Pete Hegseth, nominated by Donald Trump to head the Department of Defense, recently discussed a Pentagon-funded report that he claimed disproved the idea of military extremism. On January 4, Hegseth appeared on Fox News, presenting the study’s findings which suggested that the number of military personnel with connections to the January 6, 2021, insurrection did not imply a widespread issue within the armed forces. The report asserted that violent extremists in the military were not overrepresented compared to those in the general population. Hegseth commented, “They knew this was a sham,” while criticizing Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other military officials. He argued that this report confirmed what many in the community believed.
Hegseth was not alone in promoting this narrative; the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section echoed similar sentiments, labeling military extremists as a “phantom” created by exaggerated media coverage. The Republican-led House Armed Services Committee shared the study on social media, insinuating that the emphasis on extremism within military ranks was merely a “witch hunt.” However, an investigation found that the study—conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses—relied on outdated data, offered misleading analysis, and disregarded evidence that contradicted its conclusions.
The report, titled “Prohibited Extremist Activities in the U.S. Department of Defense,” based its critical analysis on arrest data from January 1, 2022, which did not accurately reflect the subsequent increase in military-related arrests connected to the January 6 incident. It reported that only 82 of the 704 individuals arrested had military backgrounds at that time, amounting to 11.6%. However, as the months passed, this number ballooned, with 209 individuals with military affiliations arrested by the time the report was published in December 2023, which corresponds to 15.2% of all arrests. This statistic rose to 18% according to more recent data compiled by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, indicating a troubling upward trend that the report failed to acknowledge.
Additionally, an investigation revealed that from 2017 to 2023, over 480 individuals with military backgrounds were implicated in extremist activities, including more than 230 involved in the January 6 events. While this represents a small portion of the total military population, incidents involving individuals with military training were shown to possess a heightened potential for causing mass casualties. The IDA’s report did concede that radicalization rates among veterans might be “slightly higher,” but it asserted that the same could not be said for active-duty service members, a claim that contrasts with emerging data suggesting otherwise.
Research indicates that since 2017, both active personnel and veterans have exhibited a faster radicalization rate than those without military experience. Even though less than 1% of adults in the U.S. are currently serving in the military, active members comprised 3.2% of identified extremist cases between 2017 and 2022, a figure considered an underrepresentation by experts in the field. Michael Jensen, a lead researcher at START, emphasized that counting January 6 arrests alone does not provide an accurate assessment of extremism in the military, as many active-duty members would have been unable to attend the event due to their service commitments.
In contrast to the assertions made in the IDA report, records acquired show that there were multiple allegations against defense contractors and civilians connected to the January 6 attack, disputing claims of zero involvement from these groups. Notable incidents include complaints about contractors participating in the insurrection and spreading extremist ideologies, illustrating that the report’s conclusions may not reflect factual realities.
Critics, including Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, lambasted the IDA report as fundamentally flawed and aimed at dismissing a profound national security concern. The politicization of the issue, particularly by figures like Hegseth who have their own links to extremist symbols, poses a significant risk, Beirich asserted. She pointed out that a careless dismissal of the extremism problem directly threatens public safety, asserting, “Making light of the problem is ultimately a threat to the security of the American people.”
As the discourse surrounding extremism in the military continues, the inadequacies of the IDA report prompt serious re-evaluation of how the Department of Defense addresses this pressing concern.