How does the DOJ define right wing extremism for investigation purposes?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the available analyses, the Department of Justice does not appear to have a specific, publicly available definition of "right-wing extremism" for investigation purposes. Instead, the DOJ operates under broader umbrella definitions that encompass all forms of domestic violent extremism regardless of ideological orientation.
The DOJ defines domestic violent extremists as "United States-based actors who, without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or foreign power, seek to further political or social goals through unlawful acts of violence" [1] [2]. This definition is notably ideology-neutral and does not distinguish between left-wing, right-wing, or other forms of extremism.
The FBI, which operates under DOJ oversight, provides a complementary definition of domestic terrorism as "violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature" [3]. Again, this definition encompasses extremism across the political spectrum without specifically targeting right-wing ideology.
According to the DOJ Office of the Inspector General report, the department often uses the terms "domestic violent extremism" and "domestic terrorism" interchangeably [2]. This suggests that the DOJ's investigative framework focuses on violent behavior and criminal acts rather than specific ideological categories.
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The analyses reveal several important gaps in understanding how the DOJ actually operationalizes investigations into right-wing extremism. While the DOJ provides broad definitional frameworks, the specific criteria, indicators, or methodologies used to identify and investigate right-wing extremist threats remain unclear from these sources.
One analysis mentions that available materials outline "FBI/NCTC mobilization indicators for violent extremism but does not provide the Department of Justice's specific definition of right-wing extremism" [4]. This suggests that while operational indicators exist, they may not be publicly available or may be classified for investigative purposes.
Academic and research definitions differ significantly from official DOJ definitions. One source notes that research uses "the Extremist Crime Database's operational definition of far-right extremism, which is a scholarly construct rather than the DOJ's official definition" [5]. This highlights a potential disconnect between how researchers, media, and law enforcement agencies categorize and understand right-wing extremism.
The analyses also indicate that investigations focus on "violent or credible threats intended to influence government policy" rather than ideological affiliation alone [6]. This suggests that the DOJ's approach prioritizes threat assessment and criminal behavior over political categorization, which may explain why specific ideological definitions are not prominently featured in official documentation.
Missing from these analyses is information about how the DOJ distinguishes between different types of domestic extremism in practice, what specific behaviors or communications trigger investigations, and how resources are allocated across different extremist threats. The lack of granular, ideology-specific definitions may reflect deliberate policy choices to avoid appearing politically biased in law enforcement activities.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question contains an implicit assumption that may not align with DOJ practices. By asking specifically about "right-wing extremism," the question presupposes that the DOJ maintains separate, ideology-specific definitions for different types of extremism. However, the analyses suggest that the DOJ deliberately uses broad, ideology-neutral definitions that encompass all forms of domestic violent extremism.
This framing could potentially perpetuate misconceptions about how federal law enforcement approaches domestic terrorism investigations. The evidence indicates that the DOJ's definitional framework is designed to be politically neutral, focusing on violent behavior rather than specific ideological orientations.
The question might also reflect broader political narratives about federal law enforcement targeting specific ideological groups. However, the analyses show that official DOJ definitions are carefully crafted to avoid ideological specificity, suggesting that any targeting would be based on behavioral indicators and threat assessments rather than political affiliation alone.
The absence of publicly available, ideology-specific definitions may itself be significant, potentially indicating that the DOJ intentionally avoids creating definitions that could be perceived as politically motivated or that could compromise ongoing investigations by revealing specific investigative criteria.