Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How does the FBI define and track right-wing extremism in the U.S.?
Executive Summary
The materials assert three core claims: the FBI’s domestic-extremism work sits inside a broader interagency counterterrorism architecture, recent policy moves have altered the FBI’s external partnerships and priorities, and there are disputed reports about new categorizations—including claims the FBI will label transgender people as a “nihilistic violent extremist” threat. These points come from recent government documents and news reports dated September–December 2025 and reflect both formal directives and contested media accounts [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What people are actually claiming—and why it matters for public safety and civil liberties
The assembled analyses make three key claims: the intelligence community has a coordinated counterterrorism architecture, the FBI recently severed ties with major civil-society monitors (the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League), and a presidential memorandum has refocused prosecutorial priorities on domestic political violence. Each claim carries implications for how the government defines and tracks right-wing extremism, because definitions and data sources both shape investigative priorities and civil‑liberties tradeoffs [1] [3] [2].
2. The institutional context: FBI work sits inside an interagency counterterrorism framework
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the National Counterterrorism Center set the broader mission for the intelligence community, while agencies like the National Counterintelligence and Security Center coordinate counterintelligence efforts. This means the FBI’s approach to “right‑wing extremism” does not exist in isolation; it is influenced by interagency guidance and declassified strategic implementation plans that aim to align domestic‑terrorism efforts across agencies [1].
3. Recent operational shifts: cutting ties with civil‑society trackers changes the information ecosystem
News reports from October 2025 state the FBI ended formal relationships with the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti‑Defamation League after conservative complaints, a step observers warn could reduce the bureau’s access to private monitoring data about extremist networks. Losing these external data partners can narrow investigative inputs and increase reliance on other sources, potentially altering which incidents are flagged as “right‑wing extremist” and how quickly patterns are detected [3].
4. A presidential memorandum sharpened prosecutorial and operational directives
A presidential memorandum dated September 25, 2025 directs the National Joint Terrorism Task Force to disrupt networks that foment political violence and orders the Attorney General to prosecute federal domestic‑terrorism offenses and issue domestic‑terrorism guidance. That memorandum formalizes a top‑level political priority to pursue organized political violence, which will shape FBI case selection, resource allocation, and collaboration with prosecutors [2].
5. Contested reporting: claims about categorizing transgender people as extremists
Several reports from September–October 2025 allege the FBI was preparing to label transgender people under a category called “Nihilistic Violent Extremists,” with some advocacy and political groups tied to Project 2025 supporting such classifications. This claim, if true, would expand the meaning of “extremist” to a protected identity group rather than behavior‑based indicators; however, the available materials present it as a disputed or reported development rather than an established, agency‑issued definition [4] [3].
6. Competing agendas and the risks of politicized definitions
The materials expose clear tensions: civil‑society monitors and advocacy groups provide expertise but can be labeled partisan; executive directives can accelerate prosecutions; and media reports can conflate proposed policy shifts with implemented FBI standards. When definitions of “right‑wing extremism” shift under political pressure, the risk rises that investigations will target ideology or identity rather than violent conduct, with attendant civil‑liberties consequences and degraded intelligence quality [3] [2] [4].
7. What remains uncertain—and what transparency would resolve
The sources collectively show procedure and pressure but leave open whether the FBI has issued a new, public operational definition of “right‑wing extremism,” what formal data sources replace civil‑society partners, and whether categorical labels for groups (versus behavior) have been codified. Transparency—public publication of definitions, sourcing, and oversight mechanisms—would clarify whether the bureau is focusing on violent conduct, networks, or protected identities, and would allow independent oversight of potential bias [1] [3].
In sum, the documents and reports from September–December 2025 depict an evolving landscape in which interagency strategy, executive directives, and partnership changes intersect to reshape how the FBI may define and track right‑wing extremism. Key unknowns remain about formal definitions and data sources; resolving them requires public documentation and oversight to balance security objectives with civil‑liberties protections [1] [2] [3].