Research / Extremism and public safety
Research & data
Public safety is a legitimate civic concern. So is the refusal to treat a religion, or a class of citizens, as if it were a criminal organization. This page uses only official U.S. government sources we retrieved, and it keeps three things distinct.
Islam is a world religion and the faith of millions of American residents and citizens. Belief is protected by the First Amendment. This site does not treat ordinary worship, religious education, or lawful civic organizing as a security threat.
Foreign terrorist organizations and the people they inspire are a documented concern of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Those movements should be described in their own terms, investigated under law, and not softened out of embarrassment.
Individuals are responsible for their own conduct. Muslim Americans are not collectively guilty for terrorist crimes, and they have also been among the victims of hate-motivated violence. Policy should target unlawful acts and plots, not a people.
Official reporting also covers domestic violent extremism that is not Islamist, including racially or ethnically motivated and anti-government violence. A serious account does not hide one threat to emphasize another.
In a November 15, 2023, statement for the record before the House Committee on Homeland Security, FBI Director Christopher Wray wrote that the Bureau “assesses HVEs as the greatest, most immediate international terrorism threat to the homeland.” The statement defines homegrown violent extremists as people “located and radicalized to violence primarily in the United States, who are not receiving individualized direction from FTOs but are inspired by FTOs, including the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (‘ISIS’) and al-Qa’ida and their affiliates, to commit violence.”
The same official record discusses a broader set of actors. In his accompanying opening statement, Director Wray said that after the October 7, 2023, attacks, several foreign terrorist organizations had called for attacks against Americans, and that the Bureau’s “most immediate concern is that individuals or small groups will draw twisted inspiration from the events in the Middle East to carry out attacks here at home.” He added that this includes “homegrown violent extremists inspired by a foreign terrorist organization and domestic violent extremists targeting Jewish Americans or other faith communities, like Muslim Americans.”
Those statements are assessments of threat, not a census of a religious community. They belong in a civic conversation about intelligence, investigation, and the protection of constitutional rights.
A February 2023 Government Accountability Office report, drawing on FBI and DHS data, found that the number of FBI open domestic terrorism-related cases grew 357 percent, from 1,981 to 9,049, from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2021. Over calendar years 2010 through 2021, DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis tracked 231 domestic terrorism incidents, “with racially- or ethnically-motivated violent extremists committing the most violent incidents during the time period.”
Readers should note the definitions. GAO explains that the FBI figure counts open cases — investigations and disruptions — while DHS counts incidents (attacks or plots). “Domestic terrorism” in this reporting is a legal and investigative category for ideologically motivated crime in the United States; it is not a synonym for Islamist terrorism, and the GAO report’s incident pattern for 2010–2021 highlights racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists as the most frequent source of violent incidents in that DHS series.
We do not reprint unofficial fatality tallies, unverified plot lists, or material that could be used to target persons or houses of worship. Where advocacy organizations publish their own databases, we leave them off this page unless and until an official source adopts the figures.
A constitutional approach is demanding in both directions. It requires government to investigate and disrupt violent plots, including those inspired by foreign terrorist organizations, without apology. It also requires that enforcement be lawful, particularized, and consistent with equal protection and religious liberty. It is possible — and necessary — to oppose jihadist terrorism, to debate immigration and asylum screening, and to defend the civil rights of Muslim citizens at the same time.
For lawful next steps, see Take Action. For the longer historical context, see History.