The question shouldn’t have to be asked, but half the country — let’s call it the red half — includes many who suspect that the FBI is biased against those on the right and tolerant of those on the left. There is a disappointing expectation that abortion advocates currently threatening violence won’t be as vigorously investigated as those who hold conservative views have been.
This spells trouble for the FBI. The reality is likely much less daunting than the perception — it always is — but citizens aren’t privy to details of investigations that might mitigate concerns of double standards. They are left instead with what is reported in the public domain and amplified by politically aligned media outlets.
These damning perceptions were kick-started by the FBI’s Comey-era legacy that made up a politically motivated investigation into a president and immeasurably damaged trust in the FBI within a wide swath of the country. The FBI executives involved in that affair are long gone, and yet we’re still seeing a parade of FBI-led searches and arrests that unfortunately have perpetuated the perception that subjects of investigations are treated differently depending on their political affiliations.
They include high-profile, very public early-morning SWAT arrests or searches of former Republican presidential advisers and staffers; searches of Republican election officials who have questioned election results; searches of conservative activists’ homes suspected of possessing a stolen diary worth maybe 20 bucks that happens to belong to a Democratic president’s daughter — and, just last week, an early-morning search of a former Justice Department attorney at the same time he is being scrutinized by the House Jan. 6 special committee.
Juxtapose these aggressive tactics against the treatment afforded to the three individuals charged and indicted so far by John Durham for their roles in perpetuating the false Trump/Russia collusion. Only one, Igor Danchenko, was arrested, not publicly, and any supporting documents were quietly acquired. There was no public spectacle, no early-morning door-banging. This is the way it is normally done in these types of investigations.
If there were solid reasons justifying the more aggressive tactics against those aligned on the right — and perhaps there were — they are not visible to Americans. That is how perceptions grow. The FBI should be alert to and wary of how these actions appear in the court of public opinion. The FBI’s first responsibility is to enforce the law evenly, thereby maintaining the trust of all citizens. Yes, investigative tactics can and should be tailored to avoid negative perceptions in order to protect that trust, particularly in politically charged matters.
The FBI has an opportunity to rebuild some of its traditional credibility by doing what it does best. The threat intelligence rebounding off the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade is vibrating like a Richter-scale needle. Law enforcement cannot claim, after any outbreak of violence by abortion supporters, that they didn’t see it coming.
Abortion advocates are promoting “rage.” Politicians are fanning flames with carefully worded but unmistakable exhortations to confrontation. Pregnancy crisis centers that do not perform abortions are being firebombed and vandalized and told “you are not safe.” Churches are being desecrated and subjected to sacrilegious attacks on services. An assassination attempt on a Supreme Court justice was interdicted.
The intelligence is there, as well as the opportunity for the FBI to act decisively. The threat of violence could be acute over the next few weeks. The large threat intelligence fusion and sharing apparatus that was created and well-funded over the past two decades since 9/11, in the hope of preventing politically motivated violence, should be well-positioned to help provide information on which law enforcement can act to stop violence before it occurs.
That is the hope. This intelligence apparatus in which the country has invested did not perform well leading up to the shocking breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Intelligence collection, prudent analysis and efficient sharing in our stove-piped agency environment remains a challenge. Even when it’s done well, those who receive the intelligence and are charged with protecting us don’t always make the best decisions. The Capitol was left largely unprotected despite intelligence that forecasted the incursion weeks before it happened.
So now we find ourselves at another key national-threat moment where the air is crackling with violent rhetoric and attacks in reaction to a monumental Supreme Court decision that a significant number of individuals, some unknown number of whom see violence as an option, are not happy with.
The FBI and the rest of the nation’s law enforcement community will be challenged to show that they are properly invested in stopping those who want to do harm at this tenderized moment in history. FBI agents know how to dismantle violent movements no matter what the underlying, motivating political factors might be. Doing so now will not just help to protect people and property but will work to repair damaged trust as well.
Kevin R. Brock is a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He independently consults with private companies and public-safety agencies on strategic mission technologies.