A recent investigation has revealed significant flaws in a Pentagon-funded study that examined extremism within the military. This study has been criticized for using outdated data, producing misleading analyses, and neglecting evidence that could have led to different findings.
The study was commissioned by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection, during which rioters with military-style gear stormed the U.S. Capitol. Austin requested that the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) conduct an analysis, which was compensated with $900,000. IDA has collaborated with the Pentagon for years, accumulating over a billion dollars in contracts for providing defense-related research and strategic consultations.
Titled “Prohibited Extremist Activities in the U.S. Department of Defense,” the IDA’s report was quietly released just before Christmas 2023, with no prior announcement and nearly 18 months overdue. Its primary recommendation was that the Department of Defense (DOD) should avoid excessive responses that may draw unwanted attention in its efforts against extremism, contrasting sharply with Austin’s stated goal of addressing the issue directly after January 6.
The investigation found that the authors of the IDA report used outdated arrest figures from January 1, 2022, as a key part of their analysis. At that time, they reported that among the 704 individuals arrested for their involvement in the January 6 insurrection, only 82 had military backgrounds, amounting to 11.6% of the total. Over subsequent months and years, however, this figure rose dramatically, nearly tripling the number of military personnel and veterans arrested.
By June 2022, the report stated that the number of active or former military personnel arrested for their roles had increased by nearly 50%. Ultimately, by the time of the report’s release in December 2023, the number of arrestees with military connections had risen to 209, or 15.2% of all arrests. Recent data now indicate that this figure has climbed to 18%, marking a worrying increase compared to the general population estimates cited by the IDA.
Regarding the extent of extremism within military ranks, it is acknowledged that although the percentage of service members and veterans radicalizing is minuscule compared to the total military community, their impact can be substantial. Reports have indicated that over 480 individuals with military connections faced accusations of extremist crimes from 2017 to 2023, including more than 230 related to the January 6 events. Despite the low overall numbers, the current defense secretary has asserted that extremism within the military is not widespread, whereas investigations show that extremist plots involving military personnel are more likely to result in mass casualties.
The IDA’s comprehensive report does suggest there may be a slight increase in radicalization within the veteran community, but claims to have found “no evidence” of such trends among active-duty personnel. Conversely, evidence indicates that both service members and veterans have been radicalizing faster than non-military individuals since 2017. Although less than 1% of the adult population serves in the military, active members constitute a disproportionate 3.2% of extremism cases identified by researchers between 2017 and 2022.
Michael Jensen, lead researcher at the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, noted that his team had provided IDA with relevant data but received no further inquiries following an initial meeting. An IDA spokesperson defended the study’s findings, asserting confidence in their conclusions being based on the best available data at the time.
In a public discussion earlier this year, Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News commentator and prospective defense secretary under Trump, used the study to downplay the significance of military involvement in the insurrection, suggesting that it did not represent a broader issue within the armed forces. The Wall Street Journal echoed this sentiment, framing the notion of extremism in military circles as exaggerated by media narratives, while the House Armed Services Committee depicted the concern as a “witch hunt.”
As the investigation unfolds, concerns about the thoroughness and integrity of the IDA’s findings continue to shape the conversation regarding extremism in military ranks, highlighting the need for accurate data and transparent methodologies in addressing such significant issues.