Recently, two violent attacks have drawn attention to the troubling connections between extremism and military service. The first took place in New Orleans, resulting in 14 fatalities, while the second occurred in Las Vegas, where a man detonated his vehicle, leading to his own death.

The New Orleans assailant, an Army veteran who served between 2006 and 2015, including a stint in Afghanistan, drove a truck into a New Year’s Eve celebration on Bourbon Street, injuring at least 35 others before being shot dead by law enforcement. In Las Vegas, the perpetrator was an active Green Beret.

Both attackers left behind messages indicating political motives.

The incidents have renewed scrutiny on the persistent issue of extremist behavior within the U.S. military community. Researchers from the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) have identified a military background as the strongest single predictor of violent extremism in America.

Despite ongoing incidents involving military personnel and veterans, the Pentagon has yet to make significant strides in addressing this extremism, nor has it achieved meaningful progress towards better supporting veterans transitioning to civilian life — a step that might shield them from extremist influences.

There are growing worries about the chaotic relationship between military service and extremist activities, especially with the anticipated reforms in jeopardy under president-elect Donald Trump, who has frequently downplayed the issue of domestic extremism as exaggerated or fabricated. His choice to head the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, has likewise been vocal against efforts to eradicate extremism within the military, asserting that it distracts from more essential responsibilities.

Michael Jensen, the principal investigator at START, remarked, “Back in the 90s, we identified only a handful of extremist cases tied to the military. Now, we encounter about 40 to 50 cases yearly in which individuals are involved in criminal activities driven by extremist beliefs.”

Jensen expresses little optimism for the stalled reforms initiated in 2021, which a YSL News inquiry revealed were largely ineffective as of 2023.

“I don’t see a realistic prospect that this will suddenly become a top concern,” he stated. “The critical issue is whether the momentum wanes further. Will there be a complete halt in progress? A policy reversal? That’s the looming question.”

Hegseth, through his attorney, chose not to comment on this matter. A representative for Trump did not respond to a request for a statement.

The link between extremism and military service

A fresh report from START released last month delves deeper into the relationship between military service and extremist activities, suggesting that the issue is on the rise.

The study indicates that around 15% of individuals charged for crimes during the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6 had military affiliations, and highlights that from 1990 to 2023, 730 individuals with military backgrounds engaged in criminal activities driven by their political, economic, social, or religious aims.

Experts quickly emphasize that extremist behavior among active-duty soldiers or veterans remains very rare, especially when considering the large number of Americans who serve in the military.

Katherine Keneally, leader of threat analysis and prevention at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, commented, “Data shows that the proportion of extremists within the military is significantly lower compared to the total number of those who have served. The vast majority of veterans and service members serve their country with commendable intentions.”

The major concern regarding extremists with military backgrounds lies in their increased likelihood of committing mass violence and inflicting higher casualties than individuals without military experience, according to Jensen.

“Veterans possess a lethal skill set from their training, and when employed, this often leads to severe outcomes,” Jensen stated. “Military service is a stronger predictor of involvement in mass-casualty events than mental illness, social isolation, or any specific ideological belief.”

Additionally, statistics indicate that extremists with military experience tend to cause more fatalities during their attacks. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, which resulted in the deaths of 168 individuals, was perpetrated by an Army veteran.

These insights underscore the urgent need to address extremism within the military context.

Although it is infrequent, experts like Jensen have noted concerns regarding extremism within the military.

Unfortunately, efforts aimed at reform to detect extremists prior to their enlistment and during service, as well as initiatives to educate veterans about the risks posed by extremist groups, have not gained traction.

Initiatives to Address Extremism in the Military Falter

Following the events of January 6 four years ago when the U.S. Capitol was attacked, it quickly became apparent that many individuals charged in connection with the incident had connections to the military.

As a result, in April 2021, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin initiated a significant program aimed at identifying and eliminating extremism within military ranks. This program began with four immediate actions, followed by a comprehensive analysis and subsequent report detailing measures for identifying, investigating, addressing, or aiding service members who may have become radicalized.

However, an exclusive investigation by YSL News revealed that two years later, only two of the twenty proposed recommendations had actually been implemented, causing the Pentagon’s efforts against extremism to stall.

Bishop Garrison, who headed the Pentagon’s working group responsible for the recommendations related to extremism in the military in 2021, emphasized that reforms are now more crucial than they were four years ago.

“It remains vital for the department to thoroughly review and act on these reforms,” Garrison remarked. “Much of this revolves around ensuring that both active-duty service members and those transitioning to civilian life feel secure in approaching their leaders and communities for assistance.”

Garrison, Jensen, and others have acknowledged that there has been some progress in this area.

In late 2023, the Pentagon finally published a study examining the prevalence of extremism within the military. However, a review conducted by the Associated Press later indicated that the study had used outdated and unreliable data to draw its conclusions.

Recently, the Army, Navy, and Marines introduced strict new definitions concerning extremist activities, as noted by Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, who has provided testimony to Congress on these matters.

Nevertheless, experts indicate that much work remains unfinished.

“The issue is escalating at a time when the government is stepping back from addressing it, which is alarming,” Beirich remarked.

Concerns About Reform Efforts Under Trump and Hegseth

Experts studying extremism in the military express worries that initiatives to combat extremism may weaken or completely collapse if Trump assumes office again in January.

The situation has already been politicized. In 2022, the GOP-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee demanded an end to the Pentagon’s counter-extremism programs, and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts in 2023 and 2024 eliminated all funding for this effort.

Congressional Republicans have increasingly dismissed the extremism issue in the military as an exaggeration, which detracts from the main objectives of the Pentagon, according to Beirich, Jensen, and other commentators.

Hegseth, whom Trump appointed in November to head the Department of Defense, has publicly belittled the worries regarding the presence of extremists in military ranks.

Hegseth was previously reassigned from his role protecting Biden’s inauguration in 2021 after concerns were raised over his tattoos. “I was labelled an ‘extremist’ due to a tattoo by my National Guard unit in Washington, D.C.… my orders were revoked for the inauguration guard,” Hegseth shared during a podcast with former Navy Seal Shawn Ryan last year.

In his publication, “War on Warriors,” Hegseth minimized the roles of military personnel in the January 6 Capitol breach and suggested that military leaders remain preoccupied with trying to eliminate extremism instead of focusing on priority issues, according to a report by the Military Times last year.

Given his record, experts who initially felt hopeful about Austin’s 2021 initiatives are now apprehensive about the prospect of further advancements, especially in light of recent events.

“The Department of Defense has not adequately addressed the rise in radicalization, and the incidents from last week illustrate a need for significant action from the DOD,” stated Margaret Huang, president and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center. “However, we are not witnessing a response from the Department of Defense or senior officials in the administration to tackle this growing issue.”