Jacob Glick, Author at Just Security

Stewart Rhodes Should Get No Leniency For Leading Anti-Government Paramilitary Group

Jacob Glick — Wed, 24 May 2023 16:00:39 +0000

On Thursday, Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, is due to be sentenced for seditious conspiracy and other crimes related to his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The government has asked the judge to sentence Rhodes to 25 years. Rhodes is asking for “time served”—the roughly 16 months he was detained before trial. The delta between these requests is vast. But even more striking is that Rhodes argues “perhaps one of the most important factors” supporting his request for leniency is his founding and leadership of the Oath Keepers – the very organization whose members, alongside Rhodes, have been convicted for conspiring to use force to prevent the counting of the Electoral College ballots on January 6.

As Rhodes tells it, “If the history and character of a man is to be judged by what he creates and how that organization functions within and for the benefit of society, then it is imperative that the Court give great deference to Mr. Rhodes for the 12 years of service and dedication of the Oath Keepers, as evinced through the organizations’ [sic] history of community involvement and volunteerism in times of natural disasters and civil unrest.” The revisionist history that follows that statement is belied by the many lawless anti-government actions that have been the hallmark of the Oath Keepers over the last decade.

The Oath Keepers self-describe as “a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders … who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,’” while declaring that they “will not obey unconstitutional orders.” Led by Rhodes, the paramilitary organization has frequently mobilized—heavily armed—against what they apparently have deemed “unconstitutional orders.”

This includes participating in the armed standoff against federal agents in Bunkerville, Nevada in 2014 to forcibly prevent the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from removing rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle from federal lands where they had been illegally grazing for decades. The standoff ended with federal agents backing down in the face of sniper rifles trained at their heads.

The record of the Oath Keepers also includes the armed defense of two gold miners in Oregon to whom BLM had issued notice that their mining was not an allowed use of the property. The record includes the paramilitary group’s armed defense of miners in Montana after the Forest Service raised concerns about the miners’ claim and their unapproved construction on Forest Service land. And it includes participating in the 41-day armed occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in 2016 in opposition to the imprisonment of two ranchers convicted of arson for setting fire to federal lands. That standoff resulted in the death of one of the leaders of the occupation, and the Oath Keepers threatening the federal government with civil war.

But you wouldn’t know about any of this armed opposition to federal authorities by reading Rhodes’s sentencing memorandum. Instead, you’d read about the Oath Keepers participating in “humanitarian and security efforts” in Texas after Hurricane Harvey, and “providing security details and services” during civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, after the police killing of Michael Brown. Never mind that private, unsanctioned militias have no authority to engage in law enforcement functions, or that, in Ferguson, local authorities were forced to intervene and demand that the Oath Keepers stop their operations after they began “walking the rooftops of businesses” with “semi-automatic rifles,” in violation of county ordinances.

You also wouldn’t know from Rhodes’s memorandum that in the midst of the first impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, Rhodes used Twitter to argue that under the U.S. Constitution, “the militia (that’s us) can be called forth ‘to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.’ … “All he has to do is call us up. We WILL answer the call.” Another tweet made clear that the Oath Keepers’ “favorite rifle is the AR 15.”

Rhodes’s insurrectionist ideology wasn’t new.

In 2018, he launched a “Spartan Training Group program” to create “a pool of trained, organized volunteers who will be able to serve as the local militia under the command of a patriotic governor loyal to the Constitution, or if called upon by President Trump to serve the nation.” By early 2020, concerned that Virginia’s newly “blue” state legislature would pass gun regulations, Rhodes announced that the Oath Keepers would “deploy” to Virginia to help sheriffs “raise and train an official armed posse in each county” to resist the allegedly unconstitutional actions of the Democratic governor. (For more on the historical record, see the letter we submitted to the federal court for the purpose of sentencing.)

In light of this history, it is no surprise that Rhodes led the Oath Keepers in pre-planning and attempting an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol when their preferred candidate failed to win enough electoral votes. He should get no credit for founding the very organization that has repeatedly taken up arms against the government and threatened law enforcement authorities.

Photo credit: Department of Justice

The post Stewart Rhodes Should Get No Leniency For Leading Anti-Government Paramilitary Group appeared first on Just Security.

Introduction to Expert Statements on Democracy and Political Violence, submitted to January 6th House select committee

Jacob Glick — Mon, 01 May 2023 12:51:26 +0000

During the course of the January 6th House Select Committee’s work, investigative staff received dozens of statements from leading experts in law, academia, and other research. Although only some of these expert statements were ultimately cited in the Select Committee’s hearings and final report, many others helped to contextualize our work as we sought to uncover the full truth behind the attack on our democracy. The individuals and organizations who submitted these statements came from a broad range of disciplines and backgrounds, and therefore approached the events of January 6, 2021 from vastly different angles. Nevertheless, their statements coalesce in a single, frightening call to alarm, which warns us that former President Donald Trump’s attack on the rule of law and the ensuing insurrection was not an isolated event. Instead, the experts show that it should be seen as an inflection point in a violent, anti-democratic movement that has deep roots in America’s own history of racist violence and far-right extremism and fits within global patterns of political violence and lurches toward authoritarianism.

In collecting some of these statements and launching this collection, Just Security is providing an invaluable resource to all Americans, and others beyond, who still seek a more holistic understanding of January 6th, and who want to explore what the sobering conclusions of the Select Committee might mean for the future of our democracy.

First and foremost, these statements help to place the insurrection as part of a dark, American tradition of mob violence that has repeatedly tried to nullify the electoral triumph of multiracial coalitions and attack governments that support equal rights for Black Americans. Statements such as those from Professors Carol Anderson, Kellie Carter Jackson, Kate Masur, Gregory Downs, and Kathleen Belew, provide historical analysis and specific examples—ranging from Reconstruction to the modern white power movement—that demonstrates the continuity between January 6th and previous vigilante attempts to beat back progress toward a more inclusive and racially equitable America.

Other statements, like those from leaders at prominent, nonpartisan institutes like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Brennan Center, States United Democracy Center, and Campaign Legal Center, explain how this history of racial violence and disenfranchisement is intimately bound up in President Trump’s Big Lie, which singles out largely non-white cities as centers of voter fraud and has since been used as a justification for further restrictions on voting rights that disproportionately impact Black and Brown citizens. Related analyses we received explained how key actors in the insurrection were motivated by a toxic brew of racism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, and conspiracy – the same beliefs that continue to motivate acts of mass violence and intimidation across the country. In a statement from the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (where I now work), Professor Mary McCord explains how January 6th also fits into a yearslong trend of increased mobilization by unlawful private paramilitary groups, which have continued to evolve since the attack.

Even more broadly, these assorted statements give a global perspective on the anti-democratic coalition that burst forth on January 6th. Leading experts on authoritarianism and fascism, such as Professors Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Jason Stanley, and Federico Finchelstein, remind us of the stakes of January 6th as a moment when vigilante violence and authoritarian schemes converged to assert control over democratic society, as we have seen replicated, in one form or another, throughout history to catastrophic effect. This moment of autocratic consolidation was enabled by a broader acceptance of political violence by mainstream politicians and their supporters, a phenomenon that is elucidated by experts like Rachel Kleinfeld and Professors Liliana Hall Mason and Nathan Kalmoe.

These statements can also help to shine a light on some of the less-examined elements of the broader story of January 6th, such as explanations of the role of Christian Nationalism and anti-government extremism in the attack, the FBI’s persistent failures to adequately address the threat of far-right violence, the crisis of extremist radicalization within the U.S. military, and the proliferation of violent, conspiratorial content on alternative social media platforms like Parler. Taken together, these expert analyses should help us reject narrow explanations for the insurrection, especially the kind that attempts to whitewash the violent extremism we saw on that day and try to sweep over the true, violent potential of the movements that fueled it.

The legacy of January 6th remains a fiercely contested issue, and it is vitally important that supporters of American democracy still speak loudly and clearly about the realities of that day. This collection will help us do just that, by providing explanations about why the insurrectionist forces have lingered on in our national life, through continued threats of political violence and anti-democratic instability. Over two years after the attack, groups like the Proud Boys continue to menace local governments and LGBTQ+ individuals, while an openly vengeful Trump embraces the insurrectionists and demonizes the same minority communities that are now in their crosshairs.

Seen in this light, January 6th never ended.

We are in the midst of the latest retelling of a very old, very dangerous story of authoritarianism and violence that both America and the world has seen before. That makes it all the more important for us to push for accountability whenever and wherever we can, and to guard against the resurgence of political violence as the next national election looms ever closer.

I hope that experts will continue to submit their statements to Just Security (email address) so that it can create as complete a repository as possible. Although they were not all incorporated into the work of the Select Committee, these statements give essential context to complement the factual narrative contained in the committee’s final report and underlying documents. As shocking as that narrative remains, it is even more terrifying when examined in this wider lens. Because of this, I know the collection will foster a deeper understanding of the insurrection and illuminate its most difficult lessons, which is the best way to ensure that January 6th is remembered as a wake-up call to the bipartisan alliance that saved American democracy, and not as the triumphant first chapter of an extreme coalition eager to destroy it.

Editor’s note: The expert statements on this topic are listed below and also available at Just Security’s January 6th Clearinghouse.

Carol Anderson (Charles Howard Candler Professor, African American Studies, Emory University)
“The Role of White Rage and Voter Suppression in the Insurrection on January 6, 2021″
Expert Statement
Anti Defamation League
“Extremist Movements and the January 6, 2021 Insurrection”
Expert Statement
Heidi Beirich (Co-Founder and Executive Vice President, Global Project Against Hate and Extremism)
“The Role of the Proud Boys in the January 6th Capitol Attack and Beyond”
Expert Statement
Kathleen Belew (Associate Professor of History, University of Chicago)
Expert Statement
Ruth Ben-Ghiat (Professor of History, New York University)
“Strongmen Don’t Accept Defeat: The January 6th, 2021, Assault on the Capitol as an Outcome of Donald J. Trump’s Authoritarian Presidency”
Expert Statement
Bright Line Watch
John Carey (John Wentworth Professor in the Social Sciences, Dartmouth College), Gretchen Helmke (Thomas H. Jackson Distinguished University Professor, University of Rochester), Brendan Nyhan (James O. Freedman Presidential Professor, Dartmouth College) and Susan Stokes (Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago)
“The Destructive Effects of President Trump’s Effort to Overturn the 2020 Election”
Expert Statement
Anthea Butler (Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought, University of Pennsylvania)
“What is White Christian Nationalism?”
Expert Statement
Kellie Carter Jackson (Michael and Denise Kellen ‘68 Associate Professor of Africana Studies, Wellesley College)
“Understanding the Historical Context for White Supremacist Violence in America in Tandem with the Events of January 6, 2021”
Expert Statement
Katherine Clayton (Ph.D. Candidate, Stanford University), Nicholas T. Davis (Assistant Professor, The University of Alabama), Brendan Nyhan (James O. Freedman Presidential Professor, Dartmouth College), Ethan Porter (Assistant Professor, George Washington University), Timothy J. Ryan (Associate Professor, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) and Thomas J. Wood (Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University)
“President Trump’s Rhetoric Undermined Confidence in Elections Among His Supporters”
Expert Statement
Michael German (Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law)
“Why the FBI Failed to Anticipate Violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, and How to Prevent it From Happening Again”
Expert Statement
Philip Gorski (Frederick and Laura Goff Professor of Sociology and Religious Studies, Yale University)
“White Christian Nationalism: The What, When, How and Where.”
Expert Statement
Jared Holt (Resident Fellow, Digital Forensic Research Lab, Atlantic Council)
Expert Statement
Aziz Huq (Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School) and Tom Ginsburg (Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School)
“Statement on the January 6, 2021 Attacks and the Threat to American Democracy”
Expert Statement
Michael Jensen (Associate Research Scientist, START), Elizabeth Yates (Assistant Research Scientist, START) and Sheehan Kane (Senior Researcher, START)
“Radicalization in the Ranks: An Assessment of the Scope and Nature of Criminal Extremism in the United States Military”
Expert Statement
Rachel Kleinfeld (Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
“The Rise in Political Violence in the United States and Damage to Our Democracy”
Expert Statement
Samantha Kutner (Proud Boys Research Lead, Khalifa Ihler Institute), Bjørn Ihler (Co-Founder, Khalifa Ihler Institute), and C.L. Murray (Khalifa Ihler Institute and Lecturer in Criminology, University of North Carolina Wilmington)
“Function Over Appearance; Examining the Role of the Proud Boys in American Politics Before and After January 6th”
Expert Statement
Liliana Mason (Associate Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University), Nathan Kalmoe (Associate Professor of Political Communication, Louisiana State University), Julie Wronski (Associate Professor of American Politics, University of Mississippi) and John Kane (Clinical Assistant Professor, Center for Global Affairs, New York University)
Expert Statement
Kate Masur (Professor of History, Northwestern University) and Gregory Downs (Professor of History, University of California, Davis)
“Our Fragile Democracy: Political Violence, White Supremacy, and Disenfranchisement in American History”
Expert Statement
Mary McCord (Executive Director and Visiting Professor of Law, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Georgetown University Law Center)
Expert Statement
Jennifer Mercieca (Professor, Department of Communication, Texas A&M University)
Expert Statement
Suzanne Mettler (John L. Senior Professor of American Institutions, Cornell University) and Robert C. Lieberman (Krieger-Eisenhower Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University)
“How Four Historic Threats to Democracy Fueled the January 6, 2021 Attack on the United States Capitol”
Expert Statement
Janai Nelson (President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.)
Expert Statement
Trevor Potter (Founder and President, Campaign Legal Center)
Expert Statement
Candace Rondeaux (Director, Future Frontlines, New America), Ben Dalton (Open Source Fellow, Future Frontlines, New America), Cuong Nguyen (Social Science and Data Analytics Fellow, Future Frontlines, New America), Michael Simeone (Associate Research Professor, School for Complex Adaptive Systems, Arizona State University), Thomas Taylor (Senior Fellow, New America) and Shawn Walker (Senior Research Fellow, Future Frontlines, New America)
“Investigating Alt-Tech Ties to January 6”
Expert Statement
Mike Rothschild (Journalist and Author)
“Regarding The Role of QAnon in the Events of January 6th and Beyond”
Expert Statement
Andrew Seidel (Constitutional Attorney, Freedom From Religion Foundation)
“Events, People, and Networks Leading Up to January 6” and “Attack on the Capitol: Evidence of the Role of White Christian Nationalism”
Expert Statement
Peter Simi (Professor of Sociology, Chapman University)
“Understanding Far-Right Extremism: The Roots of the January 6th Attack and Why More is Coming”
Expert Statement
Southern Poverty Law Center
Michael Edison Hayden (Senior Investigative Reporter and Spokesperson, Intelligence Project), Megan Squire (Senior Fellow, Intelligence Project) Hannah Gais (Senior Research Analyst, Intelligence Project) and Susan Corke (Director, Intelligence Project)
Expert Statement 1
Cassie Miller (Senior Research Analyst, Intelligence Project) and Susan Corke (Director, Intelligence Project)
Expert Statement 2
Michael Edison Hayden (Senior Investigative Reporter and Spokesperson, Intelligence Project) and Megan Squire (Deputy Director for Data Analytics and OSINT, Intelligence Project)
Expert Statement 3
Jason Stanley (Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy, Yale University) and Federico Finchelstein (Professor of History, The New School)
“The Fascist Danger to Democracy Represented by the Events of January 6, 2021”
Expert Statement
Amanda Tyler et al (Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and Leader, Christians Against Christian Nationalism Initiative)
“Christian Nationalism and the January 6, 2021 Insurrection” – Report
Expert Statement
Wendy Weiser (Vice President for Democracy, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law)
Expert Statement
Andrew Whitehead (Associate Professor of Sociology, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis) and Samuel Perry (Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Oklahoma)
“What is Christian Nationalism?”
Expert Statement
Christine Whitman (Former Governor, New Jersey), Steve Bullock (Former Governor, Montana), Jim Hood (Former Attorney General, Mississippi), Tom Rath (Former Attorney General, New Hampshire), Trey Grayson (Former Secretary of State, Kentucky) and Frankie Sue Del Papa (Former Secretary of State, Nevada)
Expert Statement

IMAGE: Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Jon Cherry/Getty Images)

The post Introduction to Expert Statements on Democracy and Political Violence, submitted to January 6th House select committee appeared first on Just Security.

Video: January 6th Investigators Speak About Ongoing Threats of Violent Extremism

Jacob Glick — Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:34:38 +0000

In Chapter 6 of its final report, the House Select Committee recounted how extremist paramilitary groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and thousands of other Americans mobilized for the attack on the U.S. Capitol. It tracks how they coalesced around conspiracy theories spread through social media and interacted directly with close advisors to former President Trump. On February 23, 2023, the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown University Law Center brought together six of the former investigators from the teams that were responsible for investigating these individuals and groups. The investigators discussed what they learned and how they believe our country should be thinking about the threat of political violence moving forward.

Editor’s note: The video below is also available on C-SPAN.

IMAGE: Investigators who worked on the January 6th Committee, including Mary B. McCord (L) and Jacob Glick (R) speak at the Georgetown University Law Center about the ongoing threat of violent domestic extremism on Feb. 23, 2023. (via C-SPAN)

The post Video: January 6th Investigators Speak About Ongoing Threats of Violent Extremism appeared first on Just Security.

January 6th Report Exposes Ongoing, Converging Threat of Anti-Democracy Schemes and Paramilitary Violence

Jacob Glick — Fri, 06 Jan 2023 13:53:25 +0000

Editor’s note: To hear a conversation with Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann about paths to reform after the January 6th report, including addressing paramilitary groups, listen to the Just Security podcast here.

Two years ago, when rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol and ruptured our country’s tradition of the peaceful transfer of power, images of the mob’s extremism burst into national public consciousness. Americans watched insurrectionists bludgeoning law enforcement officers with Trump banners and Confederate flags, some wearing tokens of the QAnon conspiracy, anti-Semitism, and violent paramilitary groups.

At the time of the insurrection, the extent to which then-President Donald Trump was aware of and intended the events of January 6 was not yet clear to the public. The January 6th House Select Committee’s final report has now exposed, in painstaking detail, a record of the efforts by the former president and his allies to illegally keep him in the White House, culminating in the attack on the Capitol. But the Select Committee’s investigation has also revealed important truths about the ongoing threat posed by the far-right extremists who captured the nation’s attention on that day. Its final report and underlying materials establish that the violence by extremist paramilitaries like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys cannot be disentangled from the anti-democratic subversion attempted by political leaders, in this case, Trump.

The former president’s dog whistles to extremists had been evident throughout the campaign, including his direction to the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during the presidential debate with then-candidate Joe Biden in September 2020. Trump gave these groups a pathway to legitimacy and power, while they gave him a final chance to overturn the seat of government with mob violence. This type of partnership is a hallmark of nascent authoritarian regimes.

The narrative laid out in the Select Committee’s report illustrates how the twin threats of political violence and anti-democracy schemes were able to feed off each other in the lead-up to January 6 in a vicious cycle that still has not subsided. After the insurrection, paramilitary groups and other extremists adopted a decentralized strategy focused on local politics. Across the country, paramilitaries have shown up, armed and intimidating, at events supporting white supremacy, school board meetings debating COVID policies or more inclusive curricula, LGBTQ–friendly events, and demonstrations in opposition to the Supreme Court’s overruling of Roe v. Wade. Extremists, including militia members, have run for local and state offices, signed up as poll workers and precinct chairs, orchestrated recall elections to replace moderate Republicans with election deniers and anti-government extremists, and ingratiated themselves with elected state and federal officials who seek short-term political gain over long-term preservation of democratic processes. By making strides to mainstream the political violence and illiberalism that they espouse, private paramilitaries have established themselves as a sinister force in American life that has endured long after Trump’s term ended.

Extremists Welcomed With Open Arms

To anticipate and respond to this evolving threat, we would do well to learn all that we can from the Committee’s final report. The Committee found that as paramilitary groups advanced into the political arena, egged on by the former president, they were often welcomed by pro-Trump operatives, Republican organizers, and others who said they were trying to “Stop the Steal.” For example, as explained in Chapter 6, the Committee obtained texts between the anti-government Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes and Robert Weaver, a failed Trump political appointee who co-led the Christian Nationalist “Jericho March,” on Dec. 12, 2020, in Washington, D.C. These texts show how, in the weeks before January 6, Trump-aligned activists treated the Oath Keepers not as a pariah, but as a full-fledged coalition partner. That same chapter of the report also notes how Rhodes worked with a January 6 rally organizer, Marsha Lessard, to ship tactical equipment to D.C.

Meanwhile, the report explains how Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio was also fashioning his neo-fascist gang into a public ally to Bianca Gracia, leader of Latinos for Trump, as well as longtime Trump ally Roger Stone. Oath Keepers lawyer Kellye SoRelle called Stone a “go-between” for paramilitary groups and Trump-affiliated activists, including Nick Fuentes, the avowed anti-Semitic racist who founded the America First Political Action Conference in 2020. Such links between the violent fringe and Trump-aligned political players were pervasive, and intersected with the former president’s own schemes to overturn the election. Another revelation in the Committee’s report described the November 2020 flight by Tarrio and his Proud Boys to Washington on a jet paid for by Trump ally and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, who later participated in an Oval Office meeting where Trump was urged to illegally seize voting machines.

The underlying transcripts from the Committee’s investigation also provide a chilling perspective on how these private paramilitary organizations felt empowered by their proximity to centerstage. Former Oath Keeper Richard Dockery described the militia boasting in early January 2021 about “how they’re going to be doing the security role for Roger Stone,” one of the president’s closest associates. Jeremy Bertino, a Proud Boys leader, told investigators that the president’s “stand back, stand by” comment “tripled” the group’s size. George Meza, another Proud Boy who testified that he provided security for prominent Trump supporters and “a few Congressmen,” explained that he saw the Proud Boys as “introducing morality into the enforcement of public safety,” adding that “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.”

Make no mistake. Trump was an essential ingredient in this vigilante vision.

As former Oath Keeper spokesman Jason Van Tatenhove testified, Rhodes had long harbored a “fantasy notion” that a “great conservative leader would come in and want a paramilitary wing” to enforce law and order. Trump fueled this fantasy, and Select Committee evidence shows that Rhodes publicly and privately agitated for the president to invoke the Insurrection Act and summon the Oath Keepers to enforce it. (Never mind that the Insurrection Act does not authorize a president to manufacture an insurrection and then invoke the Act in order to call up private paramilitary organizations operating outside of governmental control.)

A Threat Bigger Than Donald Trump

Crucially, however, the Select Committee’s investigation yielded evidence to show that these paramilitary organizations’ objectives were about more than President Trump or January 6. Alleged government tyranny and racial conflict are long-term preoccupations for the conspiracy-minded militant far-right, and the chaos of 2020 allowed these unauthorized militias to carve out a place for themselves long before Trump summoned them to the Capitol. Kellye SoRelle considered the initial anti-COVID lockdowns to be a “coalescing moment” for militia members to commingle with far-right activists, while Rhodes himself testified that he had previously hoped that Trump would deputize the Oath Keepers to suppress Black Lives Matter rallies during the summer of 2020. Rank-and-file Oath Keepers, including Richard Dockery, Jeffrey Morelock, and Alondra Propes, also explained to the Committee that they felt threatened by Black Lives Matter protests and saw joining the Oath Keepers as a way to “do something to help instead of just sitting on the couch.” North Carolina militia leader Michael Lee Wells testified that Three Percenter group chats included calls to start “taking out” civilians in Democratic areas, as the “only way to stop the rioting.”

Because extremist paramilitary groups are motivated by a constellation of conspiracy theories and animosities that run deeper than the 2020 election or the January 6 attack, this long-simmering threat did not dissipate after insurrectionists were finally cleared from the Capitol. They have continued to inject disinformation and propaganda into online culture wars while embarking on their own political ambitions. As Tarrio told the Select Committee in his deposition, many Proud Boys consider themselves activists and think “the best way to make changes is by being the change.” He even endorsed an “inside strategy,” which would involve Proud Boys trying to “change what [they’ve] been preaching for so long from an elected position.” This highly combustible militarization of policy debates, operationalized during the Stop the Steal campaign, continues to haunt our society, as paramilitary groups find new ideological enemies to target.

Of course, Trump remains an important factor in the domestic extremism crisis exposed by the Select Committee’s investigation, as his bombastic public statements keep his supporters primed for another call to arms. His verbal assaults on the FBI after their summertime search of Mar-a-Lago were followed by an actual attack on an FBI office and a dramatic spike in online talk of mass violence. A former Twitter employee interviewed by the Select Committee likened this to the “call-and-response” pattern between the former president and his supporters that had occurred before January 6. And just a few months ago, Trump’s refusal to condemn the brutal assault on Paul Pelosi – by a man steeped in the Big Lie about the 2020 election – was yet another reminder that the former president remains a lightning-rod for political violence.

The Committee’s wide-ranging depositions of Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and other paramilitary members provide an unprecedented inside look at the minefields still littering the path forward for our democracy. Militia leader Michael Lee Wells, who claimed to have left the Three Percenters after they advocated for violence against civilians, warned investigators that he found it “terrifying” that militias were looking to become more involved in elections, and said it would be a “nightmare scenario” if they decided to act against voting precincts where they believed there was voting fraud. George Meza, who characterized his fellow Proud Boys as a sort of morality police, called the people who stormed the Capitol “heroes,” acknowledged that he would attend a future January 6-style event, and told investigators he would still support President Trump in 2024.

Going forward, we must work aggressively to counter the growing confidence of armed groups to menace democratic self-government and marginalized populations. This includes dispelling the mythology that private paramilitaries are constitutionally protected – a mythology not supported by history, the U.S. Constitution, or Supreme Court precedent. It includes informing federal, state, and local officials and the public more generally about laws in all 50 states prohibiting unauthorized paramilitary activity and using those laws through enforcement actions and litigation when necessary. And it includes assessing whether we have all the tools we need to address the threat. By releasing vast swaths of evidence, the Select Committee has given the public the chance to better understand extremist paramilitaries and the perils they continue to pose, with or without Trump in the Oval Office. It’s our collective national obligation to carry on the Committee’s work by identifying and neutralizing this threat before it can again shake the foundations of American democracy.

Photo credit: An armed member of the Boogaloo militia shows off ammunition to the media in front of the State Capital in Concord, New Hampshire on January 17, 2021 (Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)

The post January 6th Report Exposes Ongoing, Converging Threat of Anti-Democracy Schemes and Paramilitary Violence appeared first on Just Security.