Oregon ranked sixth-highest in the nation for instances of domestic terrorism between 2011 and 2020 according to an Oregon Secretary of State's Office report released March 30.
The report warned of the risks of domestic terrorism and extremism brewing in the state and found incidents of domestic violent extremism “rose precipitously” in the state in the past two years.
Kip Memmott, audit director at the Secretary of State’s Office, like much of the nation, watched the Jan. 6, 2021 riot happen live, and it helped spur the decision to look into domestic terrorism and extremism within the state.
“The pervasive threat that was known about as a result of that instance was at the forefront of everyone's mind,” Memmott said. “So a lot of the conversation came about from that, and really revolved around identifying individuals who could be motivated down the pathway of violence in the same manner as the individuals at the U.S. Capitol were on (Jan. 6, 2021), and then the Oregon Capitol on (Dec. 21, 2021).”
The local rise in extremism is part of a broader pattern, the report notes: there were 493 violent extremist incidents nationwide from 2011 to 2020. In September 2021, the FBI opened a staggering 2,700 domestic terror investigations.
While federal agencies have taken steps to start tracking and mitigating extremism nationally, the report shows Oregon is ill-equipped to prevent a rise in extremism, lacking penalties and systems for tracking and monitoring. A fundamental barrier to mitigation, the report emphasizes, is the absence of a clear legal definition.
“It did eventually circle back, yet again, to the lack of a statewide definition. It’s why we highlight that so much,” Memmott said. “If I just did a poll on the street and I said, ‘Hey, what is domestic violent extremism to you?’ I would get a million different answers. Unless we have a consistent way of defining the thing that we're trying to talk about, then it's going to be really hard.”
Among a host of recommendations, the report emphasizes that lawmakers need to develop a legal framework for domestic terrorism and extremism, as well as public information campaigns designed to combat misinformation and a cohesive system for law enforcement to share and track information. The report also notes a risk of extremism from within law enforcement agencies themselves, and in government jobs throughout the state.
Street Roots spoke with the auditors who conducted the study and asked some questions about the findings. Here is a conversation, edited for clarity, with Kip Memmott, audit director for the Secretary of State’s audit division, Olivia Redchecked, audit manager, and Casey Kopcho, principal auditor.
McDaniel: In terms of big takeaways, how serious of a problem is this?
Memmott: In our professional judgment, this is as significant a risk that faces the state of Oregon faces as anything we're facing. Maybe not in terms of breadth, but in terms of the actual disruption (of) public confidence and public civility, frankly. I think it's a significant risk. You look at the (population) numbers in proportion to the number of actual incidents of violence we've had — very much disproportionate to other states. So we consider this a really high risk. And, you know, a big part of the Secretary of State's role and our vision — particularly the audit division — is public trust. And this is something that we think goes right to the core of public trust.
McDaniel: What's at stake if legislators don't take action and if these agencies don't prioritize this as an issue and take some of the steps that you recommend?
Memmott: Auditors don't and should not have any enforcement authority. All we have is kind of the bully pulpit and our relationships and, you know, bringing in our friends in the media to help highlight some of our reports in our outreach to legislators. We are reaching out to legislators collectively and individually to brief them on this report. This risk doesn't go away if no one does anything. I mean, we're realistic — it's probably never going to go away, but it (needs) to be better mitigated so we will continue to revisit it. We're only a couple instances away where it's going to be back in the front page, if it's not now. We'll just keep following up on it and doing our best to keep elevating the issue.
McDaniel: I'm wondering what law enforcement agencies and the FBI had to say about the internal risk within law enforcement for extremism?
Kopcho: They noted that it is a concern. They didn't brush it off by any means. And they talked about the need for more resources to be able to mitigate where possible internally.
Memmott: The report we just issued also talks about insider threats, not necessarily specific to law enforcement. I think the really interesting point in our report isn't just (extremism in) law enforcement, but just in the state workforce more generally.
McDaniel: Is there any sort of existing system where comprehensive information is presented to lawmakers, the Office of Emergency Management or other relevant state entities?
Kopcho: So to answer your question, no. There exist systems that require law enforcement clearance, especially through the FBI. Any federal partnership requires extensive FBI background checks, to obtain access to that information, even for lawmakers. So to be privy to that information, then you would need to go through that process. But there doesn't exist a readily accessible system to present that information to just say the general legislative body.
"We don't even define it — what is domestic violent extremism in Oregon? What is domestic terrorism in Oregon? What can we do to protect folks? It starts with being able to have that conversation on consistent terms throughout the state."
— Casey Kopcho, Principal Auditor for the Secretary of State’s audit division
McDaniel: It seems like law enforcement agencies are a bit siloed. Is that a fair takeaway?
Memmott: That is a fair takeaway. So that was an area (that) needs a formality. That's why we recommend it. There is some good communication and relationships between law enforcement agencies, but again, without the formality and the memos of understanding or however. … You want to raise that.
McDaniel: It seems like there isn’t a comprehensive place where all of the instances (of EDT) are logged and tracked. So it might be a little bit harder to understand what the risk really is?
Memmott: Correct.
McDaniel: Can you describe instances of what's actually going on? What did you find in terms of extremism and possible domestic terrorism?
Kopcho: The discussions around current instances of extremism are things that are known about by the general public. Keep in mind this advisory report was done last summer through last fall, so in the months after the Jan. 6 event in Washington D.C. At the time, the pervasive threat that was known about as a result of that instance was at the forefront of everyone's mind. So a lot of the conversation came about from that and really revolved around identifying individuals who could be motivated down the pathway of violence in the same manner that the individuals at the U.S. Capitol were on (Jan. 6, 2021) and then the Oregon Capitol on (Dec. 21, 2021). And so a lot of the concern was around that.
McDaniel: The research takes a close look at social media. Can you talk about what some of the main risks are?
Kopcho: We didn’t scour Facebook or Instagram, or, you know, take your pick. But we did talk to academics at American University. We note the work that's being done, as far as trying to educate the public — not so much ideological, this ideology or that ideology is wrong or bad, because that can't be done.
But instead, here are things to look for, like marketing techniques that are deployed by individuals who want to instill or engender a sense of action with the demographic that they're trying to reach, and trying to prepare the general public for how to identify that and then how to disarm that on their own so that they don't fall victim to a glorified kind of marketing commercial technique. So that's the conversation that was had around social media.
McDaniel: In talking to law enforcement, were there any prevalent examples of current risks? I'm wondering if there's things happening linked to QAnon or ongoing risks related to lies about the election being stolen, things like that.
Kopcho: There is not a sense of any one group other than the groups that are identified at the federal level that were put out last year. The threat of lone actors and the threat of racially, ethnically motivated, violent extremists — white supremacists being the top threat — that is what's carried forward from the federal level down to the states. And so the state is taking their cue from the federal government to keep an eye on that.
McDaniel: How might this issue connect with election security? Through misinformation or other security concerns, like the safety of poll workers or county clerks?
Kopcho: It came up as part of the discussion. For example, we talked about doxxing and potential anti-doxxing legislation. That is something that is on people's minds, because we have a lot of examples of election workers (reporting) individuals who will show up on their street and protest and make them feel unsafe. The issue there goes all the way back to the problem of the lack of a clear definition of what is enforceable, what is preventable.
There's a lack of a statutory definition and then the lack of a statutory criminal charge related to that definition. So there's both of those things. We don't even define it — what is domestic violent extremism in Oregon? What is domestic terrorism in Oregon? What can we do to protect folks? It starts with being able to have that conversation on consistent terms throughout the state.
McDaniel: Law enforcement has a unique role in this equation. In the report, HB 2936 is referenced, which requires background checks (to screen) for extremist ideas. Is that being enforced?
Redchecked: So for that particular bill, our intent was to share what has been done. From the legislative point of view, we didn't go in-depth to look at what the background check process looks like, and whether there are gaps in there that need to be addressed. For that particular bill, our intention was to show the public that there are some steps that the legislature has taken, and this is one of them, but we didn't go in-depth in terms of looking into how it's being carried out.
McDaniel: Is there anything anyone wants to add?
Memmott: We're one of the first states to look at this. Obviously, Oregon is one of the higher-risk states, but there has been a lot of work on domestic terrorism and violent extremism at the federal level. We feel and hope that our report inspires other states and even local governments. This is not just a federal issue, and it's not going to be solved federally. So we're hoping that it leaves a pathway for other people to look at this really serious problem and hopefully mitigate it as best we can.