The Trump Administration is defunding the nation’s primary anti-domestic terror program at the Department of Homeland Security and DHS’ Office of Terrorism Prevention has removed any reference to future funding from its website. This decision does not reduce the threat but does give opportunity to re-examine the fundamentals of strategies to prevent terrorism in the United States.
In Part Two of our Homeland special series, Dr. Haroro Ingram of the Program on Extremism at The George Washington University builds on his analysis of the threat to propose a new strategy.
The absence of a terrorism prevention strategy in the United States represents a significant strategic-policy vulnerability in efforts to confront violent extremists in the homeland. This was acknowledged in the National Strategy for Counterterrorism which identified the need to ‘institutionalize a prevention architecture to thwart terrorism’ as a key priority action.
Part I in this series examined three factors that strategic-policy architects of a terrorism prevention strategy need to consider. First, the history of preventative efforts in the United States and beyond has shaped practitioner and community perceptions in ways that will impact how any preventative measures are interpreted and how readily individuals will participate in them. Second, the violent extremist threat within the homeland is diverse, fluid and volatile requiring any terrorism prevention strategy to be calibrated accordingly. Third, there are significant legal implications for democracies that are potentially further complicated in the United States by its constitution, given pre-criminal interventions play a central role in preventative strategies. The picture that emerged from Part 1 is that while there is currently a strategic-policy void on the issue of terrorism prevention, it is far from a ‘clean slate’.
Fortunately, there is bipartisan support for developing a terrorism prevention strategy as a key national security priority. A new strategy for preventing domestic terrorism is founded on four interlocking policy principles: rule of law, the individual, proportionality and public outreach. In this proposed framework, ‘terrorism prevention’ refers to a spectrum of government-led activities, central of which is a multitiered system of interventions, intended to prevent individuals from breaking United States’ terrorism, hate crime and related laws (i.e. engaging in or supporting ideologically-motivated violence). Government-led preventative interventions would occur under the conditions of reasonable suspicion that an individual may commit terrorism (18 U.S.C. §§2331-2339), hate crime and criminal civil rights offenses (18 U.S. Code § 2241-49) as defined in the United States Code. This broad definition of terrorism prevention is designed to also encapsulate related (but more generic) federal and state offenses. The challenge of reasonably and consistently distinguishing between those treated as terrorism prevention targets and those ‘elevated’ to criminal subjects, especially given the standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’, would be based on the nuances of each case and the body of precedence that builds to inform such decisions over time.
This terrorism prevention strategy proposes to narrow the scope of federal government intervention activities while broadening the opportunities and responsibilities for non-government interventions (e.g. civil society and private sector). This narrowing at the federal government level increases its constitutional grounding, and therefore its attractiveness and sustainability, while potentially creating space for state and local government, as well as non-government actors, to engage in preventative activities earlier in the radicalization process. It is a strategy calibrated to facilitate a more sustainable and fiscally efficient long-term approach to terrorism prevention. Consequently, terrorism prevention efforts must ‘fit’ within the context of other national security and public policy issues. To explore some of its key features, this article answers three questions that are central to understanding the rationality and strategic-policy nuances of the proposed terrorism prevention architecture.
Why ‘terrorism prevention’?
The term ‘terrorism prevention’ was selected for several reasons that reflect important optical and substantive considerations. The term ‘terrorism prevention’ most accurately and succinctly captures the scope and focus to preventing ideologically-motivated violence in the homeland. The term is not new to the field’s lexicon and is typically associated with rule of law approaches to preventing terrorism and related offenses. ‘Terrorism prevention’ also implies not only a proactive and narrower focus compared to ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ (CVE) – which was often criticized, fairly or otherwise, for being too ambiguous – but a need to break clear of previous preventative efforts. While its strategic-policy components are drawn from CVE thinking and practice, terrorism prevention reflects an ongoing progression in preventative approaches and an opportunity to take advantage of growing momentum for a policy reset in the United States.
What legislative changes are required?
Three sets of legislative changes are recommended to bolster terrorism prevention and counterterrorism capabilities. First it recommends amendments to ‘domestic terrorism’ offenses in the United States Code (e.g. 18 U.S.C. §§2331-2339) to ensure such offenses are subject to precise penalties. Such a change has important implications that include broadening the tools available to practitioners and strengthening the legal foundations necessary to more robustly prevent and counter ‘domestic terrorism’ as well as help to negate criticisms that Muslim communities are disproportionately targeted by such activities. Second, a lack of legal cover has hindered more active engagement in preventative efforts by not-for-profit, civil society and community-based initiatives. To overcome this problem, approved non-government programs could receive ‘Good Samaritan’ coverage under their respective state laws. Third, updating the list of proscribed foreign terrorist organizations to encapsulate the full range of ideologically-motivated violent groups could provide terrorism prevention and counterterrorism authorities with more robust tools to pursue domestic threats in the homeland. This would be particularly pertinent for efforts to confront violent extremists in the homeland who are being supported by foreign state and non-state actors.
How are communities engaged in this terrorism prevention strategy?
Communities have an essential role to play in preventative strategies. They are best positioned to identify at-risk individuals and typically optimal facilitators for getting individuals help. Consequently the proposed terrorism prevention strategy is guided by the following aims:
- Empower communities and individuals to sideline violent extremists via an awareness and community safety campaign.
- Apply a proportional, rule of law based approach to prevention, augmented by public outreach and strategic communications, to marginalize narratives of government persecution and undemocratic overreach resonating with at-risk individuals.
- Use public outreach, especially strategic communications, to reduce the political and psychological impact of terrorist propaganda and violence itself (e.g. responsible media reporting and post-incident messaging guidelines) to decrease the incentives associated with supporting terrorist violence.
A broad ‘community safety’ campaign is the foundation upon which the multitiered interventions system is established. Its purpose would be twofold. First, to educate ‘frontline’ professionals about behavioral changes that may be indicative of future engagement in self or other harm; not just those specific to terrorism. The FBI’s report on the pre-attack behaviors of active shooters offers an example of the type of training that could contribute to a ‘community safety’ initiative. Second, the ‘community safety’ campaign should raise awareness about the range of government and non-government programs that are available to help individuals, including but not limited to terrorism prevention initiatives. This broad approach at the community level places terrorism within the context of other societal problems (e.g. mass shootings) and positions terrorism prevention as a facet, rather than the primary aim, of building stronger communities.
Final Remarks
The terrorist threat in the homeland is a perpetual security concern that requires federal authorities to establish and maintain a sustainable posture in its preventative efforts. This terrorism prevention strategy calls for federal authorities to engage in a narrow range of interventions applying a rule of law-based approach which recognizes that democratic governments have unique responsibilities not to engage in certain activities. After all, those same constitutional responsibilities that constrain government involvement in certain activities creates space for greater civil society and private sector engagements. Such a strategy is designed to allow government intervention programs to focus primarily on the most concerning of cases. This narrower approach also recommends the designation of a lead federal agency as responsible for terrorism prevention efforts. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is perhaps best positioned for this role given that it would reinforce the rule of law approach which underpins the proposed terrorism prevention efforts and that much of the bureaucratic and jurisdictional reach is captured in the agencies and offices within its remit (e.g. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Prisons).
Overall, the simultaneous narrowing of government interventions, expansion of non-government interventions and a broadening of community awareness programs at the heart of this terrorism prevention strategy is designed to facilitate not only a quicker identification of ‘at-risk’ individuals but their channeling into appropriate intervention programs. Filling the terrorism prevention void in the United States requires a complex balance of strategic-policy components, government and non-government activities, a drive to recalibrate as the threat environment evolves, and a commitment to protecting democratic freedoms and rights. This messy balancing act will be a perpetual challenge for current and future administrations that demands bipartisan support.
See also Preventing Terrorism Starts With a Plan...
