JUDY WOODRUFF: The White House published its framework today for how it intends to combat
one of the most pressing national security threats, domestic terrorism.
It comes nearly six months after pro-Trump rioters overwhelmed the U.S. Capitol on January
6.
Amna Nawaz reports.
AMNA NAWAZ: That's right, Judy.
It was President Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, who spoke before cameras
today to roll out this 32-page strategy. Here's what he said.
MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General: During President Biden's first week in office, he
directed the administration to undertake an assessment of the domestic terrorism threat
and then to use that assessment to develop the national strategy being released today.
In March, they concluded that domestic violent extremists posed an elevated threat to the
homeland in 2021. In the FBI's view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from
racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocated for the superiority
of the white race.
AMNA NAWAZ: Now, the strategy outlines a whole-of-government approach to the problem. It calls for better
information-sharing among the many agencies that are involved, calls for a broader push
to short-circuit the ability of domestic extremist groups to recruit new members online, and
improve screening to root out extremism within the U.S. military and law enforcement.
Mary McCord previously served as the top national security official in the Justice Department.
She studies and writes about these issues at Georgetown University. And she joins me
now.
Mary McCord, welcome back to the "NewsHour."
When you look at this strategy, what does it say? The size and the scope of it, what
does it say to you about how this administration views domestic terrorism in 2021?
MARY MCCORD, Georgetown University Law Center: Well, I think it serves an important signaling
function, first that this administration recognizes the threat from domestic extremist violence
and domestic terrorism. And that is something that has not really been seriously recognized
in the previous administration.
Secondly, it acknowledges that this administration is going to put that threat at the highest
level and respond to it and put it in an equivalency to other terrorist threats, international
terrorist threats. And that means not just a whole-of-government approach, but a whole-of-society
approach.
So I think those signaling functions, before we even get to the meat of the strategy, are
very important.
AMNA NAWAZ: We should mention that federal officials have noted the threat of domestic
violent extremism before. We know, in 2017, the FBI reported white supremacists posed
a lethal threat. There was, in 2019, a framework presented by then acting Secretary of Homeland
Security Kevin McAleenan to counter violent white supremacy.
When you look at the Biden strategy, what are the effective parts? What's going to make
the difference this time?
MARY MCCORD: Well, a strategy is just that, right? It's words on paper that establish,
in this case, pillars, pillars of activity that's going to be taking place.
But you're right to suggest, what is going to come from it? What does that mean is going
to happen top the ground?
And I think that in some ways remains to be seen, but there is already much that has happened
even before the strategy was published, right? We have seen the Department of Defense and
the Department of Homeland Security announce measures to try to eliminate extremism within
their ranks.
We have seen more money requested for resources for combating violent extremism. So, there's
been already steps taken. And I think that's what we are going to see more of. There's
a lot of plans in this document for things, and I think things that are so important,
like more -- providing more information, international, to federal, to state, to local, and the reverse,
so that there's a better coordination, there's a better understanding of the threat and a
better ability to actually counter it.
I think that you're going to see actions taking place to try to reduce the impact of disinformation
and other extremist rhetoric that fuels extremist violence online. You will see efforts to undertake
that. And I think we will see just, as we're already seeing post-January 6, a real emphasis
from our law enforcement agencies to combat this threat.
And that is an area where they really need to be able to reach out to the communities,
build trust from communities, who sometimes don't trust law enforcement, to really be
able to be effective in this area.
AMNA NAWAZ: Well, Mary, some of that broad information-sharing has raids concerns among
some groups.
So, let me ask you what's not in the strategy. The ACLU's National Security Project director,
Hina Shamsi, put out a response to the strategy, saying -- quote -- "The strategy includes
none of the civil rights and liberties safeguards that rights group and communities of color
have long sought."
We know in the past, Mary, counterterrorism measures have resulted in abuse of power and
oversurveillance of communities of color, Muslims in particular. Is there room in this
strategy, you think, for civil rights abuses down the line?
MARY MCCORD: So, I think, again, the strategy is really not at the level of detail where
I think we would be seeing exactly where the vulnerabilities to abuse are and what kinds
of measures need to be taken to prevent that.
So, I very much appreciate Hina Shamsi's comments. I do think A.G. Garland as well in his speech
today, as well as the document itself, makes clear that everything that's being proposed
is being proposed to be done within -- with respect to civil rights and civil liberties
and constitutional values.
So, I think the devil will be in the details. And I think Hina Shamsi raises -- will be
raising good points as we move forward and we see actual actions, policies, and potentially
legislation, although not necessarily, and other actions that the Department of Justice,
Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, et cetera, that they take to implement
that.
That's where we really will need to be looking to see that civil rights and civil liberties
are protected.
AMNA NAWAZ: So, Mary, all of those agencies for two decades have been focused almost exclusively
on an entirely different threat, right, mostly a foreign threat.
We're talking about violent Islamic extremism. Culturally, culturally, can you get all of
those systems of power to pivot, especially when you look at -- as we reported earlier,
we know what happened on January 6. They were military veterans. There were law enforcement
officials. There was a former member of Congress in the crowd outside the Capitol that day.
MARY MCCORD: So, I think that it's right that the overwhelming resources have been put toward
the international terrorist threat since 9/11.
But it's not as though this threat was ignored. I mean, as you noted already, Director Wray
has been saying now for a couple of years, has been emphasizing the significance, in
terms of lethality, of the domestic terrorist threat. We have seen cases brought by the
FBI and the Department of Justice, not only post-January 6, but over the last few years,
numerous cases brought to disrupt threats, because, obviously, they'd prefer to disrupt
a threat before a terrorist attack happens.
But you're right that this is much more of a mandate for change here. And I do think
that the federal government has enough power and authority -- and Congress through oversight
-- to ensure that directives are being implemented, and that there really is a change in resources.
I think getting the states and locals also on board might be even a bigger challenge.
And that will need to be incentivized through -- potentially through some of the grants
that are given from the federal government to states and locals and have some strings
attached to those grants that include this type of prioritization.
So I think it's going to take all of those efforts, and starting, frankly, with renewed
emphasis put on vetting and screening of government employees who are in positions that -- sensitive
positions or positions of dealing with the terrorist threat, and looking at current employees.
And where -- I'm really talking about here about our military and our law enforcement
and making sure that we don't have extremists in the ranks, because, even though they have
First Amendment rights, they don't have a First Amendment right to be law enforcement.
And extremist views, terror -- racist views, those things are incompatible with the role
of law enforcement and the military.
And there is leeway within our constitutional framework, courts have told us, for government
employers to take action to eradicate those types of extremist viewpoints, violent anti-government,
racist viewpoints from law enforcement and the military.
AMNA NAWAZ: That is Mary McCord, formerly of the Justice Department, now at Georgetown
University.
Mary, thanks for being with us. Always good to see you.