ARGUMENT: BEYOND THE OATH KEEPERSWhat Does the Seditious Conspiracy Indictment Mean for the Oath Keepers?

The Oath Keepers, one of the leading anti-government movements in the United States – it boasts a purported membership in the thousands — is facing an existential threat. The group is already under pressure from the arrests of dozens of its foot soldiers related to their efforts to breach the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Jon Lewis and Seamus Hughes write in Lawfare that the Department of Justice has now raised the stakes with the seditious conspiracy charges filedon Jan. 12 against the Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes.

“Given that escalation, it’s worth taking a look at the history of Rhodes’s involvement in the Oath Keepers and what his prosecution might mean for the future of the organization and the broader anti-government movement,” Lewis and Hughes write.. 

Rhodes established himself as a polarizing individual in the far-right ecosystem when he founded the Oath Keepers in 2009. Like a modern-day, extremist Forrest Gump who finds himself in a mix of significant historical events, Rhodes has been explicitly or tacitly involved in nearly every major anti-government event in the past decade. 

He established the Oath Keepers as a vanguard for the burgeoning anti-authority movement in the United States, which saw a number of high-profile events in the past 10 years, from the Bundy Ranch standoff and Ferguson protests to the Sugar Pine Mine operation and the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. As Rhodes’s fame grew, the organization added hundreds to its membership rolls and raised considerable funding off the cult of his personality. 

….

Previously, Rhodes walked a fine line between fiery ideas and violent action. That line will now be tested. The indictment against Rhodes and his co-defendants represents not just a potent message from the Justice Department and a precedent-setting criminal charge but also an attempt to address head-on extremist leaders who incite their followers to live the ideology they preach through violent acts.

Lewis and Hughes note that most of the 700 or so individuals who have been charged for breaching the Capitol Building were charged with relatively minor offenses, but that “the prosecution of Rhodes and his co-defendants serves to elevate these Oath Keepers to a new tier of criminal conduct, into territory far more significant than trespassing, assault or obstruction of a congressional proceeding. This indictment may also serve as a warning to other high-level members of domestic violent extremist movements who allegedly engaged in similar conspiracies, including Proud Boys leaders such as Ethan Nordeanand Joseph Biggsand potentially Proud Boys president Enrique Tarrio.”

Lewis and Hughes write that the prosecution of those who committed crimes on Jan. 6 is not enough:

the ongoing Jan. 6 prosecutions have set in motion cascading disinformation narrativesthat have been latched onto by significant and diverse sections of the far right. As such, it is crucial not to mistake the downfall of a single organization—no matter how prominent—for success against a burgeoning and invigorated “Patriot”/militia movement. The reaction to Jan. 6 in the far-right echo chamber underscores the need to focus on the narrativesand mobilizing conceptsthat serve to inspire and mobilize a diverse range of violent actors in the United States today.

The authors conclude:

The anti-government movement in America is not based on one man or even one organization. There will be more extremist leaders like Stewart Rhodes in the future. However, the most recent prosecution may set the precedent of how to handle those who come after him.