Countering Domestic Violent Extremism in the Ranks: Barriers to Recruitment Screening
Researchers at the RAND Corporation released new survey data indicating that a surprising percentage of veterans agree with extremist ideologies espousing political violence (approximately 17 percent). While the percentage is lower than among civilians surveyed (approximately 19 percent), the findings are surprising given the oath of office that service members take to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Yet as useful as this new dataset is, it is limited in scope to veterans only and does not account for those in active-duty military and law enforcement ranks. In other analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, veterans account for “10% of all domestic terrorist attacks and plots since 2015.” Comprehensive survey data, however, regarding the extent of violent extremist ideology across the ranks of service members, law enforcement professionals, and veterans of those communities does not exist, as far as we have been able to determine. In part, such survey data is difficult to collect given the potential risks to an individual’s employment should their identity be revealed.
Third, it’s hard to say because, simply, for those who work in the national security and law enforcement communities, simply acknowledging the presence of any sympathy for DVE among those in uniform (regardless of its prevalence) carries reputational risk and the potential for political blowback and accusations of “wokeness.”
As a result, it is challenging to develop policies to address a problem that is both difficult to quantify and dismissed as irrelevant politically, to say the least.
Cordero and Kuzminski add:
While current policy targets all DVE (regardless of ideological or political leanings), our research conversations indicate that there is a perception that these policies target individuals with right-leaning political views. This perception is likely a result of the fact that, historically, left-leaning extremist individuals (for example, those associated with animal rights or eco-terrorism groups) do not generally pursue military or law enforcement careers. Thus, while the policies and practices are intended to mitigate all DVE participation (whether far right or far left), the practical reality is that they are more likely to impact right-leaning extremists who participate in the military and law enforcement at higher rates than left-leaning extremists.
Moreover, the issue of preventing DVE within the military has become an increasingly contentious topic in Congress.
Based on our consultations with experts in and out of government, we assess that the impact of the Senate Committee on Armed Services report and political backlash against Defense Department efforts substantially curbed additional policy work on the issue of DVE both within the department and throughout agencies and departments across the federal government.
Developing policies and practices to root out DVE in the ranks is not a uniquely American challenge. But the hostility to working on the issue does appear to be presently an American issue. Earlier this year, one of us (Cordero) briefed a convening of law enforcement and security professionals and academic participants, hosted by the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law, in Malta. The U.S. government was represented by the U.S. State Department, which sponsored the event, and the U.S. Justice Department. International partners included security service and law enforcement personnel from across Europe, as well as from New Zealand and Australia. Representatives from the other countries did not report a similarly difficult political environment; instead, policies and practices appeared to be developed and implemented simply from a nonpolitical security professional perspective. The most forceful and persuasive presentation on the historical imperative of rooting out DVE from security service ranks was presented by the German government’s senior security service official, because the official conveyed the historical responsibility that the current generation of Germans in government leadership positions have assumed due to the Nazi era and the Holocaust.
They conclude:
In the modern information environment, effective development of DVE prevention policies and best practices depends, in part, on effectively screening the online behavior of potential applicants and recruits through social media vetting. Addressing the barriers outlined above, it is unlikely in the near term that the political appetite for active social media screening practices or legislation—or the requisite appropriations necessary to implement social media screening—will change. As a result, federal agencies will need to work within the confines of existing budgets and programs established for high-quality recruitment. Meanwhile, the impact of the Supreme Court’s consideration of the Biden v. Missouri case should not be underestimated. Since the Supreme Court’s decision will not be issued until the end of the current term, government agencies will be wary of expanding interactions with technology platforms while the case is pending.
In the meantime, the area where perhaps efforts can make the most progress is in the improvement of the environment for law enforcement and military recruitment. A new executive order creating a federal interagency security committee to ensure better protection of federal government buildings, released on Nov. 27, is a tangential but important and helpful development. This order is intended to improve security for federal facilities, which will thereby improve security for the federal law enforcement personnel who choose to serve. Notably, the origins of the new order date back to acknowledgment of the need for improved federal facility security in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. While tangential to standards and vetting for recruitment, accountability for federal facility security affects the physical safety and security of law enforcement officers all across the country. And while political disagreements may persist regarding the best policies and practices for new recruit screening, a bipartisan consensus does exist regarding the need for quality recruits in the military and law enforcement professions. An increase in the pool of desirable recruits for both military and law enforcement services can allow for a highly selective process and ensure that all candidates considered meet the highest standards.
