ARGUMENT: Extremism How a New Administration Might Better Fight White Supremacist Violence

In the last four years, violence linked to white supremacy has eclipsed jihadi violence as the predominant form of terrorism in the United States, the Brookings Institution’s Dan Byman writes. Beyond high-profile terrorist attacks in the United States like the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue and 2019 El Paso Walmart shootings, white supremacists have also tried to seize on the protests following George Floyd’s death to foment chaos.

Byman dds:

President Trump himself has often downplayed white supremacist violence, but U.S. bureaucracies are slowly moving forward despite discouragement or indifference from on high. In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new report that elevated the importance of white supremacist violence. In 2020, the State Department designated the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM), an ultranationalist white supremacist group, as a terrorist organization — the first time the State Department ever designated a white supremacist group as such. Such steps, however, are only the first of many that need to be taken.

What might a new administration do to more effectively target white supremacist violence? Byman highlight seven areas in which the new administration may want to take action:

·  One of the most obvious steps is to correct the resource imbalance between jihadi and white supremacist violence. Because jihadi violence was a dominant national security concern after 9/11, even within the FBI and DHS, which primarily have a domestic mandate, far more personnel focused on jihadi violence. In part because of this resource allocation, suspected jihadi violence was far more likely to be preempted, countered with sting operations, and involve federal charges. Some of these resources need to move to counter white supremacist violence.

·  New laws, including making domestic terrorism a federal crime, formally designating domestic terrorism organizations as is done for international groups, and having the FBI director launch a national domestic terrorism “case” to allow more resources and information sharing.

·  Ensuring police services and the U.S. military are free from the taint of white supremacy should be a high priority.

·  U.S. leaders need to incorporate social media companies as major players in the fight against white supremacy. Platforms are more cautious with regard to white supremacists than they are with jihadis, fearing political backlash, even though the algorithms of at least some platforms favors inflammatory content from conservative accounts.

·  Action overseas is another important step for fighting terrorism at home. Many U.S.-focused white supremacist networks today have global connections, and attacks like the Christchurch, New Zealand shootings inspired Americans to kill in the name of white power. 

·  A new president should push to delegitimize not only white supremacist violence, but also the voices that openly support it — there are not “very fine people” on both sides. 

Finally, Byman notes the role Russia plays in promoting white nationalism and violent far-right extremism:

·  In addition to strengthening cooperation against white supremacists overseas, the U.S. government should take the lead in fighting states that exploit their extremism, notably Russia. The Russian regime and its supporters have loose ties to a number of white supremacist groups, particularly in Europe. In addition, Moscow conducts regular information operations to polarize U.S. sentiment, sow discord, and weaken the legitimacy of U.S. institutions, making it easier for white supremacists to recruit.

“Such steps will not end the threat of white supremacy,” Byman writes, but “prioritizing white supremacist terrorism and acting vigorously to disrupt it will limit the danger.”