Militias in the US
There is no universally agreed threshold that a group must pass before it calls itself a ‘militia,’ but many groups in the broader United States’ anti-government extremist movement display similar styles and philosophies. These overlapping traits act as signals between supporters and represent the public image of the movement.
The fashion and rhetoric of the militia movement portray its supporters as would-be revolutionaries who are willing to fight against tyrannical governments when called upon. Anti-government rhetoric and conspiracy theories prophesying an eventual outbreak of civil disorder – even civil war – are commonplace in online communities frequented by the movement’s supporters. These digital spaces are often rife with hypothetical discussions of violence delivered to a group’s perceived enemies in the name of patriotism.
These traits have remained constant, even as the militia movement has evolved through watershed events like the Ruby Ridge standoff, Oklahoma City Bombing, Bundy ranch standoff, and the Capitol riot. The trappings have shaped the image of better-known militia movement groups, including the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, and popular public perceptions of the movement.
But these qualities rarely offer insights as to whether any random group calling itself a ‘militia’ is engaged in the type of offline organizing that would satisfy legal definitions of the term. Though the rhetoric of militia movement groups may raise inherent concerns, further evidence is needed to accurately assess whether a group is engaged in unlawful private paramilitary activity.
This Explainer differentiates between the militia movement, which is guided by a set of shared beliefs, and private paramilitary groups (an unlawful expression of the visions those beliefs support). Separating those who hold a belief system from those who organize on behalf of it is a critical step in any accurate analysis of an online group claiming to represent a militia. This distinction is a critical element in any potential legal accountability or enforcement against militia groups, and analysis without its consideration should be considered limited.
This article reviews the recent history of the militia movement and common ways militia groups fashion themselves, which may help practitioners to discover likeminded communities online. It contrasts this with a summary of laws surrounding militia groups, identifying the types of activities prosecutors might look for to prove a group is behaving as an unlawful paramilitary group. Together, these insights may assist in the assessment of potentially harmful and illegal activity in the anti-government movement.
A Recent History of the Modern Militia Movement
The militia movement, as it is known today, arose in the early 1990s, largely spurred by federal law enforcement’s deadly standoffs with a white separatist extremist and his family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and a religious cult in Waco, Texas, in 1993 – the latter of which would inspire the Oklahoma City Bombing two years later, killing 168 people.
In the years that followed the Oklahoma City Bombing, the militia movement saw periods of decline, appearing as if it had peaked. But after the election of former President Barack Obama in 2008, the militia movement was reinvigorated. By the end of Obama’s second term in office, its supporters had engaged in a host of hostile activities.
In 2014, supporters of the militia and broader anti-government movements flocked to Bunkerville, Nevada, for their own armed standoff. Federal law enforcement agents were present to enforce against millions in unpaid federal land grazing fees owed by cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, who rallied supporters in the anti-government movement to help him defy them. State and federal officers eventually retreated, granting the anti-government movement a rare victory that shaped organizing efforts of the next decade.
The standoff in Bunkerville 10 years ago marked a phase in which the US militia movement has fluctuated between periods of heightened and diminished public presence, punctuated by occasional violent incidents. Its most recent peak of activity occurred in 2020, when numerous militia movement groups appeared at statehouse protests to oppose COVID-19 lockdowns and patrolled racial justice protests as vigilante security forces protecting private property. After the 2020 election, a handful of militias participated in the “Stop the Steal” campaign and helped storm the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.
Since the Capitol riot, the militia movement has experienced a series of legal setbacks. Stewart Rhodes, leader of the Oath Keepers national group, was sentenced to 18 years in prison on seditious conspiracy charges related to his group’s actions that day. Several other militia group members were also charged and sentenced for attacking the Capitol Building. After the 2021 riot, federal officials publicly declared their renewed focus on pursuing domestic extremists and have since arrested several movement supporters for alleged criminal actions unrelated to the riot.
Like many other extremist groups, militias have struggled to muster supporters for potentially illegal or violent actions – especially those concerning elections – following the Capitol riot; this partly reflects fears of being held accountable for such actions.
Online forums once buzzing with discussions between self-identified militia members and their supporters have quieted. Prior forum users have largely scattered away from central locations online, instead dispersing to an array of alternative platforms on a group-by-group basis. Additionally, public appearances by militia groups have been less frequent in recent years
Still, militia movement groups have continued to toil in private. In a handful of states, county governments have acknowledged militias in formal proceedings, even though they do not possess the authority to authorize a militia. Many of these local governments’ ‘militias’ are symbolic and do not meaningfully exist beyond paper, but there are exceptions.
Anti-government extremist violence poses a growing threat to domestic security. An analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that partisan political beliefs motivated triple the number of attacks and plots against government targets in the past five years than the previous 25 years combined.
Traditional Militia Movement Stylings
The political ambitions of the modern militia movement have changed throughout its lifespan; its presence has faded in and out of the popular conscious at various points in political history. But over the decades, a constant shared self-conception has been expressed through propaganda, branding and rhetoric. While the presence of these markers alone does not prove that a self-described ‘militia’ is behaving like a private paramilitary group, they may indicate a need for further examination.
Revolutionary War tales and historical retellings
Militia movement supporters often evoke early American history in their materials, including those used in recruitment, branding, strategy and group identity. In particular, many units refer to the American Revolutionary War and the militia units which participated in the conflict. Members of the movement often use this historical legacy to argue for the modern-day necessity of militias.
Many supporters understand their movement’s role as a continuation of America’s revolutionary spirit, fighting for personal liberty against political forces that would otherwise seek oppressive controls over the societies they govern. As such, many borrow material directly from history and cite it to justify their ideological visions.
The movement often cites language – catchphrases, slogans and more – from the Revolutionary War period. Commonly evoked concepts include “the tree of liberty,” “liberty or death,” and “becoming ungovernable.” Similarly, supporters show special interest in issues related to some constitutional liberties, such as freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Supporters also borrow time-period imagery, including symbols and flags from the Revolutionary period.
This embrace of historical symbols and their legacies is not only an expression of self-identity but also reflects militia groups’ desires for legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Many militia supporters falsely present their activities as constitutionally protected rights, rooted in nation’s founding ideals. Under the guise of patriotism, militia movement groups’ self-presentation can sometimes confuse law enforcement officers and other government officials, who may be mistakenly led to believe private militias have authority to act in times of civil unrest or disaster.
The use of these symbols is not limited to militia movement groups, though it is common among them. Radical figures from across the political spectrum have used similar or identical symbols for other means throughout the nation’s history.
Anti-government conspiracy theories and apocalyptic daydreams
For decades, the militia movement has expressed heavy paranoias about government entities they believe to be hostile to the worldviews they promote. These include federal law enforcement, various government agencies and assorted political leaders – specifically those perceived to oppose conservative causes. These fears have historically defined discourse between movement supporters and influenced its offline activities, including illegal acts.
Online forums popular with militia movement supporters are rife with conspiracy theories and misinformation, many of which forecast impending periods of chaos during which militias will need to act. The hyper-partisan media ecosystems popular among movement supporters often feature pseudo-prophetic warnings urging them to prepare for global financial collapses, new world wars, viral disease outbreaks, unruly civil unrest and even a second US civil war.
Blame for these imagined doomsdays is frequently laid at the heels of the government. Though many militia movement supporters hold admirations for certain retellings of American history, a bulk also promote extreme anti-government worldviews that assert modern governments inherently seek to violate the rights of their citizens.
Today’s militia movement philosophically exists in two camps: one that organizes in hopes to supplement the governments it supports and another that prepares to eventually fight back against the governments it opposes. There is often overlap in these worldviews, even within individual groups.
Lifestyle brandings, tactical gear and in-group symbols
Logos and specific branding elements have persisted through periods of militia activity, both in respect to specific groups and broader movement spaces overall. Many of these symbols convey a machismo revolutionary spirit, and often call back to mythologized retellings of Americans history.
Militia movement groups can frequently be found sharing the same imagery: an aesthetic utility crucial for modern-day extremist movements. These include the skull logo from the Punisher comic, Roman numbers for three (III), and a host of historical imagery calling back to America’s founding era. Idealized versions of early American life, as retold in popular narratives of American history, are frequently used as propaganda. Together, this imagery forms the substance of a “lifestyle brand” as much as it serves as a banner for private paramilitary groups to organize under.
Another key in-group identifier for modern militias is a shared affinity for tactical gear. Often dubbed “tacticool,” these items serve as important cultural signifiers to those within the movement, even defining its modern spin-offs like Boogaloo groups. Much like their relationship with history, these symbols are a pursuit of legitimacy, with the implicit belief that they will confer an image of competency and authority to the public.
Militia groups have historically recruited individuals from spaces dedicated to enthusiast discussions of firearms and military gear. Online, visitors to weapons forums may be viewed as ripe targets for recruitment. Offline, a militia movement group might seek new members at gun shows and firing ranges. In addition to potential recruits, these spaces also offer a wealth of resources potentially useful for individuals seeking to organize militia groups, from training materials to high-quality equipment.
Many militias imagine themselves as either supplanting or supporting law enforcement, especially in times of unrest. As such, militia movement groups often borrow rhetoric, symbols and appearances popular with law enforcement and military personnel. Paradoxically, these are also targets of recruitment efforts despite many militias’ mixed feelings for the institutions in which they serve.
‘Militias’ Behaving as Private Paramilitary Groups Are Illegal
There is no US law that protects the formation of a private paramilitary group — how modern militias often portray themselves — and every US state has laws that forbid certain activities in which such groups might engage.
Though the Second Amendment declares protection for a “well regulated Militia,” courts have repeatedly ruled that those protections do not apply to private armed groups including those that comprise the modern militia movement. The only lawful militias are those authorized by federal and state law, and which report to the government. These include the National Guard and other state-authorized militias.
Private paramilitary groups are not authorized to exist and are unlawful under state constitutional provisions and laws, according to legal analysis by Georgetown University’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. Some militia groups have been successfully sued under these statutes and proposed legislation has sought to reinforce those prohibitions at a federal level.
But until an unauthorized paramilitary group engages in the kinds of activities forbidden by law, it can be difficult to make objective assessments as to whether any random group of keyboard warriors calling themselves a ‘militia’ are, in fact, behaving like a paramilitary group.
With some variations between states, anti-paramilitary laws prohibit private armed groups from engaging in unsanctioned military activities, training or practicing paramilitary techniques for use during or in furtherance of civil disorder, and performing law enforcement functions. No state permits private paramilitary groups to interfere with or interrupt government proceedings or operations.
Civilian militia groups celebrated in US history, such as those who participated in the American Revolutionary War, were largely absorbed by the federal government. Today, to the extent that the “civilian militia” still exists, it does so in the form of reserve military units that can be called up by the governor or, in some cases, the president. These units operate under state laws that govern their organization, structure and reporting chain.
Consistent with these long-standing laws, dozens of state governments have lawfully created reserve military units composed of civilians. For example, the state of Virginia oversees a volunteer guard that supplements official Viginia National Guard activities when called upon. These groups are lawful because they are authorized by federal and state law and report to their states’ governors.
Privately organized groups of individuals have no federal or state authority to operate as a militia under their own leadership outside of the government. Nor do local jurisdictions like counties, cities and townships have any federal or state authority to form their own militias.
Groups that do not entirely fashion themselves in the larger militia movement’s traditions may still violate laws forbidding private paramilitary activity. In the same sense, groups that display all the traditional ‘militia’ branding may not actually be engaged in unlawful paramilitary activity and instead be engaged in a type of role play.
A proper analysis of anti-government groups requires knowing the difference and seeking proof that groups calling themselves ‘militias’ are in fact acting that way. If so, avenues of legal accountability become available. Additionally, federal law enforcement agencies’ working definitions of anti-government and anti-authority violent extremism (i.e. AGAAVE) may apply in some instances, opening additional avenues for legal investigation.
_________________________________________________________________________________
This Explainer was uploaded on 29 October 2024.
