Congressman Dan Goldman Leads Call for Update on Investigation into Domestic Terrorism Threat Within the Department of Homeland Security

2022 Outside Investigation Uncovered More than 300 Oath Keepers Who Described Themselves as “Current or Former Employees of the Department of Homeland Security”

March 2022, DHS Reported Significant Gaps in its Ability to Comprehensively “Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Potential Threats Related to Domestic Violent Extremism” 

65 Members Joined Congressman Goldman in Requesting an Update to DHS Policies and Procedures to Address Potential Collaboration Between Officers and Militias and Paramilitary Groups

Read Letter Here

Washington D.C. - Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10) and Congressman Robert Garcia (CA-42) along with Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) today led 63 fellow members of Congress in sending a letter to Secretary Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in requesting an update on actions the Department has taken to address the threat of domestic violent extremism within the DHS. It has become widely known that violent extremist groups including white supremacists and anti-government groups explicitly attempt to recruit current and former law enforcement personnel to further ideological goals and increase their tactical knowledge in the use of force.

By their own admission as recently as March 2022, DHS has been unable to effectively and comprehensively addresses potential domestic terrorism threats, including within their own department. According to another March 2022 DHS report, the Department lacked an “authoritative definition of ‘domestic violent extremism’” that could be used in forming staff policies and guidance.

Congressman Goldman and his fellow members of Congress have asked DHS whether they now having an authoritative definition of ‘domestic violence extremism,’ what DHS policies or protocols exist for agents’ interactions with vigilantes, militia, or paramilitary groups, how does DHS ensure that agents are not collaborating with actors engaged in extremist activities, as well as other questions aimed at understanding what capabilities DHS has to root out and address potential domestic terrorism threats within the department.  

“In the wake of the January 6^th attack on the Capitol we have uncovered existential threats facing our most sensitive federal agencies and departments,” Congressman Dan Goldman said. “The knowledge that the Department of Homeland Security has potentially been infiltrated by violent domestic extremism is an issue of utmost urgency. Members of the Oath Keepers have planned and attempted to violently overthrow the government and these individuals have no place in our federal agencies, especially not in our Department of Homeland Security. It is imperative that DHS conduct a full investigation into these internal threats as well as update Congress regarding the departments policies to address these growing concerns.”

Senator Ed Markey said, “Domestic violent extremism poses the most lethal and persistent threat to communities in our country. It is critical that the Department of Homeland Security acts quickly to address internal threats of violent extremism, root out bigotry and xenophobia among its ranks, and send a clear message that violent extremism has no place in America – let alone among federal agents who are duty-bound to be fair, trusted enforcers of the law.”

Congressman Robert Garcia said, “Far-right militia groups operating on our Southern border pose a significant threat to our national security. The Department of Homeland Security needs to come forward and explain their protocol for dealing with these extremist groups. Congress needs to know what steps are being taken to make sure that Federal agents are not collaborating with violent extremists who pose a danger to our country.”

Susan Corke, Director, Intelligence Project, Southern Poverty Law Center said, “Policymakers and communities deserve to know how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is working to prevent and investigate any collaboration between the government and groups engaged in harassment campaigns targeting immigrants, Black and Brown people, and other historically oppressed communities. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), with its long history exposing white supremacist anti-immigrant militia activity on the Southern border, applauds Rep. Goldman and Rep. Garcia calling for greater transparency from DHS. The lack of transparency from DHS and the activities of these vigilante groups has been well documented. DHS must make public how they are addressing hiring, promotion and retention of personnel who are sympathetic to or supportive of white supremacist causes, paramilitary militias or racist organizations. There is no place for collaboration with these groups in public institutions.”

Lindsay Schubiner, Western States Center Director of Programs said, “This letter makes clear that the federal government must send the message that unauthorized paramilitary organizations and other bigoted and anti-democracy groups operating on the border will not be tolerated. It is imperative that federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security have transparent policies to track anti-democracy affiliations within their workforces and ensure that their agents are not cooperating with unauthorized paramilitary organizations.”

Katherine Hawkins, Senior Legal Analyst for Project on Government Oversight said, “We thank the Representatives and Senators for raising these crucial questions about extremism within CBP, and urge agency leadership to answer promptly and take overdue steps address the problem." 

Following the January 6^th insurrection, it was revealed that the far-right militia group, the Oath Keepers, played a large role in the planning and execution of the attack and attempted overthrow of the U.S. government. In December 2022, an investigation by the Project on Government Oversight and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project found that more than 300 individuals of the far-right militia group, the Oath Keepers, “described themselves as current or former employees of the Department of Homeland Security.  

Earlier that year, in March of 2022, the Chief Security Officer of DHS issued a report in March 2022 finding that “the Department has significant gaps that have impeded its ability to comprehensively prevent, detect, and respond to potential threats related to domestic violent extremism within DHS. While DHS recognizes and acknowledges the fact that domestic violent extremism poses the most lethal and persistent terrorism-related threat to our country, policies to address internal threats are still unclear.  

Read the full letter here and below.  

The Honorable Alejandro Mayorkas Secretary of Homeland Security

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 301 7th Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20528 

Dear Secretary Mayorkas:

July 17, 2023

The Chief Security Officer of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a report in March 2022 finding that “the Department has significant gaps that have impeded its ability to comprehensively prevent, detect, and respond to potential threats related to domestic violent extremism within DHS.” In December 2022, an investigation by the Project on Government Oversight and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project found that more than 300 individuals of the far-right militia group, the Oath Keepers, “described themselves as current or former employees of the Department of Homeland Security.” While we commend your commitment to identifying and combatting domestic violent extremism within the Department of Homeland Security’s workforce, we write to you today calling for an update on the steps and actions you have taken to weed out extremists within your ranks.

Earlier this year, Senators Markey, Warren, and Booker wrote to you expressing serious concerns about the rise of paramilitary vigilante groups patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border and unlawfully intimidating, harassing, and detaining immigrants, sometimes in collaboration with, or with approval from federal agents. The letter cites an incident from May 2021, where a Border Patrol agent met with members of the vigilante group Veterans on Patrol and praised their activities before collecting drone footage from the group. In response to the Senators’ inquiry, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told the Senators that CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) did not uncover any evidence of inappropriate association by the CBP agents or find any violations of CBP policy.”

Violent extremist groups and leaders, such as white supremacists and anti-government extremists, have been explicit about their desire to recruit current and former law enforcement personnel. An internal FBI report determined that white supremacists actively seek out affiliation with federal and local law enforcement to further both their ideological goals and tactical knowledge in the use of force. It is clear that the issue of extremists infiltrating federal law enforcement is a persistent and clear threat to the rule of law and national security, and urgent action is needed to root out domestic violent extremists from federal law enforcement agencies.

In order to better understand how DHS is responding to extremism within its workforce, we ask that you provide written answers to the following questions by July 31, 2023:

1. The March 2022 report by the Chief Security Officer at DHS found that at the time “DHS has not adopted an authoritative definition of ‘domestic violent extremism’ that can be incorporated into policies, guidance, and awareness materials.” 
   1. Has DHS now adopted an authoritative definition of domestic violent extremism and has the agency taken into consideration any input from national experts on paramilitary and border vigilante groups on this matter? 
      
       
2. In April 2023, CBP told Senators Markey, Warren, and Booker that “DHS is working on a department-wide directive that establishes efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to violent extremist activity within the DHS workforce. The Office of the Chief Security Officier is actively working on this directive.” 
   1. What is the current status of this directive? What obstacles, if any, are hindering its issuance and enforcement? 
      
       
3. Regarding the policies and procedures that currently exist within DHS to address vigilantes, militias, and paramilitary groups, including any potential collaboration between officers and these groups, please answer the following questions: 
   1. What DHS or CBP policies or protocols exist for agents’ interactions with vigilantes, militia, or paramilitary groups, including armed members? 
   2. What guidance or agency rules were used to determine that the agent cited in the May 2021incident did not violate CBP policy or was not found to have inappropriate association with vigilante groups? Please provide a copy of this guidance. 
   3. Does DHS use publicly available information, including social media, beyond personnel security vetting, to identify or investigate potential violent extremist activity within the DHS workforce?  
   4. How does DHS ensure that agents do not collaborate with paramilitary groups or other actors engaged in extremist activities? What are the specific protocols that govern contact with extremist organizations who may be active on the border, if contact occurs?  
   5. How is DHS tracking interactions between DHS personnel and paramilitaries or other groups tied to domestic violent extremism? 
   6. How is DHS collecting data and tracking incidents involving personnel that are not violent but nevertheless are threatening or intimidating?  
   7. Have you made any referrals to other law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, regarding paramilitary activity on the border? If so, does DHS keep a record of these referrals and are they publicly available? 
   8. What training exists for DHS employees to understand and recognize warning signs of extremist activities and affiliation in their day to day work?  
   9. What policies and procedures are in place to ensure these warning signs can be reported to the appropriate offices? 
   10. What policies and procedures are in place to protect employee civil rights, civil liberties and due process?  
   11. How is DHS advancing openness and transparency in providing the public information about its policies, procedures, and outcomes addressing domestic violent extremism at the agency?  
       
        
4. Regarding your plans to address racially inappropriate conduct or biases: 
   1. Is there a process to encourage DHS personnel to report inappropriate and/or racially biased conduct and how do you protect persons who make these reports?   
   2. Does DHS review citizen complaints and internal complaints alleging racist behavior by personnel as a part of their day-to-day operations?  
      
       
5. The House Oversight Committee released a report in 2021 after launching an investigation into a private group for Border Patrol agents called "I'm 10-15," following "alarming media reports of CBP employees threatening harm to migrants and elected officials." The report found that "CBP reduced most agents' final discipline and allowed agents to continue working with migrants. The vast majority of agents-including those who made degrading and even threatening comments about migrants-received only minor discipline." Regarding your approach to holding employees accountable to agency-wide standards for ethics, conduct, and policies, please respond to the following:  
   1. Why was the disciplinary action for the agents involved in the “10-15” Facebook group reduced compared to the recommendation from the CBP Discipline Review Board?
      Does DHS keep a record of other instances where the recommendations by the CBP Discipline Review Board are not fully implemented? Why are these discrepancies not reported in the annual public CBP report on employee accountability and discipline?  
   2. In the last five years, has the CBP Discipline Review Board reviewed any cases involving domestic violent extremism, hate speech, or significant civil rights violations and if so, were its disciplinary recommendations followed? What were the final disciplinary outcomes?  
   3. How does DHS plan to improve enforcement of CBP Discipline Review Board decisions and ensure that personnel engaged in egregious or bigoted behavior are held accountable?  

We greatly appreciate your responses to all of the above questions and look forward to our future collaboration in rooting out this insurgent wave of anti-democracy activity seeking to undermine the rule of law, public trust in law enforcement, and other democratic institutions.

###