Description
Over two decades ago, the United States launched the “global war on terror” to vanquish Al Qaeda and associated foes. This counterterrorism campaign has been characterized by abusive interrogations, indefinite detentions, targeted killing, and mass surveillance. Today, counterterrorist national security doctrine remains primarily targeted at thwarting Islamist terrorism, even as cascading forms of far-right political violence and terrorism sweep the country. The rapid ascendency of far-right extremism motivated by white supremacism and nationalism, neo-Nazism, and various conspiracy theories, raises questions about how the contemporary national security state will adapt. To what extent have US authorities utilized the legal framework of post-9/11 counterterrorism, as well as associated social and political discourses, to counter far-right extremism? Evidence from Trump’s “very fine people” remarks after the Charlottesville hate rally in 2017 to ongoing collaboration between some American police departments and far-right vigilantes and militias point to significant inconsistencies. This paper traces similarities and differences between state responses to varying threats and considers the implications of resultant patterns of national security practice for law, human rights, and security.
