Arie Perliger on Far-Right Extremism, Counterterrorism, and Democratic Challenges

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/16

Professor Arie Perliger discusses the evolution of far-right extremism in the U.S., highlighting its ideological diversity, decentralization, and increasing overlap with Christian fundamentalism and misogynistic narratives. He contrasts U.S. and Canadian far-right movements, noting their differing attitudes toward federal authority. Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks about extremist motivations, online platforms, and counterterrorism. Perliger critiques the erosion of democratic principles in counterterrorism policies, citing historical overreaches in Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. He argues that social media platforms, like X and Bluesky, have become echo chambers, limiting discourse. The discussion underscores democracy’s struggle with balancing security and civil liberties.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Professor Arie Perliger, the director of the graduate program in security studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and a leading expert in counterterrorism and counter-extremism. He previously served as the director of counterterrorism studies at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, a renowned institution. For over 18 years, Professor Perliger has studied political violence, foreign extremism, and the agencies advising on security policy—such as the FBI, CIA, and U.S. military leadership. His research has been cited in more than 1,300 academic works and has informed policymakers and practitioners. He also contributes to public discourse through major media outlets, including The New York Times, the BBC, and Newsweek—those so-called legacy media outlets.

Given the current atmosphere of disrespect for expertise and for those who possess more than just superficial or Wikipedia-level knowledge, this series on counterterrorism and counter-extremism is both timely and important. Although there are many national differences, there are also many shared concerns. The ethical and social issues at stake are significant. Still, the nuances and facts need to be carefully sorted out.

Thank you for joining me today—I appreciate it. How have far-right extremist groups in the U.S. evolved in their tactics and recruitment strategies from 2010 to 2025?

Prof. Arie Perliger: There are several aspects to the changes we have observed in the landscape of far-right extremism in the United States. First, it is important to remember that this is an ideologically diverse landscape. While many assume it is a single, unified white power movement, that is untrue. There are substantial differences between groups. Some focus on promoting anti-government and anti-federal ideologies—concentrating on what they perceive as the tyrannical, oppressive, and intrusive nature of the federal government and its proxies. Their main aim is to protect the American people from what they consider the “big bad” federal government.

On the other hand, there exists an entire ecosystem of white supremacist, xenophobic, and nativist groups. These range from various neo-Nazi, accelerationist skinheads to more traditional KKK chapters spread across the country. In addition, we see groups and movements that blend Christian fundamentalism with far-right ideology—whether they are Christian identity groups promoting white supremacism and anti-Semitism through their unique interpretations of religious texts or pro-life extremist groups that intensify their violent campaigns against the abortion industry using religious rhetoric.

It is important to remember that we are not discussing a single, unified entity. Although there have been instances of collaboration—such as during the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017 and the events of January 6, 2021, when many different far-right groups came together—on a day-to-day basis, they continue to operate independently and maintain their own distinct online spaces.

The second important thing to acknowledge is that, in the 1960s, 1970s, and even the 1980s, many far-right groups were structured and hierarchical and had clearly identified leadership. There was also a level of formalization, whether through membership rosters, subscriptions, or other organizational structures.

However, over the last two or three decades, we have seen the gradual disintegration and transformation of the far-right into a host of decentralized communities. Rather than engaging in organized activism, these communities encourage individuals to operate independently and act independently. This shift goes beyond the concept of leaderless resistance, which was promoted in the 1990s by figures like Louis Beam. Instead, it aligns with what we might describe as a direct action philosophy—encouraging local, independent associations to take power into their own hands rather than waiting for orders from a centralized authority.

Environmental movements, which embraced direct action many years ago, have been a key inspiration for this model.

The last point I will make is that we are seeing a convergence of additional ideological motifs into far-right discourse. This includes:

• A growing embrace of openly misogynistic extremist narratives has enabled far-right groups to mobilize increasing numbers of young men.
• The fusion of American isolationism with perceptions of white supremacy and white exceptionalism.
• The adoption of specific economic policies they believe will benefit white people.

In short, these movements are increasingly willing to adopt and integrate new ideological narratives into their broader frameworks.

Jacobsen: There are a lot of American domestic terrorist groups:

• The Base
• The Seattle Mothman Division
• The Aryan Brotherhood
• Some factions within the Canadian Armed Forces
• The Boogaloo Movement
• The Oath Keepers
• The Proud Boys
• The Three Percenters

Perliger: Let’s put it this way—many of these movements tend to disregard national borders, particularly between Canada and the U.S. For many of them, the same societal and political issues they perceive as problems in the U.S. also manifest in Canada.

There is, I would argue, a cross-pollination between far-right activity in both countries. However, one significant difference is that Canada does not have as strong an anti-federal, anti-government ideology as the American far-right. This is likely due to several factors, including:

1. The weaker central authority of the Canadian federal government compared to the U.S.
2. The more dispersed nature of political power in Canada.
3. The absence of a singular executive figure like a U.S. president makes it harder for far-right groups to coalesce around a narrative of tyranny.

That said, in nearly all other aspects, Canada significantly represents the same far-right groups we see in the U.S.

Jacobsen: If you were to take some of the groups above—anti-terrorist groups, black identity extremists, incels, anarchists, and far-left extremists—what are the common sociological threads among these groups of the perpetually disgruntled?

Perliger: It is crucial to distinguish between all these groups. Extremist misogyny, such as that found in incel subcultures and communities, represents a different type of societal threat and concern. The fact is that, for the most part, incel subcultures do not engage in the kind of violent activism that we see among other extremist groups.

However, we see this among environmental extremist groups, where direct action and open activism are encouraged. These groups often share an ethos similar to far-right groups—challenging the government, provoking government authorities, and attempting to delegitimize federal agencies and their proxies through on-the-ground activism.

For example, you may recall the Cliven Bundy standoff with agents of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the United States. This conflict arose over grazing rights, as Bundy allowed his cattle to graze on federal lands without paying the required fees. The federal government argued that he needed to pay for grazing the land, which led to a prolonged conflict. Bundy stood his ground, eventually escalating into a standoff reminiscent of Waco.

Similarly, far-left extremist environmental groups often confront federal agencies to promote their eco-ideology. This can take the form of disrupting activities by federal and local agencies, sabotaging initiatives by the energy sector, or interfering with tourism industries that they believe are harming the environment.

While these groups may differ ideologically, we do see some similarities. One major commonality is a profound lack of trust in and animosity toward the central government. Across these movements, there is a shared belief that centralized power is inherently ineffective and dysfunctional and does not represent the interests of the people. Many also believe governments actively seek ways to undermine civil liberties and constitutional rights.

In that sense, these groups have a similar approach to the federal government. 

Jacobsen: Speaking of the federal government—this is a two-parter.

The first part: The non-employee employee of DOGE made a gesture twice, moving his hand forward and backward from chest to right-side high in an arc. What is your interpretation of that gesture—both in terms of what it is or is not and symbolically? The second part is more substantive than cultural commentary: Do these groups seek to amplify their visibility by making prominent gestures, and do people interpret those actions as emboldening themselves? The first part is important to get an expert opinion on. Still, the second part is even more important—how these movements interpret such gestures and actions.

Perliger: Yes. What Elon Musk did looks like a Nazi salute. I don’t know if that was his intention—only he knows. But it does look like one, and people’s concerns about it are valid. You cannot be intellectually honest and dismiss that possibility outright.

Figures like Musk—and, on a different level, Donald Trump and others—are so popular on the far right because they are doing exactly what I mentioned earlier. They are challenging the traditional sources of power within the federal government. They are perceived as emissaries—individuals who can bring this ideology into government and dismantle those elements of the state that far-right groups view as untrustworthy, overreaching, or disloyal to what they see as constitutional principles.

That is why, when Trump was elected for the first time, the far right was elated. They believed they had finally placed “one of their own” in the White House. If you examine Trump’s policy steps during his first three weeks in office, many were directly linked to cultural and social priorities that resonate deeply with the far-right base. These include:

• The dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
• The rejection of what he labelled “radical gender ideology.”
• The aggressive dismantling of certain power bases within the federal government.
• The dramatic expansion of harsh immigration policies.

All of these policies align directly with predominant themes in far-right discourse. He knows exactly what he is doing—prioritizing the most visible and polarizing policy issues that will solidify his base among the far right.

Furthermore, the hyper-masculine tone and culture he promotes strongly appeal to groups like the Proud Boys, among others. These groups believe that many of society’s dysfunctions are the result of hostility toward men and the marginalization of traditional masculinity. This narrative fits perfectly into their worldview.

What Trump has done in these first three weeks has been about solidifying his base. I cannot predict what he will do over the next three years and 49 weeks. But for now, everything he does is a source of elation and celebration for the far right. If you examine far-right message boards, forums, and chats, their sentiment is clear—they believe they are “living the dream” right now.

From defunding liberal academic initiatives to enforcing stricter immigration policies, Trump is delivering exactly what they have been hoping for. Whether this approach will resonate beyond the far-right base and appeal to the broader center-right remains uncertain. But within the far-right ecosystem, they see these past three weeks as “Christmas come early.”

Jacobsen: The Proud Boys claim to be all about Christ, yet they ignore the biblical proverb, Pride goeth before a fall. Now, regarding X—formerly known as Twitter. How would you characterize its user base and commentary style?

Perliger: First, we often forget that all the social media platforms we use and form attachments to are private companies. Whether it’s TikTok, Instagram, or Facebook, these platforms are privately owned entities. They can operate however they choose.

So, every time I hear an outcry about how awful X has become, my response is: What exactly do you do when your local supermarket raises its prices? You go to a different supermarket. You go somewhere else. If you need to expose yourself on social media every day, that’s a different issue altogether. Now, regarding X—its algorithm has become awful. It is nearly impossible to find content that interests you.

Beyond that, there are several problems with X. The platform has now become much more of a breeding ground for extremists and radical fringe voices, which are gaining far more visibility than before. For example, Alex Jones has become significantly more prominent on X. Even if you never follow him or express interest in his content, it still finds its way into your feed. So, it’s clear that elements of X’s algorithm have become problematic.

Additionally, there is now virtually zero moderation across the platform regarding problematic content. That being said, I don’t understand why people are so angry about it. No one is forcing anyone to stay on X. Maybe people will find more productive things to do with their time instead of being on the platform.

Finally, I’ve noticed this migration to Bluesky, and that’s fine—I even have a Bluesky account. But honestly, Bluesky is just the same thing on the other side. It’s an endless stream of people on the left patting each other on the back.

So, if X has become an echo chamber for the right, then Bluesky has become an echo chamber for the left. And frankly, both of them are incredibly boring. They lack space for real debate, the exchange of ideas, intellectual challenge, and exposure to new perspectives. Without that, they are just places where people hear their own opinions repeated back to them over and over again. It’s boring.

Jacobsen: How do you balance counterterrorism strategies with democratic values, institutions, and freedom?

Perliger: Scott, we’ve been studying this issue for nearly 60 years and still don’t have a good answer. I think it’s clear that every country—every democracy, more accurately—is constantly trying to find the right balance between maintaining its democratic principles and ensuring its legitimacy on the one hand while, on the other, continuing to provide the most important public good: security and safety.

We all understand that these two objectives are, on some level, contradictory. In democracies, most citizens accept that they need to give up some of their freedoms to ensure reasonable safety and security. For example, we surrender certain privacy rights at airports because we understand these measures ultimately make us safer.

So, it is always about finding the right balance, which is what most countries attempt to do. The main challenge, however—especially in the realm of counterterrorism—is that terrorism is primarily a form of psychological warfare. Because of that, terrorism is most effective when it triggers overreaction, distorts public perception of the threat, or leads to biased decision-making.

As a result, many governments tend to overreact to terrorism, and in doing so, they risk undermining their own political culture and democratic traditions—ultimately benefiting the terrorists themselves. That is the real challenge.

Most countries, especially Western democracies, are grappling with this challenge, and how they respond often depends on political orientation, historical context, and legal traditions.

Take Germany, for example. Due to its history, Germany enforces stricter limits on free speech than other Western nations. This is because free speech was once used to promote extreme ideologies that led to some of the worst crimes in human history. As a result, German law criminalizes possession of Mein Kampf, and even displaying Nazi symbols in certain contexts can lead to imprisonment. Unlike in the U.S., where you might receive a fine for such actions, in Germany, you could end up in jail. These significant restrictions are embedded in the German constitution as a direct response to history.

In contrast, the United States, with its strong emphasis on the First Amendment, does not impose such restrictions. However, the U.S. employs other tactics—particularly through its international reach—to implement undemocratic measures against those it considers threats to national security. For example, as we speak, illegal immigrants are being held in Guantanamo Bay. And let’s not forget about the various black sites that still exist for intelligence and security purposes.

The key takeaway is that every democracy has, at some point, dramatically overreached and violated its core democratic principles.

Take Canada, for example. In October 1970, the Canadian government placed an entire province under martial law. You may remember that Trudeau’s father imposed martial law in Canada. An entire province was placed under martial law, leading to mass arrests and extreme violations of freedom of movement and freedom of association. Yes, I’m talking about millions of people essentially locked down in their homes. Thousands were arrested—all because the government was unable to handle an organization that, at most, consisted of a few hundred members. Yes, I’m referring to the FLQ Crisis of 1970.

Similarly, we can look at what the British did in Northern Ireland—engaging in political assassinations and extreme human rights violations when dealing with the conflict there. No democracy has not, at some point, overreached and violated its fundamental principles in the name of security.

No liberal democracy is immune from the temptation to overreact or overreach. The real test is whether these democracies can learn from their mistakes and recalibrate, ensuring that, for the most part, they maintain their democratic ethos and culture.

Or, to use a more recent example—what exactly did Trudeau do to those truckers? Yes, the government shut down their bank accounts. Even Trudeau himself would likely admit today that this was an overreaction.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Arie.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.