Extremism and lone-wolf threats in the US

The recent assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump – each perpetrated by lone gunmen - have occurred against a backdrop of increasing violence and death threats against politicians and elected officials. These range from other high-profile incidents, such as the attack on then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s residence in San Francisco in 2022, which left her husband severely injured, to a 2017 mass shooting where Congressmembers were targeted during a baseball practice. 

Companies need to understand what is driving this kind of political violence and how they can best protect their employees, brand and operations.

Fragmented, volatile, unpredictable

The perpetrators of the attacks detailed above acted alone. They represent a different type of threat actor than the far-right groups — the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Three Percenters — that generated so much concern following their role in the January 6th, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. These groups have since seen their capabilities severely degraded through a combination of internal fractures and actions by law enforcement.

The threat that lone actors pose, however, is no less severe. While a lone-wolf attack is likely to be less sophisticated than those stemming from extremist groups, the landscape of threat actors is more fragmented, more volatile and less predictable — making lone-wolf threats more difficult to identify and manage.

The 2024 election: an environment of distrust

The same drivers of political violence remain in place, regardless of the change in primary threat actors. The 2024 election cycle is taking place in an environment where both sides are increasingly distrustful of democratic processes and institutions. Candidates on both sides have presented the choice facing voters as existential.  In this context, there is a risk that individuals may feel motivated to resort to violence as a means of protecting a democracy they believe is being subverted.

Individuals find ample reinforcement for such beliefs online, often in conspiracy theories regarding the election and US government operations: President Joe Biden has died and the “deep state” is covering it up; the attempted assassination of Trump was both an inside job by the Secret Service to steal the election and a fake event orchestrated by the Trump campaign.

Election-related conspiracy theories often focus on the idea that someone in power is hiding information from the public and pulling the strings for their own aims. This often feeds into broader narratives of distrust in the US political system and society. These narratives include claims of politically motivated censorship by social media companies and news organizations, as well as a broad use of “us vs them” rhetoric when discussing already contentious topics.

The recent assassination attempt on Trump is just one of many elements impacting the current election cycle. The public discourse and commentary surrounding the campaign remains highly contentious; it is also amplified by private communications, imagery and alternative messaging efforts on loosely monitored platforms and online forums.

Lone actors are not often motivated by ideological beliefs alone. A substantial percentage are simultaneously motivated by personal life experiences and grievances which are combined with their personalized belief systems. This complex mix of personal grievances and ideological motivators has a broadening effect on target selection. Lone actors, regardless of their motivation, still move along an often observable and discernible process from thought to action. Lone actors, while often socially isolated, are not truly alone.  They have jobs, families, friends, peers and others who are often able to recognize mobilization to violence.

What companies can do to protect their employees

What does this mean for companies working to ensure business continuity, employee safety and the protection of their brand and operations?  Many events can be prevented through focused and deliberate efforts to secure critical assets, identify threats and take coordinated actions to manage or mitigate threats once identified.

Internally, companies should anticipate the potential for increased conflict involving employees. Some employees may become fixated on extreme beliefs, conspiracy theories or ideologies. Information on public platforms can be compelling and may amplify an employee’s pre-existing personal grievances or their inflexibility. Some will believe that personal grievances will not be resolved through traditional political process, and that their own individual action is necessary and justified.  As a result, some companies may see an uptick in bullying, harassment and even violence among employees. For others, this may manifest in conflict between employees and customers.

Externally, companies may see an increased risk of existing threat actors who are energized to cause harm or an increase in new threat actors. Companies should consider whether their executives, board members or other employees are engaged in political activism or commentary. They should also assess whether they are operating in locations associated with political unrest or are engaged in business operations that may be drawn into ideological debates.

There is potential for businesses, employees, and executives to become “targets by proxy”; that is, those influenced by an issue which they cannot confront directly, so they identify other targets to stand in their place. It’s important for businesses to think broadly about what might motivate threat actors to direct their focus on them.

Companies can prepare for a potential escalation in both internal and external threats. They should ensure policies and procedures are in place to adequately assess and manage both internal and external threats, including the following: