down that path.
    Mr. Crane. Yes, common sense isn't so common, is it?
    Mr. Erickson. It depends.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you.
    I yield back my time.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentleman yields back.
    We will proceed to--for those interested, we will proceed 
to a third round of questioning. I will pass, though, to the 
Ranking Member, Mr. Ivey, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Ivey. There were some comments about law enforcement, 
and I guess the theory is that police departments across the 
country are having trouble hiring because of defund arguments 
and difficult environment and the like. We had another hearing 
from this morning, and the chief from I think--I believe it was 
Odessa, Texas, came in, and consistent with what other members 
of law enforcement have said, the primary focus of what he 
talked about was pay. His point was the area where he lives, 
they have oil and gas fields, you can start working for oil and 
gas, and a young individual can work his way up to making 
$100,000 in relatively short period of time whereas at the 
police department, A, he said that you have to be 21 to be 
hired. So a lot of these young men take jobs right after high 
school, and so by the time they are old enough to be hired by 
the police, it is too late, they have already gone into other 
fields, and they pay a lot less than these young men can earn 
in the law enforcement profession.
    So he also noted that when somebody asked, he pointed out 
that that was never an issue where he is. It is just 
unrealistic. He said they had strong support from the community 
and the prosecutors.
    So I do want to be careful about sort-of trying to make 
this a unanimous point across the country. There are lots of 
places in the country where people are having trouble hiring 
police for the same reason people are having trouble hiring in 
other professions. Sometimes it is the money, sometimes it is 
the nature of the work. But it is not because--not universally 
at least for sure--of some kind of defund the police movement.
    I did want to point out too, and we have talked a lot about 
defund the police, but my Republican colleagues are talking a 
lot about defunding the police, but they are the ones 
sponsoring legislation to not just defund the ATF, but 
eliminate it entirely, not just to defund the FBI, but to 
eliminate it entirely. The Republican front-runner for 
President right now has called for the entire elimination of 
the Department of Justice and the FBI. So your former boss, I 
guess, Mr. Erickson.
    So to the extent we really want to engage in those 
conversations, I think we should be careful about it.
    The people again on the panel from this morning--and the 
panel this morning was about reducing crime at the State and 
local level. They--all across the board, all three of the law 
enforcement officials said, yes, we have good partnerships with 
the Feds, we work with them closely. The gentleman from Odessa, 
Texas pointed out that he had a great working relationship with 
the Assistant U.S. Attorney in I think he said the Western 
District of Texas. Now this is the Biden Department of Justice, 
but it doesn't matter because at that level of what they are 
doing, they are able to work their cases together and fight 
crime in a coordinated way.
    They also noted that it was helpful to them for the Federal 
funding that they are getting. I think they were talking about 
Byrne grants primarily, but there is $350 million that has been 
made available in many instances to smaller police departments 
like the ones in my jurisdiction. I have a county police 
department that has like 1,000 officers, but we have multiple 
municipal police departments that have like 10 officers on the 
department. It is very valuable to have that kind of Federal 
funding to help them with getting equipment and also hiring. 
Some of them need bonuses to attract law enforcement and the 
like.
    So I think it is important for us to make sure that we are 
not missing the big point on these issues.
    With respect to, again this topic--and Ms. Gaines, I think 
your testimony--I think there is definitely a hearing waiting 
for you. I sit on the Judiciary Committee. That is probably 
where it should be because--addressed by those types of laws 
that are fall in the jurisdiction of that committee. So maybe 
you will pass that along to Mr. Jordan and he will have a 
hearing to that effect. But to the other issues, I think it is 
pretty clear that yes, it is clear that we have violent 
extremism in the United States. There are ideological roots for 
that that we need to address. I think that to some extent it is 
on the left, it is sort-of a different set of roots to those 
problems. But clearly the ones on the right, we can tell what 
those issues are, and Ms. Spitalnick has talked about those and 
I think we need to try and address those quickly so we don't 
have other big major shootings. Or we try and address them as 
quickly as we can.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Bishop. I thank the Ranking Member for yielding 
back.
    I will recognize myself for 5 minutes and use it as the 
opportunity to say I think the original event that inspired 
this hearing on left-wing violence was the Antifa attack on the 
police facility in development in Atlanta. Because for me, it 
was so out of nowhere, kind-of. I mean, we we have gotten 
accustomed to seeing this in certain parts of the country, but 
it is showing up other places. Maybe it has been my own narrow 
horizon. I have seen that it has been everywhere.
    But I noticed Mr. Goldman said earlier when he was here 
that--I think he sort-of denigrated what happened down there, 
saying charges range from something to assault. I don't 
remember what he said. But actually I turned around to staff 
because what I remembered, and what staff then confirmed, is 
that all 23 people arrested there were charged with domestic 
terrorism. They got domestic terror charges. That is a pretty 
big deal. That either means somebody's overcharging or I think 
more likely, given the stuff that we saw, Molotov cocktails and 
stuff like that, this is crazy stuff.
    Again, I appreciate, Mr. Ivey, some of the comments you 
have had, but the tenor, of course, a number of comments on the 
other side, people outraged that we are looking at this. They 
can always question about whether it is worth a hearing or not. 
But it doesn't denigrate the idea, Mr. Crane, to your point, 
that there is this crazy white supremacy sort-of motivated 
violence out there that has cost lives. I don't denigrate that 
in any respect. I do think it is problematic, with all due 
respect, Ms. Spitalnick, to set to suggest that all 
conservatives are white supremacists, hence they are inspiring 
that. I mean, by the same token, everybody who embraces trans 
ideology, sponsored the woman who--or the person--I don't I 
remember which one, frankly--who in Nashville killed a bunch of 
people. I don't think--in fact, this whole concept we have 
heard talked about in various hearings of stochastic terrorism. 
You heard that phrase? Stochastic terrorism. The idea that if 
you engage in very normal spectrum debate, advocacy for views, 
you are somehow inspiring some person down the road to engage 
in extremist violence. I think that is dangerous to the 
conception of our free speech and the way we--but let me go to 
you, Mr. Erickson, for just a second here.
    It seems to me this fundamental pillar of our democracy is 
the rule of law. Yet I see--you know, I think about--it is 
funny, the Trump administration is always taken to task. In 
fact, Trump himself is called a white supremacist by my 
colleagues on the other side, and yet they also say it was 
Trump's Department of Homeland Security that identified right-
wing or white supremacist extremists--and I always got to 
formulate this right--as you say, it is the most lethal 
domestic terror threat to the homeland, I think is how they put 
it. But for some reason--but what do you see the long-term 
consequences if we can't even have a hearing to examine this 
type of violence in that so that the country will be aware of 
the challenges we face?
    Mr. Erickson. Well, I mean I think the long-term 
implications of a lack of candor in this topic could be very 
disastrous. I mean, our democracy is predicated upon us being 
able to discuss difficult issues and do so in a respectful way, 
acknowledging that there are two sides to a coin or 
acknowledging that the spectrum of an issue can be broad and 
wide. A lot of what I saw today was folks mentioning one side 
of the violence. I think the point of this hearing, and I 
applaud the majority for doing this, is that we have to 
acknowledge all sides. For the past couple of years, there's 
been scant conversation about left-wing violence coming, at 
least from the Federal Government. Left-wing violence is not 
just vandalism. I was in Portland every single night. As Mr. 
Rosas alluded to, these domestic terrorists were not just 
destroying the Hatfield Federal Courthouse, but our Federal law 
enforcement who were in the courthouse were literally--they 
literally attempted to light them on fire and to burn the 
building down with them in it. It was only at that time that 
they would leave the building to try and apprehend the people 
that were doing that. This was not vandalism. This goes far 
beyond that. So to simply say, well, 22 people died in 2022, 
and it was all because of right-wing extremism, and to say that 
means that left-wing extremism is not a problem, that's the 
problem. That's the problem here that we're facing right now in 
Congress. We have to talk about this holistically Mr. Ivey. 
Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Chairman Bishop. I have only got 10 seconds, but yes, I 
will. You mean to him?
    Mr. Ivey. To you. Your point about the domestic terrorism 
charges in Georgia. They were made under State law. There is no 
Federal statute that is domestic terrorism. Would you consider 
working with me to put together a domestic terrorism bill that 
we could pass that would apply at the Federal level on both 
sides and would focus primarily on the more serious crimes? 
Minor stuff could be left at the State level. Would you be open 
to that?
    Chairman Bishop. Mr. Ivey, I would be willing to work with 
you on anything. I think you are a great gentleman and I think 
that topic is worth consideration.
    One concern I have, and I think one reason we haven't 
gotten there, is because for the phenomenon that I see here, 
which is to the extent the phrase terrorism or the word 
terrorism is used as a tool to smear or paint half of the 
polity, half of the American people as though they are somehow 
complicit in, it is problematic. But to the extent we need 
tools to get at what actually constitutes terrorism, to stop 
it, that is something that we ought to be able to cooperate on.
    Mr. Ivey. Well, just along those lines, I mean, my 
understanding of this is that part of a definition would be 
statutory, and that usually what happens is there is deference 
given to whether it is the State Department or another 
department to make a determination as to which groups would 
fall into that category. But I would be willing to work with 
you on that.
    Chairman Bishop. As you say, it might be in another 
committee's jurisdiction. We can talk about it.
    We can find a way to get it here.
    Chairman Bishop. My time has expired.
    Then so I think the right thing for me to do now is 
recognize Mrs. Greene of Georgia for her 5 minutes.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    I agree with the committee and I agree with our witnesses 
that extremism and violence and political murder and all of 
this is absolutely wrong, no matter what side of the aisle it 
is on. But I think it is important to inform one of our 
witnesses today, Ms. Spitalnick, that you need to study your 
facts more, especially since your group is nonpartisan and your 
paycheck, I am sure, is funded by people that donated to your 
group. That is, again, as you are the senior advisor on 
extremism at Human Rights First.
    Actually, there were 25 Americans killed at the hands of 
Black Lives Matter and Antifa, and we can call them domestic 
terrorists. I think that is an appropriate word. Antifa was 
certainly charged with domestic terrorism charges in Georgia, 
my home State, and rightfully so. Then one of the victims can 
we go back to that? Thank you. Is Captain David Dorn. Captain 
David Dorn. I don't think--unless Antifa is a white supremacist 
group--Mr. Rosas, you have done a lot of studying on Antifa. 
Are they a white supremacist group? Antifa BLM?
    Mr. Rosas. Not in the traditional sense. I say that because 
a lot of the people that I'm able to see, they are white and 
when they do commit acts of vandalism or they've attacked 
minorities. So, I mean, that could be, but I guess with what 
you're trying to ask, not in----
    Ms. Greene. Not in a traditional sense, but most of them 
are white, and they are attacking minorities.
    Mr. Rosas. In the neighborhoods and businesses they're 
terrorizing, yes.
    Ms. Greene. Right. Minority neighborhoods and businesses, 
which should be talked about more. I mean, Black Lives Matter 
raised millions and millions of dollars, and then there are 
protests that turned into violent riots, causing property 
damage, but to your knowledge, has BLM ever paid any money to 
rebuild those minority communities that they destroyed?
    Mr. Rosas. Not to my knowledge.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you.
    Mr. Erickson, do you know of any effort of BLM or Antifa to 
spend the money that they have to rebuild these communities?
    Mr. Erickson. I'm not familiar with any of those.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you.
    I think, as we are talking about left-wing extremism that 
continues today, it happened today in this building while we 
are having this hearing, which remember the headlines that seem 
to be forgotten because the major focus of Democrats here in 
this city, the major focus from many people on the left is 1 
day in history, which is January 6. But I think it is really 
important to remember all of the violence and unrest and 
unbelievable threat to human lives.
    Ms. Spitalnick, remember, you care about human lives. These 
headlines right here talk about human lives. Human lives are 
important to you, is that correct, Ms. Spitalnick?
    Ms. Spitalnick. That is correct. Which is again why we need 
to be clear-eyed about the threat while not ignoring the fact 
that left-wing violence exists, as you point out, but 
recognizing that when it comes to politically-motivated 
violence, all of the statistics, including from Trump's own 
Department of Homeland Security, says white supremacist and 
other far-right extremism is the most persistent and lethal 
threat.
    Ms. Greene. Right. So today is white supremacist and 
abortion is the most lethal threat to black babies, with over 
20 million being murdered in the womb, 900 a day.
    Ms. Spitalnick. What we established is that white 
supremacists are----
    Ms. Greene. I reclaim my time, Ms. Spitalnick, I reclaim my 
time. Thank you.
    But what you can see here is 47 arrested, 59 officers 
injured, 5 officers hurt, violent BLM protests in New York, 
leaving 2 New York police cops injured, 11 arrested, Portland 
officers injured, New York police department chief injured 
while making arrest, more than 700 officers injured.
    Let's go to one more identity that seems be targeted more 
than any other identity in past times, which is now a woman 
like Riley Gaines, the female athlete. Any woman fighting for 
her right to have privacy, to change her clothes without a man 
in there, to have the privacy to compete. Thank God Riley 
Gaines was not murdered when she went to that college campus 
that day.
    So, Ms. Spitalnick, I would ask, with your nonpartisan 
nonprofit that you run and you care about human rights, I would 
hope that you care about Riley Gaines and other women because 
they are the new target of political violence.
    Thank you. I yield my time.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentlelady yields back.
    I recognize Mr. Strong for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Strong. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. I 
have stayed at this committee hearing out of respect of what 
Ms. Gaines has gone through in an effort to fairly compete in 
sports as a female athlete.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentleman yields back.
    This time I recognize Mr. Crane for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rosas, I noticed that you wanted to respond to 
something that one of my colleagues said about you a little 
while ago. I would like to give you time to go ahead and do 
that.
    Mr. Rosas. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
    Well, I think it's funny to be lectured by an heir to the 
Levi Strauss Corporation and that--honestly that's probably why 
he doesn't consider property damage to be that big of a deal 
because not only does he have that, but he also has what some 
would describe an impossibly good stock portfolio.
    But what I can tell you is that in these riots that 
happened 3 years ago, yes, big corporations did suffer damage 
and looting, such as Target, what happened in Minneapolis. But 
a lot of the businesses, they were small businesses. They 
didn't come from multimillion-dollar families or corporations. 
So the fact that they had to not only deal with the completely 
unnecessary COVID restrictions that were happening during that 
time--so their bottom line was already being hit by that, but 
then when you add on now having to replace lost inventory or to 
repair damage or in some cases completely lose your entire 
business--that happened to a family that I know in Kenosha--I 
mean you're taking away people's ability to live, to have a 
livelihood. A friend of mine said that taking away someone's 
job like that is just a baby step away from murdering them 
because how else are they supposed to support themselves?
    So I think it was absolutely disgraceful for Congressman 
Goldman to try to just denigrate my title because it's not just 
a title, I've earned it because I was there chewing the dirt in 
these dangerous situations. I didn't see him in any of those 
places. I was there in New York covering New York City, 
covering some pretty violent protests there. I'm also not just 
a writer, but I served honorably in the Marine Corps Reserves 
and I was very proud of that.
    So that's just typical elitist thinking and that's why a 
lot of people hate Washington, DC and honestly, I don't blame 
them.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you for your service, Mr. Rosas. We 
appreciate it.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Bishop. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Pfluger for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
ability to waive onto this committee and participate in this.
    This morning in this same committee room we held a hearing 
on our appreciation for law enforcement during National Police 
Week. It was very disturbing to hear colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle saying that this was not going to be 
something that was politicized and immediately hearing them 
launch into attacks on one type of violence, but not on all 
types of violence.
    I would like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a 
document here which goes into the discussions of colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, including Representative Maxine 
Waters, who said, let's make sure we show up wherever we have 
to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a 
restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you 
get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and 
you tell them they are not welcome here anymore. Another State 
senator from Missouri saying, I hope Trump is assassinated, and 
on and on and on. But these are elected officials. I would like 
to submit this for the record.
    Chairman Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
        Document Submitted For the Record by Hon. August Pfluger
            prominent democrats encourage political violence
   Rep. Maxine Waters called on Democrats to physically 
        intimidate President Trump's Cabinet officials in public: 
        ``Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And 
        if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a 
        department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you 
        create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them 
        they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ McKenna Moore, Rep. Maxine Waters Tells Supporters to Harass 
Trump Cabinet Members, Fortune (June 25, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ``I hope Trump is assassinated,'' Missouri State senator 
        Maria Chappelle-Nadal posted on her Facebook. The post was 
        serious enough that the Secret Service was called onto 
        investigate.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ U.S. Lawmaker Chappelle-Nadal's Trump assassination post 
investigated, BBC (Aug. 18, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Former Attorney General Eric Holder said at a 2018 campaign 
        event in Georgia to ``kick'' Republicans: ``No, no, when they 
        go low, we kick 'em. That's what this new Democratic Party is 
        about.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Aaron Blake, Eric Holder: ``When they go low, we kick 'em. 
That's what this new Democratic Party is about.'' Wash. Post (Oct. 10, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Minority Leader was surprised there 
        aren't uprisings regarding policies toward asylum seekers at 
        the Mexican border: ``I just don't even know why there aren't 
        uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be when 
        people realize that this is a policy that they defend,'' she 
        said. ``It's a horrible thing, and I don't see any prospect for 
        legislation here.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Douglas Ernst, Nancy Pelosi wonders why there `aren't 
uprisings' across the Nation: `Maybe there will be', Wash. Times (June 
14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Speaker Pelosi called President Trump ``an imposter'' and 
        said it is ``dangerous'' to allow American voters to evaluate 
        his performance in 2020.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Emily Tillett, Nancy Pelosi says Trump's attacks on witnesses 
``very significant'' to impeachment probe, CBS News, Nov. 15, 2019; 
Dear Colleague Letter from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Nov. 18, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Rep. Ayanna Pressley said there needs to be `unrest on the 
        streets' due to unfounded theories the U.S. Postal Service was 
        disenfranchising voters: ``You know, there needs to be unrest 
        in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Harriet Alexander, ``Squad'' member Ayanna Pressley sparks 
anger by calling for ``unrest in the streets'' in response to threats 
to the postal system, Daily Mail (Aug. 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez characterized migrant 
        detention facilities as ``concentration camps'' ICE facilities 
        were attacked afterwards: ``The United States is running 
        concentration camps on our Southern Border, and that is exactly 
        what they are--they are concentration camps.'' ``And if that 
        doesn't bother you . . . I want to talk to the people that are 
        concerned enough with humanity to say that we should not, that 
        `never again' means something,''\7\ Since Ocasio-Cortez's 
        comments, four ICE facilities have been targeted by left-wing 
        extremist groups: Tacoma, WA, San Antonio, TX, Washington DC, 
        and Aurora, CO.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Caroline Kelly, Ocasio-Cortez compares migrant detention 
facilities to concentration camps, CNN (June 18, 2019).
    \8\ Chrissy Clark, Gun Fired into office marks fourth attack on ICE 
in past month, FEDERALIST (Aug. 14, 2019).

    Mr. Pfluger. Let me start by saying that any type of 
violence is absolutely horrible, should not go 1 second without 
people on both sides of this dais condemning it. It does not 
matter what the reason is, it doesn't matter who the person is. 
It should be condemned. Unfortunately, we are here in this 
hearing because that has not happened. We have seen first-hand 
the devastation that violence has caused in this country on any 
side of the political spectrum, and it is not OK. But 
specifically, I have been disappointed to not see left-wing 
extremist groups who have not been condemned by my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle in some cases. Instead of 
prosecuting or holding violent criminals and individuals 
accountable, some within our society have made excuses for 
this, and it is unacceptable.
    I want to say to our witnesses, thank you for being here, 
for standing up and showing us your courage.
    I would like to focus a couple of questions and ask Ms. 
Gaines to respond.
    The evening that the attack on you happened, I think the 
whole country thought, how is this possible? You have had the 
courage to speak out on an issue that is very personal to you. 
I have three daughters and to think about the issue that you 
are talking about and standing up for what you believe in, the 
freedom of speech, the First Amendment protects your ability to 
do that, and yet San Francisco State University President Lynn 
Mahoney wrote a letter sympathizing those who attacked you. I 
can't imagine how that has made you feel. I know how it has 
made me feel.
    Ms. Gaines. No, we have used the term domestic terrorists a 
lot in this hearing and that is constantly something I get 
called by these same left-leaning protesters who--again, for 
simply saying, women deserve fairness, we deserve safety, and 
we deserve respect. I get called a domestic terrorist all the 
time. So this term for me, maybe I have a skewed perception of 
what it means, but yes, it has been--I don't know, again, it's 
just disheartening to be in the position I'm in, feeling like 
I'm asking for the bare minimum, feeling like I'm asking for 
something that is so simple that we all are entitled to, yet 
I'm being held hostage.
    There's one more piece I wanted to mention about this night 
that I haven't really touched on. I briefly touched on it in my 
testimony, but the verbiage outside the room when I was still 
giving my speech, these protesters--the video doesn't do a good 
job showing of just how many were in these stairways. I mean, 
it was hundreds of people. But these people, they were outside 
the rooms. One side of the hallway would yell, trans rights are 
under attack. The other side would yell back, what do we do? We 
fight back. They kept using the term we fight back. So after 
I'd finally been barricaded and I was in this room for--why do 
they keep saying we fight back? We've talked a lot about this 
stemming from the top in regards to Trump and January 6 and 
Tucker Carlson giving the license to people to basically do 
whatever they want. But we're not talking about this on this 
side of it because the day before this incident at San 
Francisco State, the Biden administration press secretary had a 
press release, a press conference, where she says, word for 
word, our trans community is resilient, and they fight back. I 
find it so ironic they were using the exact same verbiage, we 
fight back. They kept saying it continuously.
    So I wanted to put that on the record because we've talked 
about it a lot stemming from the top on the other side. But I 
think it's crucial to understand that that goes both ways.
    Mr. Pfluger. Well, Ms. Gaines, thank you for your courage. 
Thank you for standing up for what you believe in. Any sort of 
threats or violence or intimidation is despicable. It has no 
place in our society.
    To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, real 
courage lies in being able to stand up even when it is not 
popular and even when you may not agree with it, but being able 
to stand up to a bully, and that is what this is, this is about 
a bully in our society for a narrative that some don't agree 
with. It doesn't matter which side you stand on, but you have 
stood up to that bully. I applaud you for doing that. The 
country is watching you and your leadership, and we appreciate 
what you are doing.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and 
standing up to a bully. We should all condemn any violence that 
happens. I think that that is exactly what this hearing is 
about.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Bishop. Well done, Mr. Pfluger.
    The gentleman yields back.
    I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the 
Members for their questions.
    The Members of the subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses and we would ask the witnesses 
respond to these in writing if asked.
    Pursuant to committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will 
be open for 10 business days.
    Again, with my thanks, the committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]