logo
Trump administration is minimizing white supremacist threat, officials warn

Trump administration is minimizing white supremacist threat, officials warn

The Guardian24-05-2025

US state department employees recently opened up their emails to find a PDF to their new 'style guide', which dictates what language and terminology they can and can't use.
According to this new updated guide, the term 'racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism'– 'REMVE' or 'RMVE' – was now banned, except in situations where they were legally compelled to use it.
While style guide updates in government agencies that tinker with acronyms between administrations are not unusual, the document did not yet propose an alternative term for the threat from the violent far right.
Current and former state department officials told the Guardian that this was just one reason why they are concerned about how seriously the Trump administration will take the ongoing threat from white supremacists at home and abroad.
Over the last six years, the state department caught up to European partners by recognizing the transnational threat posed by the radical far right – after decades of laser focus on jihadist terrorism.
In January, one week before Donald Trump returned to the White House, the state department took action against the white supremacist collective Terrorgram, designating it as a foreign terrorist organization and linking it to a shooting at an LGBTQ+ bar in Slovakia, a knife attack at a mosque in Turkey and a planned attack on energy facilities in New Jersey.
It was the third 'racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist' group to ever face terrorist designation or sanctions from the state department. First was the Russian Imperial Movement in 2020, and later the neo-Nazi Nordic Resistance in 2024.
In addition to the new ban on using language to refer to the threat of white supremacists, last month Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, unveiled a plan for huge cuts at the state department, which would result in the elimination of more than a hundred offices and about 700 jobs – including those whose portfolios include racially motivated violent extremism.
Among the offices on the chopping block is the Office for Countering Violent Extremism, or 'CVE', which works on identifying root causes of radicalization and extremism to prevent terrorist attacks before they happen.
CVE began looking at international white supremacist terrorism around 2019. Now, that threat accounts for about a third of their work. Rubio said in his announcement of the plan that the current state department was 'beholden to a radical political ideology'.
The coming changes at the state department follow a pattern of moving resources away from programs that work on the threat of the far right since Trump took office. In March, the FBI scaled back an office that was focused on domestic extremism. The FBI's joint terrorism taskforces, which investigated domestic and international terrorist threats, were redirected to assist in the president's immigration enforcement operations.
Meanwhile, offices at the Department of Homeland Security, similar to the state department's CVE, which worked on threat prevention, including from the far right, have also seen cuts and funding for grants has been terminated.
'If you're dismantling the offices that deal with those threats, you're dismantling the administration's ability to deal with the far right,' said William Braniff who left his role as director of the DHS's Center for Prevention, Partnerships and Programs (CP3) earlier this year and now heads American University's Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (Peril) in the school of public affairs.
Officials and experts interviewed by the Guardian suspected that the cuts to those programs, particularly to violence prevention programs, probably stemmed from a desire to just 'move fast and break things' in the spirit of the 'department of government efficiency' (Doge), rather than a pointed agenda to upend the government's ability to track and battle the far right.
Some also fear that they are looking to prioritize threats that play well with Trump's base; at the same time, they are deprioritizing the threat from the far right, which Trump and his allies have cast as a politicized smokescreen for the Biden administration to go after white Christian Americans. (The term 'REMVE' was already seen as a concession, to avoid accusations of politicization; officials note that America's partner countries are free to use the term 'far right).
'Previous administrations weren't trying to censor the radical right, they were dealing with real actors on the right wing,' said Jason Blazakis, former director of the counter-terrorism finance and designations office at the Bureau of Counterterrorism, who now teaches terrorism studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.
'People say that this administration doesn't want to talk about this [the threat from the far right] any more, and I think there's an element of truth to that.'
Blazakis says the new focus of counter-terrorism is 'threats that are seen as political winners in the Maga movement,' such as cartels and Islamist jihadism.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
At the state department, rumors had been swirling for weeks that Sebastian Gorka, who is serving as senior director for counter-terrorism on the national security council, was looking to ban the term 'REMVE'. (When the Guardian contacted the state department to request comment on the style guide change, our inquiry was directed to Gorka).
In his current role, Gorka has plenty of influence on state department initiatives. During his first brief tenure with the Trump administration, reporting highlighted his ties to far-right groups in his native Hungary. He also made comments downplaying the threat of white supremacy just days before neo-Nazis violently rallied in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. At Politico's recent Security Summit, Gorka outlined his vision for counter-terrorism policy.
'What we are doing right now is preparing the new US counter-terrorism strategy, refocusing on the real cause of jihadism, which is the ideology of jihad,' he said.
Formal recognition of the threat from modern white supremacist terrorism by the US government came during Trump's first administration. A number of deadly attacks around the world, from Christchurch, New Zealand, to El Paso, Texas, to Halle, Germany, highlighted the growing danger of an increasingly globally interconnected far right who were united by a shared belief in 'great replacement' conspiracy theories, which stoke fears of immigrants of color outnumbering populations in white-majority countries.
Speaking before Congress in 2020 Chris Wray, then the FBI chief, for the first time identified white supremacist violence as the top domestic terror threat. The US intelligence community put out a report last year identifying white supremacist or neo-Nazi extremists as among the top global terror threats.
Getting the state department to care about the threat from the global far right was initially an uphill battle, sources told the Guardian.
Even as coming cuts suggest resources will be taken away from that threat, it hasn't gone away.
This week, German police arrested teen members of a far-right terrorist cell on suspicion of targeting migrants and political opponents in attacks with the broader goal of destabilizing democracy. Police say that the cell was part of an organization called Last Defence Wave, which organized across 70 chat groups around Germany. Authorities in Brazil recently said that they foiled a planned bomb attack on Lady Gaga's concert by a far-right anti-LGBTQ+ hate group.
And some officials at the state department fear that far-right terrorist groups are becoming emboldened in light of the Trump administration, pivoting attention away from them. For example, the US neo-Nazi group The Base, whose leader is based in Russia, appears to be looking to ramp up violence overseas, recently calling for targeted attacks in Ukraine.
One official characterized the cuts to violence prevention programs at the state department, including those that work on the threat from the far right, as 'excessive and careless reduction in government' that 'will make us less safe'.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘He's a bad guy': Trump backs decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to US to face charges
‘He's a bad guy': Trump backs decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to US to face charges

The Independent

time41 minutes ago

  • The Independent

‘He's a bad guy': Trump backs decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to US to face charges

Donald Trump has called Kilmar Abrego Garcia a 'bad guy' and backed the decision to return him to the US to face criminal charges. Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador nearly three months ago under the Trump administration. He was returned to the US on Friday (6 June) and charged with trafficking migrants into the country. The charges relate to a 2022 traffic stop, during which the Tennessee Highway Patrol suspected him of human trafficking. Speaking to reporters on Saturday, Trump said: 'By bringing him back, you show how bad he is.' 'He's a bad guy,' he added.

WorldPride attendees to march through Washington in defiance of Trump
WorldPride attendees to march through Washington in defiance of Trump

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

WorldPride attendees to march through Washington in defiance of Trump

WASHINGTON, June 7 (Reuters) - LGBTQ+ people from around the world will march through the streets of Washington on Saturday in a joyful celebration meant to show defiance to President Donald Trump's rollback of queer rights. The parade route will come within one block of the White House grounds in one of the final main events of the weeks-long WorldPride celebration. On Sunday a more political event, dubbed a rally and march, will convene at the Lincoln Memorial, a revered space in the U.S. civil rights movement as the site of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963. Events will play out in the U.S. capital in the wake of the Trump administration's measures to curtail LGBTQ+ rights. The Republican president has issued executive orders limiting transgender rights, banning transgender people from serving in the armed forces, and rescinding anti-discrimination policies for LGBTQ+ people as part of a campaign to repeal diversity, equity and inclusion programs. While proponents of DEI consider it necessary to correct historic inequities, the White House has described it as a form of discrimination based on race or gender, and said its transgender policy protects women by keeping transgender women out of shared spaces. Moreover, the White House said it has appointed a number of openly gay people to cabinet posts or judgeships, and noted that the Trump administration took steps to decriminalize homosexuality globally, and that its 2019 initiative "Ending the HIV Epidemic" aimed to cut HIV infections by 90% by 2030. "The President is honored to serve all Americans," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. Event organizers said they were unaware of any counterprotests or anti-LGBTQ+ demonstrations planned for Saturday or Sunday. The National Park Service, however, has decided to fence off Dupont Circle, a popular public space, until Sunday night at the request of the U.S. Park Police, which said closure was necessary to "secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presences." Capital Pride Alliance, which is organizing WorldPride events, said it was "frustrated and disappointed" at the closure. "This beloved landmark is central to the community that WorldPride intends to celebrate and honor. It's much more than a park, for generations it's been a gathering place for DC's LGBTQ+ community, hosting First Amendment assemblies and memorial services for those we lost to the AIDS epidemic and following tragic events like the Pulse nightclub shooting," the alliance said.

A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how

A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store