Emerging Trends in Domestic Extremism and Federal Response Shifts
ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative newsroom, remains committed to exposing abuses of power. Subscribe to receive our most impactful stories as soon as they are published.
Key Insights on Domestic Terrorism and Policy Changes
- Federal Vacuum: As President Donald Trump significantly reduces the Department of Homeland Security’s counterterrorism division, states are increasingly compelled to assume responsibility for identifying and countering threats.
- Operational Gaps: While some state initiatives are well-established, others are still in nascent stages, and many jurisdictions have yet to formalize strategies to combat extremism effectively.
- Growing Vulnerabilities: The federal government’s retreat from active engagement in domestic extremism prevention raises concerns among experts that the threat of politically motivated violence may escalate in the coming years.
These summaries are based on in-depth reporting by our team of journalists and editors.
Community Response to Rising Threats
Under the watchful eye of security personnel, dozens of community members passed through metal detectors to attend a public forum at Temple Israel in Detroit, focused on hate crimes and domestic terrorism. The event took place in a large synagogue located along a suburban corridor affectionately called “God Row,” which has historically been a hub for faith-based communities.
Prior to the gathering, attendees were informed of heightened security measures, including restricted access and a ban on purses and backpacks, with security personnel stationed at entrances. The event’s organizers had only announced the details 48 hours earlier, reflecting the tense atmosphere surrounding the topic.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a prominent advocate for hate crime enforcement, addressed the crowd. Known for her outspoken stance as a Jewish lesbian Democrat, Nessel has led high-profile prosecutions against far-right militants, including those involved in the plot to kidnap the governor. Her presentation included a slideshow highlighting her office’s hate crimes unit, the only one of its kind nationwide. She paused at a slide emphasizing collaboration with federal and local law enforcement agencies.
“The federal government’s focus on domestic terrorism has diminished considerably,” Nessel remarked, noting that the language in official documents now primarily references state and local agencies, with federal support remaining uncertain. “It’s disheartening to see the federal effort wane, as if domestic terrorism has simply disappeared overnight,” she added. “I doubt we’ll see the same level of cooperation moving forward.”
Across the nation, law enforcement officials and violence prevention advocates echo Nessel’s concerns. Interviews reveal a consensus: federal agencies have largely stepped back from active counter-extremism efforts, leaving states to manage threats that once prompted federal intervention. This shift leaves many communities vulnerable to hate-fueled violence.
The Biden administration’s focus has shifted away from domestic terrorism, redirecting resources toward immigration enforcement and border security. President Trump’s administration previously emphasized the threat of homegrown extremism, but recent budget cuts and policy changes have curtailed federal programs dedicated to preventing such violence. For example, funding for specialized law enforcement training and research on hate crimes has been significantly reduced or eliminated.
In the absence of federal leadership, states are developing their own strategies-some more effective than others. Experts warn that this patchwork approach risks leaving large areas unprotected. Even in politically progressive states, funding shortages threaten ongoing programs designed to identify and respond to threats early.
Sharon Gilmartin, executive director of the Safe States Alliance, emphasizes the importance of local initiatives: “We’re counting on communities to step up and lead efforts without federal guidance. It’s a challenging but necessary shift.”
Recent Federal Investigations and Local Initiatives
Despite the retreat at the federal level, law enforcement continues to respond swiftly to specific incidents. Recent investigations include an arson attack targeting Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, and a car bombing outside a California fertility clinic. Authorities are also probing a suspected act of targeted violence against Israeli embassy personnel outside a Washington museum.
Federal agencies maintain that their training and intelligence-sharing programs remain operational, aiming to assist state and local law enforcement in recognizing hate-motivated threats. A Justice Department spokesperson stated, “Our focus remains on prosecuting offenders, removing illegal weapons, and protecting all Americans from violence. Funding reallocations are ongoing and responsive to current priorities.”
Former federal officials and researchers like Braniff and Miller-Idriss are working to sustain anti-extremism efforts at the state level. Braniff, who led the Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Prevention Programs, resigned earlier this year after budget cuts slashed his team by 20%. He remains committed to advancing community-based prevention strategies, despite the challenges posed by reduced federal support.
In California, the state’s Commission on Hate Crimes has reported a rise in incidents, with recent data indicating a near-record high in anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim hate crimes. Experts warn that without federal coordination, many communities will remain unprotected against the evolving landscape of domestic extremism.
Historical Lessons and Legislative Progress
The tragic murder of Vincent Chin in 1982 exemplifies the devastating consequences of unchecked hate. Chin, a Chinese American, was beaten to death by two white auto workers who believed he was Japanese, amid economic tensions and racial animus. The incident sparked nationwide outrage and led to the passage of Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation Act in 1988, which expanded protections against hate crimes.
Decades later, the legacy of this tragedy continues to influence policy. In 2023, Michigan lawmakers passed a comprehensive hate crime law that includes protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and people with disabilities. State Representative Noah Arbit, a Jewish Democrat, led the effort, emphasizing the importance of legislative action in combating hate.
“This legislation is a testament to our community’s resilience,” Arbit stated. “It’s a step toward ensuring that hate crimes are met with appropriate legal consequences.”
However, political divisions remain. Some conservative lawmakers argue that such laws infringe on free speech, claiming they could criminalize expressions of opinion or misgendering. Despite opposition, the law was passed with bipartisan support, reflecting a recognition of the ongoing threat of hate violence.
Challenges in Countering Extremism
Political rhetoric continues to influence public perceptions of domestic threats. Former President Trump’s frequent use of the term “terrorist” to describe a broad range of individuals-ranging from leftist protesters to immigrants-has been criticized for fueling hostility and misinformation. Critics argue that such language normalizes dehumanization and emboldens extremists.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown expressed concern that current political discourse may inadvertently encourage hate activity. “The rhetoric coming from the highest levels of government can either promote understanding or incite violence,” he warned.
Meanwhile, efforts to pass legislation targeting domestic terrorism face ideological opposition, especially in Republican-led states. Some lawmakers dismiss the threat as exaggerated or politically motivated, citing concerns over free speech and civil liberties. For example, a proposed bill in New York aimed at addressing hate crimes was opposed by some conservatives who argued it could suppress free expression.
In 2024, a controversial bill in Michigan, often called the “pronoun law,” faced intense misinformation campaigns claiming it would criminalize misgendering. Despite these efforts, the legislation ultimately passed, supported by a broad coalition of prosecutors and community leaders who see it as a vital tool in combating hate-based violence.
Looking Ahead: The Path Forward
Experts agree that addressing domestic extremism requires a multifaceted approach, combining community engagement, legislative action, and sustained federal support. The current landscape, marked by reduced federal involvement and politicized debates, presents significant hurdles.
As Arbit and others emphasize, the future of domestic extremism prevention lies largely in state and local initiatives. “We cannot afford to wait for federal action,” Arbit asserts. “Every community must take responsibility for its safety and work proactively to prevent violence.”
Without comprehensive and coordinated efforts, many communities risk remaining vulnerable to hate crimes and politically motivated violence. The lessons of history, including the tragic case of Vincent Chin, serve as stark reminders of the importance of vigilance and proactive policy-making in safeguarding all Americans.
