The Steady State Sentinel is produced by the
Steady State, a community of former national
security professionals who spent their careers
safeguarding the United States at home and abroad.
Today, we continue that mission by staying true
to our oaths to defend the Constitution, uphold
our democracy, and protect our nation's security.
Join our expert hosts as they interview field
-tested guests whose unique experiences shed
light on the crises and challenges facing our
nation. I'm Peter Mina, a civil rights and federal
employment law attorney, as well as a former
Department of Homeland Security official who
worked to integrate civil rights and civil liberties
protections in the department's national security
programs. And you are listening to the Steady
State Sentinel from the Steady State. We are
facing an existential threat, growing autocracy
in the United States. The Steady State Sentinel
is a place where we and our distinguished guests
use our national security expertise to discuss
and analyze the decisions and acts of this administration.
that feed that autocratic slide and threaten
to supplant the pillars of our constitutional
democracy. Today, we're talking with two distinguished
guests, Bill Braniff, the executive director
of the Polarization and Extremism Research and
Innovation Lab, or PERIL, at American University,
and a former director of the Center for Prevention
Programs and Partnerships of the Department of
Homeland Security. and Dexter Ingram, a former
director of the State Department's Office of
Countering Violent Extremism and former director
of the Office of Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction
Terrorism, as well as the founder of InNetwork,
a nonprofit aiming at guiding young minds aged
13 to 26 towards fulfilling careers in national
security. I'll be talking to them about the risk
they see for radicalization, domestic terrorism,
and the current political landscape, and what
those risks mean for the future of democracy
or a possible slide towards authoritarianism.
Welcome to the program, Bill Dexter. Thanks for
having us. Absolutely. Happy to be here. Great.
So why don't we start with a little bit of your
origin stories? And Bill, why don't I start with
you? What drew you to national security and more
specifically prevention of terrorism, both here
at home as well as abroad? And I know, you know,
Dexter, that may be more your domain having been
at State, but just kind of want to get a little
bit of the how we got here. Sure. Thanks, Peter.
And thanks for having us. So this is. It's fairly
common. I was an idealistic young person. I was
curious about what I was really made of and the
idea of going to West Point and finding out what
I was made of and also being able to serve seemed
like a good idea. I had a grandfather who served
in World War II with all of his brothers and
grew up really in a sort of patriotic environment,
I suppose. Why prevention? You know, I've actually,
this is a quick anecdote, I've been in a lot
of different roles in federal service. So I was
a cadet, I was a U .S. Army officer, I was a
GS employee at the National Nuclear Security
Administration, I was a Title X U .S. Army civilian
on the faculty at West Point, and then a member
of the Senior Executive Service. And so I really
only ever wanted to be a public servant. But
what kind of public servant has been the journey?
I started off as an armor officer. I was a scout
platoon leader in an armored battalion on 9 -11
and needed to figure out what had just happened.
So I'm very much part of the 9 -11 generation
that became part of the counterterrorism community
and was probably a part of the counterterrorism
community for a long time. But I'll be honest
that, you know, 10, 11, 12 years after 9 -11,
I got very frustrated that we were still trying
to kill and capture our way out of the threat.
recognizing intellectually that, of course, that
wasn't going to work. And so I started looking
for something different. How else can we try
to decrease risk? And at the time I was in a
leadership role at the University of Maryland's
START Center, which is a terrorism research center.
And I was fortunate to be on a couple of projects
with other really brilliant scholars who were
looking at how we can learn from fields of mental
health and education about how they think about
violence prevention. around 2013, 2014. So I
sort of stumbled into this idea of a public health
informed approach to targeted violence and terrorism
prevention through the research at start, and
then was fortunate enough to be able to bring
that to life at DHS for a few years. Excellent.
And, you know, and that's where, you know, we
cross paths. So that was a real pleasure working
with you. And obviously, thank you for your service.
And so let me turn to Dexter. Dexter, give me
a little bit of give our listeners a little bit
of your origin story. Sure. You know, I saw Top
Gun when I was in high school. And I was like,
classic. Yes, I want to do that. And I ended
up, you know, going to college, getting my commission
in the Navy and going to flight school, earning
my wings and flying E6 Takamo missions. You know,
this is all in the 90s. So before 9 -11, I got
out of the Navy and I was at a think tank really
focusing on weapons of mass destruction because
I thought, you know, these are threats that are
so big that, you know, Coming up with solutions
afterward or mitigation afterwards is kind of
just behind the curve. So that was a really fascinating
piece for me. 9 -11 happened and I got a phone
call to lead the terrorism science and technology
policy for the brand new House Select Committee
on Homeland Security. I went from the military
to think tank to Capitol Hill. And then I got
a phone call from the State Department. They
were creating a team to stop terrorists from
getting weapons of mass destruction. So I went
there and created that team. That was really
worthwhile because we had some really unique
partners back then. Russia was our co -chair.
We just got to do some fascinating things. And
from there, my counterterrorism kind of bona
fides. went to Afghanistan, speak in Pashto in
Helmand Province, came back, worked at the FBI
for a bit. Then I spent some time at Interpol,
three years kind of running their counterterrorism
team, focusing on defeating ISIS. Came back,
led the Defeat ISIS team at the State Department.
And during this process, there was so much just
happening in the U .S. You know, we'd come out
of COVID. We saw a lot. people spending time
online. We saw this polarization when it came
to just, I guess, a lot of things that were being
fed that could be misinformation or disinformation.
And I was taking that personally. I'm a dad.
I have two young boys. I'm a Black man. And when
the Office of Countering Violent Extremism had
an opening for a new director, I applied for
it and I got it. And for me, it was one of the,
if not the most personally satisfying and professionally
satisfying positions because you got to really
focus on learning a lot about the different groups,
both domestically and internationally. But I
think that looking at ways to prevent. And these
acts of violent extremism was something just
very unique and it was very challenging. I got
to work with Bill over at Homeland Security,
got to work a lot with the White House, work
a lot with our international partners. So that's
been my journey. Excellent. And so actually,
given both of your extensive service, and I should
start with thank you, you both have done tremendous
service for this country. How have you seen that
government service or government experience,
particularly in the prevention space, translate
into your work, either in the private sector
or, Bill, I know you spent a fair amount of time
and you currently are in academia. How has that
time in government helped you? For me, I will
say that a lot of. A lot of the things that I
did overseas, whether it's in Afghanistan working
with tribal elders, you realize that the community
and those personal touches and understanding
the specifics matter. And in my local community
back in the U .S., I came back and I was PTA
president and involved with like creating farmers
markets and those kind of things. And there was
so much commonality there. I really was focused
on youth radicalization. You know, so many young
people between the ages of 15 to 24 are radicalized,
whether it's ISIS, whether it's neo -Nazis, or
whether it's aspects of the manosphere, like
incels, you know, and committing violence. So
kind of talking with the community, talking with
teachers, talking with other parents, there was
just kind of a natural flow there, especially
after leaving the government. Excellent. How
about you, Bill? So many ways to think about
that question. One note is that I've had a lot
of similar jobs, whether I was adjacent to government
at a research center like the Combatant Terrorism
Center at West Point or START at the University
of Maryland or now PERIL at American University,
or on the other side of the fence in a practitioner
job, relying on research and evidence to make
informed decisions. I've always sort of straddled
the fence professionally between the intellectual
academic community and the practitioner community.
And that's just been such an exciting and just
a cool place to be because you're sort of translating
back and forth between the research world and
the real world. And trying to create evidence
based practice that best serves the American
people and best mitigates risk. And so, you know,
interestingly enough, I think that even my jobs
in academia have been public service jobs. My
jobs in government have been very intellectually
rigorous and academic. And that to me is very
satisfying. Military service teaches you a heck
of a lot about the importance of. diversity,
the importance of being able to navigate uncertainty.
I think I'm very confident navigating uncertainty
and still being able to sort of make decisions
and move forward. Whereas I think a lot of folks
who haven't been in uniform or in, you know,
intelligence -led law enforcement where you're
making your best informed judgment in a given
moment, but you don't have perfect information.
You don't have... clarity. You don't know exactly
what the future has in store. There is inherent
risk in the things you do and the things you
don't do. And that kind of gives you a little
bit more comfort in leadership roles, trying
to lead organizations through uncertain times
outside of government. And I think that's perhaps
the thing that's most valuable to me. The other
thing I'll say is that I've been at research
centers, three different, I think, really elite
research centers surrounded by brilliant, brilliant
academics. And as brilliant and elite as those
organizations have been, the government organizations
that I've been a part of have been equally inspiring.
The people have been equally... expert and competent
and impressive with incredible backgrounds. And
so I think that one thing people maybe don't
understand outside of the government is just
how competitive and high performing our public
servants are. And I think that's one of the casualties
of what's happened over the last year is that
we've allowed public service to be vilified when
in reality, these are competitive roles. filled
by highly competent, highly qualified people
who should make America proud. I couldn't agree
with you more. I think public service is the
highest profession there could be, and it requires
the best and the brightest. So we've been talking
a lot about the terms prevention. We've talked
about radicalization. The three of us have sort
of been in this world for some time, but for
your listener out there, that, you know, for
whom this might be the first time they're, you
know, kind of really engaging with these topics.
You know, Bill, let me start with you. Could
you just kind of give, you know, the Reader's
Digest version of, like, how would you describe
prevention? And maybe, you know, in that context,
what does radicalization mean? Sure. Look, I
think there are three legs to the risk reduction
stool. I can engage in intelligence -led... military
and law enforcement disruptions of already mobilizing
bad guys. I can engage in physical security anti
-terrorism measures to decrease the vulnerability
of targets or to deflect violence away from high
priority targets to low priority targets. Or
thirdly, I could prevent individuals from ever
getting to the point where they want to mobilize
to violence in the first place. And that's what
prevention is. A series of upstream programs
designed to decrease the likelihood that someone
gravitates towards violence. And it, as a result,
really opens the aperture for who can be engaged
in prevention. Parents can be engaged in prevention.
Educators can be engaged in prevention. HR specialists
at a workplace can be engaged in prevention.
You know, schools. of course, are massively important.
And so the way we applied, the way we thought
about prevention over the last several years
at the Department of Homeland Security is that
we basically adopted 30 plus years of evidence
and practice from the public health violence
prevention community. So briefly, we've been
doing violence prevention and injury prevention
as it relates to suicide, violence against children.
intimate partner violence. We've been doing that
professionally in the United States for over
three decades. And we know a lot about what works
to decrease the risk factors for violence in
someone's life and to increase the protective
factors that mitigate against the likelihood
of violence in someone's life. But we never bothered
to those professionals, hey, do you think it
would work with hate crime? Do you think it would
work for someone who winds up joining a domestic?
terrorist organization? Do you think it would
work to prevent the next school shooter that's
motivated by an individual grievance? And so
what we did is we sort of picked up that domain
of knowledge and put it down around targeted
violence, premeditated violence. And sure enough,
we found that it's really effective. If you can
do early interventions, increase risk factors
for violence, increase protective factors that
suffer against violence with these multidisciplinary
interventions, very similar to what you do for
a suicide intervention. you can absolutely decrease
the number of people who gravitate towards violence,
who go all the way down that rabbit hole. And
it was incredibly, incredibly rewarding to implement
these programs through state and local partners
while I was at DHS. And to just give you one
data point, because I think it's important for
people to understand exactly how real this is.
Through our grant program, we funded 1 ,172 interventions
for an average cost of $6 ,900 per intervention.
And we were 1 ,172 to zero in terms of violent
outcomes. These were individuals who had made
threats of school shootings. These were individuals
who were stalking Congress, congressional leaders.
These were people who had assaulted other individuals.
or who were fixating on a school shooting or
a previous attacker. These were real threats,
and we were able to do interventions that averted
millions of dollars of criminal justice costs,
like investigations and incarcerations, and tens,
if not hundreds of millions of dollars of societal
costs associated with violence, right? These
are very, very costly incidents when they occur.
1 ,172 and zero. So prevention is possible. We
know how to do it. We just need to invest in
it. That's incredibly powerful. Dexter, anything
you want to add there, given your vast expertise,
and I know you're coming at it from a slightly
different perspective. Yeah. Prevention is something
that I think is extremely important, right? This
is vital. Oftentimes, when we work with partners
overseas, prevention is something that's hard
to measure. Bill domestically had grant programs,
and he worked with people that were highly at
risk and did a wonderful job. Internationally,
we have a number of programs and organizations
that do great work, but as certain leaders kind
of say, okay, show me the numbers. We can talk
about the money we spent, how localized it was,
where it was in the world, and how nothing happened,
meaning there is no violent extremism that came
out of these programs. But they'll ask, well,
is that because of your programming or not? And
that's where the rub is sometimes. I've seen
that with both administrations, to be honest.
And I will say that as we... As we look at key
program, I remember a program specifically focused
on children in Syria. And at one point we asked
them, you know, how many of you see violence
as a way or a solution to solving problems? And
about 75 percent of the children said, yeah,
violence is a way that we. and solve a problem
and after the programming and this is pretty
simple program it's age appropriate it's kind
of like pbs programming to a certain extent but
really focused on the issues and they would come
back and about 30 would say that so that's measurable
right that cuts it in half and these are really
simple straightforward type things that make
big differences so much of this is at the community
level at the local level these aren't necessarily
huge national programs When you look at preventing
terrorism or violent extremism, this is something
the U .S. can't do alone. It's like climate change.
You know, you've got to have partners. You've
got to have these coalitions, which are super
important. And everybody brings some different
expertise to the same table. I was fortunate
enough to have a team that... also focused on
the subnational level of governance, meaning
like mayors. And when mayors talk, they're really
focused on outcomes. There's less politics, less
international kind of back and forth. They find
so much more commonality. It could be mayors
that have had huge recent influx of immigrants
and the local response to that initially. was
fear could be hatred it could be looking at them
as as others um but then kind of working through
that and sharing uh success stories and solutions
with other mayors whether it's in the us or ukraine
or you know anywhere in europe or asia we've
seen a lot of a lot of success so i'm a huge
fan of the prevention piece for me you know looking
at um As they say, eradicating hate, stopping
hatred, that fear of others is at the core of
it for me. We see so many people that don't experience
others at a level. And Bill's an academic. I
really am like just that people person who connects
with our partners overseas and domestically and
Bill does too. But I will say that as you kind
of get to know folks. whether they're Jewish
or Muslim, you know, we've seen so much anti
-Semitism, so much anti -Muslim hatred, the LGBTQ
plus community, excuse me, LGBTQ plus community.
You know, there's been so much hatred there as
well, kind of talking it through and seeing young
people who might even have legitimate grievances
initially, you know, it's. Dating is scary in
this day and age. And when you look at issues
related to finances and jobs, the economy, you
know, there's some issues there that we can talk
about. They all go to the Internet. They all
go to the Internet and they look for solutions.
And those solutions normally benefit them in
the first two months or so. These are positive
things. They're working out. The character is
getting, you know, kind of developed a little
bit more. Their confidence is growing. And then
the algorithm kicks in and it starts taking them
down roads where it highlights others and starts
blaming others for any kind of key problems.
And that other could be women, it could be anything.
And it takes a few folks down that road to the
point where violent extremism is the outcome.
And fortunately, we've seen that many times domestically
and internationally. I feel like we could have
a whole separate podcast on the role of social
media in this space. But you're actually leading
me, both of you are leading me to sort of my
next question, which I apologize in advance,
maybe a little bit multi -part or at least multi
-contextual. So given the administration's, what
I would say, inexplicable kind of de -emphasis
of all the programs you both are talking about
in favor of a more traditional law enforcement
focused. approach, how do you see that shift
as potentially, you know, making us less safe,
you know, increasing the possibility of radicalization?
And then, you know, thinking about that shift
to law enforcement, how effective is that when
you don't have a, for example, as it relates
to domestic terrorism, there is no domestic terrorism
statute. There isn't even an agreed upon definition
of what domestic terrorism is. So maybe, Dexter,
if I could start with you, how do you see kind
of that landscape playing out as we're living
it right now? Yeah, it's interesting because
if you look back at the most recent intelligence
assessments, you know, over the past few years,
it talked about the biggest threat domestically
basically being far -right extremism. And that's
something that isn't political. That's intelligence
that is actually, you know, grounded in numbers
and, you know, put together by experts. I know
we don't talk about that anymore in this current
administration. Another key issue was racially
or ethnically motivated violent extremism. That's
basically white identity terrorism. And, again,
that's not something that is even labeled in
the current administration. The first Trump administration,
they are the ones that came up with that terminology.
You know, they were happy to have programs with
Women, Peace, and Security and Remedy -related
and CVE aspects of prevention. And all that's
gone away. All the Women, Peace, and Security
work is gone. The prevention teams that made
up the U .S. government from CP3 over at DHS
to the FBI's teams that focus on this to the
state departments, countering violent extremism
office, as well as our global engagement center
and foreign influence teams. Anything that dealt
with misinformation, disinformation is basically
gone now. It's not funded. I think, yeah, it
was last week where the administration actually
said, we're going to disengage from a number
of international organizations that focus on
issues related to prevention. And we created
a lot of these organizations. We, you know, seeded
the money for a lot of them. But luckily, you
know, there are other international donors because
the world does see this as a threat. And they,
you know, our partners see this as important.
It shouldn't be a political thing. And, you know,
my fear is now that we're really lacking on the
prevention front when it comes to engagement
programs, offices, and expertise, you're going
to see everything as a nail in the hammer, and
it's everything going to be kinetic. And what
else is going to happen is the grievances over
the next few years are going to grow because
they're not being addressed by prevention programs.
two or three or four years, you're going to have
a number of things happening. And the sad part
about that is it's going to get politicized.
You'll hear people say, well, that didn't happen
under our watch. Well, what happened under the
current watch is nothing. So it is going to blossom
and bloom in a few years. And that, again, shouldn't
be politicized. I look at the fear of ICE. and
what's happening in our communities right now.
You have folks at the local level that don't
want to call the police when crime's been. committed,
you know, if there's a medical issue, they're
not going to want to report that either because
they are afraid. And when our communities are
afraid, there's just overall less reporting.
And most of the reporting that we get when it
comes to crime and other issues come from our
communities. So we're kind of doing the opposite
of what we should. I say this not as a law enforcement
expert, even though I spent three years at the
FBI and three years at Interpol kind of leading
teams. As I talk to my friends who literally
bled ice in different years over the past five
years or so, not one of them says what we're
doing now is what we should be doing. They all
say this is not what we should be doing. And
we're doing this the wrong way if we want to
accomplish certain things. And that's not political.
These are former heads of ICE. It's really an
interesting time for me, and it's great to be
able to talk about these issues with you and
Bill. Absolutely. And having come from ICE myself,
though certainly not in a law enforcement capacity,
I can absolutely relate to what you're saying.
And ironically, you mentioned Women, Peace, and
Security. Then -member of Congress Kristi Noem
was actually one of the sponsors of the Women,
Peace, and Security Act. And now, unfortunately,
it has been discarded kind of across government.
So, Bill, let me turn to you. How do you sort
of see these issues? And Dex mentioned immigration.
And I'm just kind of wondering, you and I were
talking a little bit before we started recording
sort of a little bit about, for example, you
know, the public statements from ICE, Department
of Labor and others on social media. How do you
kind of see all of this kind of maelstrom kind
of, you know? materializing and how do we respond
to it in a way that's meaningful? Thanks. Let
me begin to answer this question by actually
addressing the last question that you posed to
Dex. First, let's just look at what's actually
happened as we've reduced our investment in prevention
of terrorism. And I would actually argue. as
we've taken a lot of resources away from our
law enforcement counterterrorism approaches and
put them towards immigration and border security
tasks instead of counterterrorism, we've seen
a massive increase in attacks and credible plots
in the United States from the last year of the
previous administration to the first year of
the current administration. And I'm talking about
like a 40 % increase in attacks and credible
plots in the United States. An increase in the
success rate of those plots, about 55 or 54 percent
of these plots succeed. 150 percent increase
in fatalities in the United States from the last
year of the last administration to the first
year of this administration. And a 70 percent,
I assume a 700 percent increase in injuries.
So it turns out if you remove federal resources
from these important missions, prevention and
counterterrorism, the trend lines go in the wrong
direction in American communities. experience
more violence. So that's thing one. Thing two,
if the only resources left, even if they're reduced,
are law enforcement resources, and yet there's
no domestic terrorism statute, where does that
leave us? Excuse me, there's no punitive domestic
terrorism statute that can be charged. Well,
it leaves us with a... discrepancy between the
average duration of a sentence of a domestic
terrorist extreme perpetrator versus an international
or someone inspired by a foreign domestic terrorist
organization. So the average incarceration for
someone inspired by ISIS or Al -Qaeda is just
under 14 years. The average incarceration time
for an individual who is associated with domestic
terrorism is less than seven. It's just over
six, excuse me, just over six years. And why
is that? Well, because they're not being charged
with a 20 -year material support for a terrorism
offense kind of charge. They're being charged
for an assault, a battery, a drug charge, an
illegal firearms charge, much, much lower sentences.
And again, six years is the average, which means
many, many sentences are one or two or three
years long. And so it's really not even a...
risk reduction strategy when we use law enforcement
only approaches to disrupt domestic terrorism.
What we're doing is we're delaying risk by, you
know, a handful of years, but we're actually
adding risk factors for violence to that individual.
They've now been incarcerated. They have a record.
It's harder for them to get a job. It's harder
for them to have a positive pro -social personal
relationship. It's harder for them to increase
their educational attainment. It's harder for
them to reintegrate into society. So they are
often welcomed back into the arms of the violent
extremist movement when they get out of prison.
And so a law enforcement -only strategy for domestic
terrorism is wildly problematic if we're actually
trying to reduce the risk of recidivism, of violent
offense. So that's sort of the first part of
the question. What we have seen is that these
counterterrorism... and prevention resources,
well, prevention resources are gone domestically.
CP3 does not exist. It was fully dismantled by
September of this last year. What we've seen
is a reallocation of counterterrorism resources
to immigration, immigration enforcement. And
in the backdrop of increases of ICE checkpoints
and detainments in U .S. cities, is this social
media feed that you mentioned, Peter, this idea
that out of Department of Labor, Department of
Homeland Security, and then things like ICE job
advertisements, we're seeing explicitly neo -Nazi,
Nazi, and white supremacist propaganda coming
through official communication channels of the
U .S. executive branch. That is incredibly chilling
and concerning. And for those who might think
that this is sensational, we're seeing posts
that feature white supremacist anthems sung by
the Proud Boys, like We Will Have Our Home Again.
We're seeing references to a book written by
a neo -Nazi who is a member of the National Alliance.
The book is Which Way, Western Man, which talks
about sort of the... you know, the white race
needing to pick a white nationalist future. We're
seeing references to the great replacement theory,
this idea that there's a conspiracy to intentionally
bring in immigrants to lower the level of power
of sort of white Americans. Often this is an
anti -Semitic conspiracy theory in which the
Jewish population is orchestrating this immigration.
which is why we saw incidents of violence like
the Tree of Life shooting targeting the Jewish
population for supporting immigration into the
United States. But it's also the motivation behind
the top friendly supermarket attack in Buffalo,
New York, and the El Paso Walmart attack. These
are some of the most lethal mass casualty attacks
in U .S. history on those populations. This is,
you know, not an accident. Like, you don't have
songs. You don't have memes, you don't have slogans,
you don't have actual references or paraphrases
of Nazi quotes appearing across the executive
branch of social media feeds by accident. So
it's clearly indicating that what ICE is doing,
this focus on immigration and border security,
the reduction of... immigration from dozens and
dozens and dozens of countries around the world,
the attacks on DEI programs and diversity in
the federal workforce and any organizations supported
by the federal workforce. You add all this together
and you get a really chilling racial cleansing
platform. And as a former peacekeeper in the
Balkans who kind of became a professional adult
thinking about ethnic cleansing and... what balkanization
and identity politics can do to a country to
see a concerted series of efforts really intended
to racially cleanse the United States is wildly
chilling. Well, speaking of chilling, as important
as this conversation is, I'm sure our listeners
and I feel it too, it is chilling to sort of
talk about the realities of what's happening
out here. So sort of with that backdrop and kind
of the general instability of what's happening
in the country, what do you see as the possibility
of foreign terrorist organizations taking advantage
of this environment to radicalize people here
in the United States? And again, what does that
mean in terms of the overall risk of terrorism
or other forms of targeted violence? Dexter,
why don't I start with you? Yeah, I mean, I see
it as a big opportunity. We don't name something
that's a huge threat. There's a problem. When
our national security strategy doesn't mention
white identity terrorism, there's a huge problem.
When we're doing things like, you know, trying
to designate groups like Antifa, when, you know,
there are bigger issues out there, I think that
that's a problem. I'm just constantly amazed
because what we... used to see, right, where
these kind of attitudes at the local level, we
call them hooligans, right? If you go to Germany
or the UK and you're at a football or soccer
match, you have these hooligans who are drinking
too much. They have these beliefs and they act
out. And we see that now becoming more culturally
attuned as well as more politically, like these
political parties. are popping up in europe and
we've also seen you know a right -wing um focus
domestically as well and it's getting more organized
if you look at um folks like uh gosh look at
the groipers right you look at the groipers they're
that's a political movement these are neo -nazis
who um They're anti -Semites, they believe in
the great replacement theory, and they're sitting
down and they're talking with our political leaders
and having conversations in rooms they would
never previously have access to. So a lot of
that is becoming more culturally, quote, acceptable.
We'll see people act out in different ways. Maybe
it gets them fired from their job. Maybe it gets
them socially isolated. But they have the right
of freedom of speech, right? Where the line crosses
over is where they commit violent extremism.
That violent piece, that word violence is the
key here. With social media, you have manifestos
and information being shared in ways that never
was shared previously. Before, it was like, who's
in your local community? Now you can be on Discord,
Roblox, or any aspect of social media and be
connecting with somebody in Europe or South America,
Asia, anywhere, and be a part of this group that
initially starts there. you know, build a community
with you and make you feel at home and have really
simple solutions for you for really complex issues.
And that's the beginning of the radicalization
process. It's so much easier now. And as we see
this develop, we can't go to social media companies
and say, Take that down. What we can do is say
things like this violates your terms of service.
And, you know, we're going to highlight it for
you. But what they do is what they do. I look
at X, for instance. This isn't violent extremism,
but X has had Houthis selling arms openly on
their platform for years. You know, and X is
making money off of these sales and the Houthis
are making money. And these are verified accounts.
It's it's this. process of, you know, I think
now, especially the government saying, we're
not going to say what's the truth and what's
not the truth. That misinformation and disinformation,
hey, everybody has a point that should be valued
and we're not the arbitrator of that. You know,
I think there are certain truths and there are
certain... untruths out there. And finding ways
to build trust and get people to understand that
and be heard is only good for our communities
and our society. So I'll leave it at there. I
can go on. Thanks, Dex. And so what I'd like
to do is, you know, first, Bill, I'd love for
you to, you know, kind of jump in on that as
well. But then My final question for both of
you is, you know, kind of two part. So the first
is, you know, given what you just said, Dex,
and certainly just the context of the conversation
we've been having. I mean, look, I'm my family's
Egyptian. I'm you know, I'm brown. My kids are
brown, you know, and I wonder like what given
all of the threats that you both just laid out,
what should we be doing? I mean, just at the
basic family and community level, what do we
do? And then I think sort of in that, you know,
broader context, you know, Dexie mentioned, you
know, obviously freedom of speech. And, you know,
there's the, you know, the issuance of NSPM 7
and how, you know, that is sort of fomented the
sort of use of almost casually the term domestic
terrorism. What does all this mean for the potential
slide to authoritarianism? And sorry, I realize
it's a lot in a couple of questions, but wanted
to sort of bring this to a kind of a crescendo
because it's a really, really important conversation
and one we could certainly talk about for hours.
Bill, why don't I start with you? Sure. On the
question of are we more vulnerable to terrorism,
there's lots of... reasons to think that the
answer is yes. Not necessarily because terrorist
organizations are going to capitalize on this
domestic moment any more so than they would capitalize
on any opportunity at any point in time. Terrorist
organizations are opportunistic when they have
the ability to engage in an act of violence and
they think it makes sense, they'll do it. I don't
know that we're changing their... necessarily.
But what is 100 % happening is that we have eroded
our international cooperation by removing tools
like USAID, the damage that's been done to the
Department of State and their ability to partner
with allies overseas. Our national security pivot
to the Western Hemisphere, our threats against
Greenland and by extension, NATO. Like there's
all sorts of things that we're doing that are
decreasing the international ability to engage
in international counterterrorism effectively.
And that makes us more vulnerable for sure. On
your second question about, you know, gosh, this
is this is concerning. What do we do? Like, what
do I do at home and in my community? It's really
important to understand that there are so many
things that we can be doing in terms of prevention
of targeted violence and terrorism. The organization
that I lead now focuses on primary prevention.
This is upstream prevention. So this is the kind
of stuff that parents and schools and faith leaders
and state and local governments can be engaging
in. And so I'd encourage people to look at the
PERIL research website for some of those resources.
It's sort of too long of a list to name, but
what we have to first understand is that, you
know, 80 % of school shooters tell someone they're
going to do it before they do it. North of 50
% of mass casualty attackers weak their intent
to say that they're going to do something before
they do it. We have to take that information
seriously when we hear it. Ask a caring question
to that person. Bill, are you thinking about
hurting somebody? What's really going on? And
then get that person access to someone who can
help them. Targeted violence and terrorism, these
things are preventable. We all have a role to
play. And it's normalizing this idea of prevention,
I think, is one of the most important things
we can be doing, as opposed to just falling victim
to the apathy and saying that, geez, this stuff
is inevitable and it's ubiquitous and there's
just nothing to be done about it. That is the
worst thing we can be doing. Instead, what we
need to do is sort of be proactive. So lots of
things to offer there. And I'd love to follow
on conversations with anybody who's actually
interested in what are state and local prevention.
opportunities. We do a lot of work with state
governments and local governments and would love
to continue that conversation. In terms of National
Security Presidential Memo 7 and this slide towards
authoritarianism, I would just encourage listeners
to understand that this isn't some scary imagined
future scenario. We're talking about before this
winter break. The Department of Justice issuing
a memo asking for a list of domestic organizations
that should be investigated for promoting things
like anti -traditional American values. That's
a subjective term. There's no basis in law for
it. There's a reason we don't have a domestic
terrorist organization list. It's a wildly slippery
slope towards authoritarianism and cracking down
on. uh normal political rivals that that exist
in a democracy and should exist in a democracy
and so you know with with national security presidential
memo 7 and then the follow -on doj efforts individuals
need to understand that this is an existential
threat to american democracy to civil society
and we have to we have to speak up Next, you
get the last word, and I would love to hear,
you know, as I was describing my background,
you mentioned you're a Black man, you've got
two Black boys. What do you tell them? Yeah,
I have to have tough conversations with them,
you know, where their friends can go out and,
you know, their parents are saying, boys will
be boys, or they're just being cheeky. I'm like,
you can't do that. You have to be held to a higher
standard. You can be perceived as older or more
of a threat than you actually are. You know,
I know you're 10 and 13. You know, there have
been a number of cases where I can't even get
into it. I mean, there's literally thousands
of cases of police being called on young black
men for just kind of living their lives. And
so that's that's something that's always there.
I also tell them it's their superpower because
they are more attuned and more alert and they're
not just going la -di -da through life. They're
being intentional about what they're doing and
who they are. So I, you know, I kind of spin
it and say that that's your superpower. You see
things others don't. My boys are also very international.
I mean, you know, I remember during the last
Trump administration when I was at Interpol.
meeting with the leadership from the White House.
I met with Tom Bossert and, well, I'm not going
to name my other friend, but, and they would
say, you know, we're the globalists. And it was
me and the Secretary General of Interpol. And
I would have to explain to the Secretary General
what that meant, that they believe in international
cooperation and America's place in the world.
Those are good things, right? When you villainize,
you know, just international cooperation, and,
you know, I always tell young people, Learning
different languages is great. Having a passport
is great. Traveling is super important. And,
you know, there's different religions and there's
different food. And it doesn't mean it's better
or worse. It's just different. And the more you
understand that, the more you'll see we have
in common. Everybody wants the best for their
kids, right? There's so much we have in common
internationally. But we have this tendency to
villainize folks. And I see that especially at
the international level. That also applies when
you have immigrants coming into the U .S. I personally
think that within our communities, we see a lot
of people kind of pushing back. We see different
religious leaders kind of organizing and talking
about the commonalities that we have. It is amazing
to watch people like Stephen Miller. talk the
way he talks. And I literally feel like I'm back
in 1943. Not that I was alive then, but I'm a
big student of history. It really is amazing.
And a lot of times people say, you know, well,
they're not coming after me right now. They're
not targeting me. It's a slippery slope. It goes
down all of these. It doesn't matter. You know,
maybe they target the trans community or immigrant
community at one point, you know, then it's.
it's it's literally the door is open for anybody
and you have people there's a number of youtube
videos out there of people who voted for this
current administration that say i never thought
this would happen to me this is unfair i i didn't
realize this and i think that a country should
um basically you know the worth of a country
the values of a country really come down to how
it treats its most disenfranchised right it's
poor it's sick it's children it's elderly it's
immigrants and that says you know the core values
of leadership and what that country stands for
and i i feel like we're failing at this moment
but um as i look at my nonprofit and network
and all the young people that want to get involved
in national security i see hope i see um smart
passionate hope you know one of the chorus that
i tell them all is that if you're going to be
a part of the network you got to be a good human
can't be a jerk can't be selfish can't be focused
on yourself always focus on the mission and connecting
with others and doing what you can and and that
provides me hope well picking up on that hope
as a child of immigrants and former feds and
you know with kids of my own I hope that we can
all hang on to that as we go through this really
difficult period in our history. So thank you
so much for joining us, Bill and Dex. Really
appreciate you having here such an important
conversation. Could you both just briefly tell
our audience where they can find you? Go ahead,
Bill. Sure. Thanks. So again, I'm the executive
director at PERIL at American University, and
our website is perilresearch, one word, perilresearch
.com. Resources are available there. And also
the editor at large for prevention at Homeland
Security Today. So happy to talk to you about
publishing articles to help continue the conversation
on prevention, which is incredibly, incredibly
important for us, given the 2 .6. incredible
plots and attacks per day in the United States.
We've got a lot of work to do. So we'd love to
see you contribute articles and I'd love to publish
them for you. Thanks. Yeah, I'm the founder of
InNetwork. That's in -network .org. It's a nonprofit
basically focused on getting more young people
of all backgrounds into the national security
world and just overall service. I'm also the
author of Codename Citizen, a substack that really
touches on these exact issues. I have articles
coming out every Monday, do a bunch of lives.
um and you know i'm available on linkedin because
i'm happy to speak i just came back from ohio
with over 300 police officers talking about these
issues and it was good to see them start to understand
it so thanks so much for having us peter Of course,
of course. So if you like what you heard on today's
show, please subscribe to the Steady State Sentinel
wherever you get your podcasts and give us a
five -star review on Google. Those subscriptions
and five -star reviews help us get this important
content out to the widest possible audience.
The Steady State Sentinel is for you, our listeners,
and we want to hear from you. Please join us
for our next episode so you can stay engaged
and stay informed. Remember, protecting our democracy
isn't a spectator sport. This is Peter Mina for
the Steady State Sentinel. Still standing watch.
Thank you for listening to the Steady State Sentinel
podcast. Don't miss out on more insights and
exposes from America's premier global security
experts. Also, subscribe to our sub stack. at
substack .com slash at steady state one and follow
our social media and join us right here next
week for another exciting edition. The Steady
State is a nonprofit organization working to
sustain our democracy and national security.
Join us and support our mission by visiting www
.thesteadysate .org.