Is the FBI’s Misstep on Domestic Terrorism Investigations Fueling Division in America?
Are we truly tackling the issues that terrorize Americans, or are we missing the mark? This question opens up a critical conversation about how violence—both ideological and random—impacts our society and what we can do to address it effectively.
Here’s the full discussion from Thom Hartmann’s conversation with Mike German, a former FBI special agent and expert on far-right extremism, who raises serious concerns about how we handle domestic terrorism and violence. Watch the video below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGtbf1Ifwdk
What Terrorizes Americans?
America spends considerable energy focusing on foreign threats and ideology-driven violence, but are we ignoring domestic sources of terror? Active shooter drills in schools are a stark reminder of how internal violence impacts daily life. While many school shootings aren’t ideologically motivated, they still terrorize families and communities just as much—if not more—than larger, politically charged acts of violence.
This leads to a broader question: shouldn’t the definition of “terrorism” include anything that causes widespread fear and instability within the country, rather than focusing only on particular motives? This narrow view might be why problems like school shootings get separated from broader discussions about national security.
Prioritizing the Right Violence
Crime and violence in all forms create fear. Just as active shooter incidents terrify children, sexual assault is another crime that terrorizes countless individuals. Yet, rape kits wait untested on shelves across the country—evidence of a system that fails to prioritize the violence many endure daily. These examples highlight how selective priorities in law enforcement can leave major gaps in how we address safety.
The term “terrorism” is often used as a powerful rhetorical device, yet it becomes troublesome in legal terms because of political baggage. This politicization impacts how resources are allocated and which cases are pursued. It raises the immediate need for a more effective, evenhanded approach to combating violence.
Obsessing Over Motive Instead of Method
When high-profile violent acts occur, the emphasis often falls on determining the perpetrator’s motives. Was the attacker ideologically driven? Did their social media reveal connections to extremist groups? This mindset often leads to skewed narratives. For example, if the suspect is a person of color or a Muslim, authorities might quickly label it terrorism. When the perpetrator is a white supremacist, the same agencies may downplay ideological links and attribute the crime to personal grievances.
But motive doesn’t address the bigger question: how are these individuals gaining access to deadly weapons and resources? Why isn’t the methodology of violence receiving as much attention? Without connecting the logistical dots—how weapons are acquired, how groups organize—law enforcement can’t address the root causes that enable violence.
Gaps in Domestic Terrorism Data
One of the critical issues lies in the lack of data collection on domestic terrorism. A hate crime in one state might have ties to another violent incident in another state, but if these crimes aren’t labeled as domestic terrorism, the connections are lost.
Imagine a map dotted with events linked by ideology or criminal networks, but with no way to draw lines between them. That’s what happens without proper categorization and data.
This scattered approach makes it harder to prosecute and prevent violence tied to extremist groups. It reflects a system ill-equipped to deal with the growing threat of domestic violence from ideologically motivated individuals or groups.
Challenges in Tracking Far-Right Extremism
Mike German, who spent years undercover in white supremacist groups, provided insight into the current state of far-right militias and extremism. These groups remain active and organized, but tracking their movements is challenging, partly because many refuse to formally join specific organizations. This independent, fragmented structure makes them harder to quantify, even as their influence persists.
While these groups aren’t directly aligned with mainstream political parties, there’s a troubling pattern of dog-whistle politics that creates a “mutual exploitation” dynamic. Political figures and far-right groups subtly benefit from each other, reinforcing dangerous ideologies without outright collaboration.
The growing disappointment among far-right figures at the perceived lack of progress toward their radical goals could lead to new tensions—both within these groups and against law enforcement. This isn’t just speculation. Recent years have shown an increase in such clashes, making it clear that the threat remains real.
The Risk of Escalation
Is there a risk of escalating violence in America? The answer is yes—and the rhetoric fueling far-right groups only accelerates the likelihood. Historical grievances, like romanticized ideas of the Confederacy, continue to inspire individuals who feel empowered to act. Some envision themselves as revolutionaries, acting on deep-seated ideologies about taking the country back.
When figures in power or positions of authority tolerate—or even subtly encourage—these ideologies, it sends a dangerous message. It normalizes fringe behavior and emboldens others to act violently, believing they’ll face little consequence.
A Call for Action
Addressing domestic terrorism and violence requires a shift in focus. Instead of obsessing over individual motives, we need a broader strategy that zeroes in on logistics, networks, and methodologies. This means better data collection, more equitable definitions of terrorism, and a strong rejection of dangerous political rhetoric that exploits division.
American communities deserve systems that prioritize their safety—not systems bogged down by biases, politics, or inefficiencies. While domestic terrorism is a deeply complex issue, steps like these provide a clear place to start.