By Mildred Miranda – Rise to Peace Fellow

The Super Bowl LX Halftime Show on February 8, 2026, featured Puerto Rican artist Bad Bunny at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California, whose performance delivered primarily in Spanish and infused with themes of multicultural pride, unity, and social commentary captivated millions of viewers. The performance provoked sharp political backlash, most prominently from former President Donald Trump, who, in a series of posts on his social media platform Truth Social, described the performance as one of the worst ever and criticized its presentation. The circulation of screenshots and clips of his commentary across platforms including X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and Instagram, sparking debates that highlighted the increasingly blurred boundaries between pop culture, politics, and identity in contemporary America. The reaction to Bad Bunny’s halftime show underscores the Super Bowl’s evolution from a sporting spectacle into a symbolic stage of national identity and cultural negotiation, where entertainment intersects with governance, ideology, and social norms.

The Super Bowl Halftime Show as a Cultural Flashpoint

The Super Bowl halftime show has served as more than a musical interlude, functioning as a high-visibility platform for entertainment and soft power projection, while reflecting and shaping national identity. The halftime show regularly attracts an audience exceeding 100 million viewers, positioning it uniquely to signal social values, cultural trends, and political sentiment.

The historical trajectory of Super Bowl halftime performances demonstrates that they repeatedly become focal point for public debate, as exemplified by Janet Jackson’s 2004 wardrobe malfunction, which generated moral panic and prompted regulatory reforms while highlighting gendered expectations of decency. The 2016 Beyoncé halftime performance, infused with Black Panther imagery, sparked allegations of anti-police messaging, illustrating how racial and political symbolism is often interpreted through entrenched social anxieties. The 2020 halftime show featuring Shakira and Jennifer Lopez provoked discussions around Latinx representation, sexuality, and cultural authenticity. The reactions during the Colin Kaepernick-era further demonstrated how sports entertainment can intersect with political protest, with halftime performances increasingly serving as stages where national identity, race, and social values are negotiated.

The 2026 performance by Bad Bunny fits squarely within this historical lineage, challenging English-centric norms, and traditional assumptions about “American” cultural representation. The decision to perform primarily in Spanish, a language spoken by over 60 million people in the United States directly confronted the implicit hierarchy of language in mass media. The resulting backlash was therefore not purely aesthetic; it reflected deeper ideological concerns about representation, belonging, and the limits of cultural pluralism in a nation grappling with demographic and linguistic change.

NFL Nationalism and Soft Power

The NFL operates as an instrument of both national culture and soft power, with the Super Bowl serving as a global showcase of American spectacle. The league has historically cultivated narratives of unity, patriotism, and cultural leadership, leveraging the halftime show as a platform for messaging both domestically and internationally. The inclusion of artists like Bad Bunny demonstrates the NFL’s recognition of the U.S.’s growing multicultural demographic and the soft power of inclusive representation, while simultaneously inviting public and political scrutiny.

The selection of performers for the Super Bowl rarely remains neutral. The presence of artists who bring multicultural representation, socially conscious messaging, or language diversity challenges entrenched cultural expectations and generate predictable reactions from conservative audiences who equate traditionalism with national loyalty. The moments surrounding the halftime show illuminate the delicate balance between entertainment, public diplomacy, and domestic politics, situating the Super Bowl as a key arena in which social cohesion and identity are both celebrated and contested.

Bad Bunny’s Political Trajectory and Puerto Rico’s Political Status

The cultural difference of Bad Bunny extends well beyond music, encompassing social advocacy, political engagement, and diaspora representation through his music, activism, and public presence. The artist, born Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio in Puerto Rico, carries an identity inseparable from the island’s complex colonial status as a U.S. territory. The lack of full sovereignty has limited Puerto Rico’s federal representation, and persistent economic and disaster recovery challenges position the island as a symbolic site for debates over citizenship, equity, and U.S. national responsibility. The Puerto Rican communities on the mainland view Bad Bunny as a figure representing both cultural pride and political visibility.

The artist’s political engagement is rooted in lived experience and historical context. The aftermath of Hurricane Maria in 2017 prompted Bad Bunny to become a prominent advocate for equitable disaster relief, using his platform to highlight systemic failures and mobilize support for Puerto Rican communities. At the 2026 Grammy Awards, Bad Bunny used his acceptance speech to call for the removal of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, opening with “ICE out” and emphasizing that “we’re not savage, we’re not criminals, we’re not aliens” while highlighting shared humanity, a moment that drew widespread attention and became part of broader national discourse on immigration policy.

The positioning of Bad Bunny at the intersection of music and advocacy allows him to function as a cultural actor, where identity and representation carry political weight. The halftime performance cannot be understood purely as entertainment; it is a deliberate articulation of multicultural visibility, linguistic representation, and diasporic identity on a global stage.

Digital Celebration and Multicultural Solidarity

The role of social media platforms was critical in shaping public engagement with Bad Bunny’s performance. The rapid mobilization of fans through hashtags such as #BadBunnySuperBowl and #TogetherWeAreAmerica, reflected not only admiration for the artist’s performance but also support for symbolic representation of Latinx and multicultural communities. The platform TikTok encouraged youth-driven viral content through short-form clips, while X enabled direct circulation of political commentary and reaction threads. The platform Instagram served as a hybrid visual-text medium, amplifying featured celebration and influencer-driven narratives.

The dissemination of memes, reaction videos, and political satire created a multi-layered digital conversation. The user-generated content became an archive of public sentiment, capturing the interplay between humor, identity, and politics. The platforms differ in demographics, engagement style, and narrative persistence. The platform TikTok skews younger, prioritizing virality and entertainment framing, while X amplifies ideological messaging and rapid debate. The platform Truth Social, in contrast, is highly concentrated among politically conservative audiences, magnifying grievance narratives and mobilizing supporters. The platform-specific dynamics illustrate how digital media functions as a forum for celebration, a battleground for polarization, and a barometer of public sentiment.

Trump’s Cultural Messaging Strategy

President Donald Trump’s reaction fits a longstanding strategy of leveraging cultural moments to reinforce ideological narratives. The labeling of Bad Bunny’s performance as unintelligible and disrespectful framed cultural diversity as a threat to traditional norms, activating feelings of grievance among supporters who perceive demographic and linguistic change as displacement. The approach demonstrates the intersection of cultural criticism and political mobilization, where pop culture functions as a proxy for ideological conflict.

The Truth Social platform amplified the effect, allowing messaging to bypass traditional editorial oversight and reach a concentrated base rapidly. The halftime show, in this context, becomes both a symbolic trigger and an instrument of political signaling, illustrating the interplay between social media, culture, and political identity.

White House and Institutional Response

The White House’s approach provided a sharp contrast to Trump’s strategy. The avoidance of formal commentary on the performance was paired with emphasis from senior administration officials and aligned cultural commentators on inclusive representation and multicultural legitimacy. The signaling of support without escalating controversy reflected institutional restraint and highlighted the importance of soft messaging in governance. The divergence between populist provocation and institutional moderation illustrates how cultural events are absorbed into political strategy, shaping perceptions of leadership, inclusion, and authority.

Parallel Unrest in Minnesota: Enforcement and Public Trust

The cultural discourse unfolding on the national stage coincided with events in Minnesota that exposed parallel challenges in governance, enforcement, and public trust. The fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Good by a U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent during a south Minneapolis enforcement operation on January 7, 2026, ignited widespread controversy and sparked intense public scrutiny. The incident, captured on video and shared widely on social media, showed an ICE agent firing multiple shots into Good’s vehicle under contested circumstances as she attempted to drive away, a confrontation that local officials have disputed and demanded clarity on.

The immediate aftermath of the shooting saw local leaders, human rights advocates, and community members reject the federal narrative of self-defense, asserting that Good was acting as a legal observer and not imminent threat when she was struck. The incident drew national attention and deepened long-standing debate over the use of force by federal enforcement agents, prompting calls for independent investigation and transparency from state and civic organizations.

The fatal encounter was soon followed by additional controversy surrounding the death of Alex Pretti, another Minnesota resident who was killed amid protests against the expanded federal enforcement presence, intensifying public outrage and reinforcing perceptions of systemic issues in immigration operations. The medical examiner ruled Pretty’s death a homicide, and his case, like Good’s, became a rallying point for critics of federal tactics who emphasized that both individuals were unarmed or not posing clear threats at the time they were killed. The broader context of these shootings illustrated deep tensions between federal authority and community expectations around public safety, accountability, and the limits of enforcement power.

The deaths of Good and Pretti catalyzed protests in Minneapolis and across the United States, highlighting persistent tensions between federal authority and local governance in matters of immigration enforcement. The rallies outside federal buildings, including the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, featured demonstrators carrying signs reading “ICE Out Now,” and chanting against the presence of federal agents, even as law enforcement deployed crowd control tactics that resulted in multiple arrests during demonstrations marking the anniversary of Good’s death. The increased activism drew participation from advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Minnesota, which publicly condemned federal enforcement strategies they characterized as overly aggressive and harmful to community safety. The protests also extended beyond Minnesota, with solidarity demonstrations reported in cities like Phoenix, New York City, and Washington D.C, where participants called for accountability, policy reform, and protection of civil liberties. The sustained public outcry exerted pressure on political leaders at multiple levels of government. The Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz and Minnesota Mayor Jacob Frey issued statements condemning the shootings and calling for full investigations, emphasizing the need for transparent review and community trust in the process.

The Trump administration defended federal agents’ actions as part of broader immigration enforcement policy, framing the operations as necessary to uphold the rule of law. The administration announced measures such as a reduction without committing to a complete withdrawal of ICE and Border Patrol presence from the state in response to growing criticism. The contrasting responses underscored divergent narratives on enforcement authority, civil rights, and public safety, with national figures such as Senator Rand Paul voicing concerns over civil liberties and urging caution in how such operations are conducted. The community impact was evident, with local reports detailing fear and trauma among residents, particularly within immigrant populations, many of whom expressed apprehension about leaving their homes due to the aggressive enforcement climate.

Culture, Protest, and Digital Convergence

The amplification of cultural discourse and civic unrest was significantly shaped by social media. The trending of hashtags such as #ICEOut and #JusticeForRenee alongside #BadBunnySuperBowl created a digital convergence of entertainment, identity, and political grievance. The platforms themselves became arenas in which symbolic performance and tangible protest coexisted, highlighting the ways cultural flashpoints can catalyze social mobilization, heighten perception of threat, and influence public trust.

The dynamics of platform-specific engagement further shaped narrative framing across social media. The TikTok environment prioritized emotionally resonant, viral storytelling, while X amplified ideological and polarizing perspectives. The Instagram platform featured both celebratory and critical visual documentation, offering a hybrid space for representation, commentary, and symbolic mediation. The understanding of these dynamics is critical for government and DHS actors monitoring trends in social cohesion, grievance formation, and potential flashpoints.

American Identity in a Multicultural Era

The halftime performance by Bad Bunny, combine with protests in Minnesota, exemplifies the ongoing struggle over defining American identity in an increasingly diverse society. The use of music, language, and performance now functions as symbolic markers of belonging, reflecting the tension between pluralist and exclusionary visions of national identity. The celebration by multicultural audiences contrasts with conservative critique, underscoring how cultural representation has become inseparable from politics, governance, and social perception.

Prevention and Early-Warning Implications

The intersection of culture, social media, and enforcement activity presents preventable risk factors for unrest and polarization from a security and governance perspective. The key lessons include the necessity of cultural representation, are better positioned to anticipate community responses. The rapid circulation of content across digital channels can amplify grievances, requiring proactive monitoring and communication strategies. The presence of symbolic flashpoints often precedes physical unrest, with high-visibility cultural events functioning as early-warning indicators of broader social tension, especially combined with enforcement actions or policy disputes. The alignment of institutional messaging and communication that differentiates cultural expression from enforcement activities mitigates misperception and fosters trust. The integration of cultural literacy and early-warning frameworks enables government institutions to anticipate flashpoints, reduce escalation, and support public confidence while respecting freedom of expression and multicultural engagement.

Culture, Governance, and the Future of American Conflict

The Super Bowl performance by Bad Bunny demonstrates the inseparability of culture, politics, and governance in contemporary America. The site of pop culture now functions as a space for ideological contestation, while social media accelerates amplification and polarization. The responses from political actors from populist provocation to institutional restraint shape both public perception and trust in governance.

The Minnesota case study reinforces the importance of early identification of symbolic conflict and the role of digital platforms in transmitting grievance. The presence of cultural flashpoints, whether in entertainment or civic protest, continues to serve as predictive markers of social tension, requiring proactive engagement and cross-disciplinary analysis.

The future conflicts at the intersection of culture and governance will involve high-visibility symbolic performances or media events. The rapid circulation of social media narratives across generationally and politically segmented platforms will intensify these dynamics. The overlapping real-world enforcement or policy actions often amplify grievance. The divergent responses from institutional actors, populist leaders, and civic communities shape both perception and reaction. The prevention of escalation will depend on culturally informed leadership, transparent communication, and monitoring of digital sentiment, ensuring that symbolic events do not precipitate physical unrest.

Hyper-Violent Content, Stochastic Terror, and the New Lone-Wolf Threat

By Etienne Darcas – Rise to Peace

Introduction

In September 2023, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a Public Service Announcement about an online network it described as a violent extremist group engaged in sextortion, the production and distribution of child sexual exploitation material, and the systematic psychological destruction of minors. The network was called 764, named after the first three digits of a ZIP code in Stephenville, Texas. What began as a Discord server founded by a fifteen-year-old dropout has since metastasised into what the Department of Justice now classifies as a Tier One investigative matter for the FBI – the same designation reserved for international terrorism.

The 764 network represents something qualitatively different from the extremist threats that have dominated counterterrorism discourse over the past two decades. It is neither jihadist nor conventionally far-right. Its ideological core, if there is one at all, is nihilism. The deliberate destruction of social bonds, psychological wellbeing, and civilisational order through the systematic targeting of vulnerable minors. Canada has designated 764 as a terrorist organisation. The United States has charged multiple members under terrorism statutes. Emerging from gaming platforms, Discord servers, and the open internet, this group represents something qualitatively different to its predecessors, and yet can be linked into a broader swathe of Neo-Nazi Accelerationist movements like Atomwaffen and the Order of 9 Angles. Already, several lone-wolf mass shooters in the past few years have been linked to this group and others.

This article examines the rise of 764 and the broader ecosystem of Nihilistic Violent Extremism (NVE) as a case study in the mainstreaming of hyper-violent content online. It analyses the relationship between these networks and the phenomenon of stochastic terrorism in thee use of mass communication to incite statistically predictable but individually unpredictable acts of violence. Finally, it considers the implications for counterterrorism policy, platform governance, and child protection at a moment when the boundaries between online radicalisation and real-world violence have effectively collapsed.

Origins and Structure of the 764 Network

The 764 network was founded in 2021 by Bradley Chance Cadenhead, a teenage school dropout in Texas who learned techniques of online exploitation and sextortion on a Discord server called CVLT. According to Europol, CVLT was founded by a 23-year-old Indian national studying economics in France who sought to create a space where hatred of Jews and Muslims could be expressed alongside discussions of fascism and nihilism. The networks core principles, as identified by European law enforcement, were nihilism, paedophilia, and neo-Nazism – a tripartite ideology that would become the template for 764 and its offshoots.

Cadenhead met an unknown associate through Minecraft who assisted him in establishing the 764 network. The name itself derives from the first three digits of his local ZIP code. By recruiting members from CVLT and similar spaces, Cadenhead built a community whose admission requirements were based on the quality and notoriety of the content they produced, such as chilling videos of victims carving 764 members names into their bodies, recordings of victims setting themselves on fire, and documentation of escalating psychological and physical abuse.

The network operates primarily on Discord and Telegram, with significant presence on gaming platforms including Roblox and Minecraft. This platforming strategy is deliberate. These spaces are populated by minors, often those already experiencing social isolation or mental health difficulties. FBI documents describe how 764 actors systematically target underage females, especially those already struggling with depression, eating disorders or other mental health issues. The targeting methodology mirrors grooming techniques documented in child sexual exploitation cases, but with an additional dimension, as the ultimate objective is the complete psychological destruction of the victim.

Victims are coerced through escalating demands. Initial contact often establishes trust or romantic attachment. This is followed by requests for compromising material, which is then used as leverage for increasingly severe demands: self-harm, sexual exploitation of siblings, harm to animals, and ultimately suicide. The content produced is circulated among network members as digital currency, traded and archived in encrypted vaults, and then used for recruitment and status within the network.These collections are known as Lorebooks, and their possession marks advancement within the hierarchy.

In April 2025, the Department of Justice arrested two individuals it identified as leaders of 764: Leonidas Varagiannis (alias War), a 21-year-old American residing in Greece, and Prasan Nepal (alias Trippy), a 20-year-old North Carolinian who had helped Cadenhead establish the network. They were charged with operating a global child exploitation enterprise. Court documents allege they exploited at least eight minor victims, some as young as thirteen, across multiple jurisdictions between 2020 and 2025.

Nihilistic Violent Extremism as an Ideological Category

The FBI classifies 764 as a Nihilistic Violent Extremism (NVE) group. This designation reflects a broader recognition within law enforcement and intelligence communities that traditional ideological categories such as jihadism, white supremacism, left-wing extremismare insufficient to capture the threat posed by networks whose primary motivation derives from hatred of society itself rather than commitment to any constructive political programme. As such, they lack the typical markers of traditional ideological grounding in a belief system, or a superstructure of thought about how society should be re-organised, opting instead for violence and destruction itself to be both the means and the end.

NVE groups, as defined by the FBI, engage in criminal conduct in furtherance of political, social, or religious goals that derive primarily from a hatred of society at large and a desire to bring about its collapse by sowing indiscriminate chaos, destruction, and social instability. This framing locates NVE within the broader accelerationist movement: the strategic commitment to hastening civilisational collapse through acts of spectacular violence from which a new order can emerge.

The ideological genealogy is significant. 764 and its offshoots exist within a constellation of networks that includes the Order of Nine Angles (O9A), a neo-Nazi occult movement founded in Britain in the 1970s; the Terrorgram ecosystem, a decentralised network of Telegram channels promoting militant accelerationism; and groups like Atomwaffen Division that have been proscribed as terrorist organisations across multiple jurisdictions. What connects these disparate entities is not a shared positive vision but a shared commitment to destruction as an intrinsic good.

The O9A connection is particularly instructive. O9A ideology prescribes a spiritual path requiring practitioners to break societal taboos through isolation, criminality, political extremism, violence, and what the group terms culling: acts of human sacrifice understood as accelerating spiritual and political transformation. O9A materials, particularly those produced by its American affiliate Tempel ov Blood, contain graphic depictions of child sexual abuse, physical violence, and torture designed to desensitise adherents to extreme violence. These texts have been widely distributed through Terrorgram channels and have directly influenced the operational practices of 764.

The convergence of terrorism content and child sexual exploitation material is structural rather than coincidental. Research by the Global Network on Extremism and Technology has documented that 764 recruitment occurs through communities dedicated to gore content, celebration of mass shooters, and broader extremist milieus. The targeting of children serves dual purposes: it produces exploitative material that functions as both currency and recruitment tool, and it cultivates future perpetrators who have been systematically desensitised to violence. The interpersonal violence and abuse encouraged by these groups is viewed as a necessary prerequisite for larger, public acts of violence by its members thereafter.

The Mainstreaming of Hyper-Violent Content

The 764 network could not exist without the broader normalisation of extreme content online. Its operational model depends on platforms where minors congregate, where moderation is inconsistent or ineffective, and where the boundaries between gaming, social interaction, and exploitation have become porous. Discord, Telegram, Roblox, and Minecraft are not fringe platforms, as they are among the most widely used communication and entertainment services for young people globally.

The gamification of exploitation is a defining characteristic. Members earn status by producing increasingly extreme content. Victims are offered Robux (Robloxs virtual currency) in exchange for self-harm. This transactional logic transforms abuse into a game with clearly defined rules, rewards, and progression mechanics. The victim becomes a resource to be extracted; the content becomes a commodity to be traded.

The psychological mechanisms at work are sophisticated. Initial contact exploits the fundamental human need for connection and validation. Perpetrators identify vulnerable individuals, such as those with existing mental health challenges, family instability, or social isolation and present themselves as understanding friends or romantic interests. The relationship is cultivated through attention, affirmation, and the creation of perceived intimacy. Only once this bond is established do demands begin, initially modest, then escalating. By the time victims recognise the trap, compromising material already exists and is being used as leverage. The victims shame becomes a weapon. Their fear of exposure makes them compliant. Their compliance generates more material.

Platform architecture facilitates these dynamics. Discords server structure allows for the creation of invite-only spaces that can evade content moderation. Telegrams encryption and minimal moderation have made it the preferred platform for accelerationist networks globally, while also easily splintering into dozens of sub-channels and groups. Gaming platforms designed to foster community among young people become vectors for exploitation precisely because they create spaces of trust and belonging that predators can infiltrate and subvert.

The challenge for platform governance is structural. Senator Mark Warner, in correspondence with Discord, noted that despite increased moderation, predators continue to target minors on your platform. The whack-a-mole dynamic of content moderation removing channels only to see them reconstitute under new names has proven inadequate to the scale of the threat. 764 itself has dissolved and reformed multiple times under names including 676, CVLT, Court, Kaskar, Harm Nation, Leak Society, and H3ll. Researchers now use 764 as an umbrella term for the broader ecosystem precisely because the networks structure is designed to survive disruption.

Stochastic Terrorism and the Lone-Wolf Model

The 764 network and its associated ecosystem represent a particularly sophisticated application of stochastic terrorism in the use of mass communication to incite violence that is statistically predictable in aggregate but individually unpredictable in its specific manifestation. The term entered security discourse in the 2010s to describe a circuit of communication involving originators who produce inciting content, amplifiers who distribute it, and receivers who may act on it, even in the absence of explicit directives.

The lone-wolf terrorism model has become the dominant form of political violence in Western democracies. Data from the Institute for Economics and Peace indicates that 93 percent of fatal terrorist attacks in the West over the past five years have been carried out by lone actors. The 2024 Global Terrorism Index recorded 52 terrorist incidents in Western countries, up from 32 the previous year. In the overwhelming majority of these cases, investigators found no direct link to organised terrorist groups.

Two trends within this pattern are particularly concerning. First, attackers are becoming progressively younger. In 2024, nearly two-thirds of ISIS-linked arrests in Europe involved teenagers. In the United Kingdom, one in five terror suspects is now under eighteen. Similar patterns have been documented in Australia, Austria, and France. Second, the radicalisation timeline has compressed dramatically. In 2002, it took an average of sixteen months for an individual to move from initial exposure to extremist material to executing an attack. By recent estimates, this period has shortened to months or even weeks.

This acceleration is facilitated by the algorithmic architecture of online platforms. Recommendation systems designed to maximise engagement can create radicalisation pipelines that deliver increasingly extreme content to users who have shown interest in related material. A teenager researching school shootings for a class project may find themselves served content glorifying perpetrators. A young person struggling with depression may encounter communities that reframe self-harm as empowerment. The path from curiosity to immersion can be measured in hours rather than months. The 764 ecosystem exploits these dynamics deliberately, positioning itself at the intersection of gaming communities, mental health support spaces, and fringe political forums where vulnerable individuals can be identified and targeted.

The 764 ecosystem represents the industrial application of these dynamics. It combines radicalisation infrastructure (communities that normalise extreme violence), operational instruction (techniques for targeting and exploiting victims), and social reinforcement (status systems that reward escalation) into an integrated pipeline. The goal, as articulated in FBI assessments, is not merely to produce exploitative content but to cultivate individuals who have been so thoroughly desensitised to violence that they become capable of executing real-world attacks.

The terrorism charges filed against 764 member Baron Martin illustrate this trajectory. Martin, an Arizona teenager, allegedly published guides on grooming and extortion, ran group chats that coerced minors into extreme acts, and attempted to hire someone to murder a victims grandmother. He called himself the ‘King of Extortion’. His 29-count indictment includes charges of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and murder-for-hire. As one investigator observed, Martin looked like an average kid, just a gangly, skinny kid, but his looks were deceiving.

The connection between online exploitation networks and conventional terrorism is not metaphorical. The Terrorgram Collective, now designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, has been linked to approximately three dozen criminal cases globally, including at least three mass shootings. In April 2025, a Wisconsin teenager who allegedly murdered his parents and plotted to assassinate President Trump was found to have been active in Terrorgram channels and to have cited materials produced by the network. He had been, in the assessment of one analyst, groomed to take drastic terrorist action in an accelerationist manner.

Implications for Policy and Response

The 764 network and the broader NVE ecosystem present challenges that cut across traditional institutional boundaries. The phenomenon is simultaneously a child protection issue, a counterterrorism concern, a platform governance problem, and a public health matter. No single agency or framework is adequate to the threat. In all this, there is also room for analysis of the material circumstances that seem to precede such groups, and the much talked about collapse of trust in social organisations and institutions in the US.

Current legal frameworks present significant obstacles. As Department of Justice officials have acknowledged, coercing a minor to engage in self-harm or to harm another is not necessarily criminalised in an easy way. Federal prosecutors must be creative in applying existing statutes to conduct that was not contemplated when those laws were drafted. The prosecution of minors presents additional complications: a substantial proportion of 764 perpetrators are themselves minors, creating difficult questions about culpability and appropriate response.

Legislative efforts have stalled. The Kids Online Safety Act, which would compel platforms to provide safeguards for minors, passed the Senate 91-3 but languished in the House amid First Amendment concerns. The tension between speech protection and child safety remains unresolved, and the pace of legislative deliberation is fundamentally mismatched with the speed at which these networks evolve.

Platform responses have been reactive rather than preventive too. The structural incentives of social media and gaming platforms optimising for engagement, growth, and retention create conditions conducive to exploitation even as trust and safety teams work to address specific harms. The decentralised architecture of Telegram and the pseudonymity of Discord make comprehensive enforcement practically impossible. When channels are removed, they reconstitute under new names within hours.

Counterterrorism approaches offer partial tools. The designation of the Terrorgram Collective and Order of Nine Angles as terrorist organisations enables asset freezing, travel restrictions, and enhanced penalties for material support. But these measures are designed for organisations with identifiable structures, not for fluid networks that deliberately resist organisational coherence. The FBIs classification of 764 as a Tier One priority signals the seriousness of the threat but does not resolve the fundamental mismatch between investigative resources and the scale of online radicalisation.

The most promising frameworks may be those borrowed from public health. A 2021 report from Arizona State Universitys Threatcasting Lab recommended approaches including containment of harmful narratives, improved attribution of online amplification, and resilience programmes to help communities resist radicalisation. This language of containment, resilience and community-based intervention reflects recognition that stochastic terrorism cannot be addressed through prosecution alone. The pipeline must be disrupted at multiple points: the platforms where radicalisation occurs, the communities that normalise violence, the individual vulnerabilities that predators exploit, and the social conditions that make nihilism attractive.

Conclusion

The 764 network is not an aberration but a symptom. It emerged from conditions that persist: platforms designed to maximise engagement without adequate safeguards, communities that celebrate violence as entertainment, legal frameworks that lag behind technological change, and a generation of young people navigating isolation, mental health challenges, and the search for belonging in digital spaces that can be weaponised against them.

What distinguishes this moment is the convergence of previously distinct threat categories. Child sexual exploitation, online radicalisation, accelerationist terrorism, and nihilistic violence have merged into an integrated ecosystem. The perpetrators are often themselves minors. The victims can become perpetrators. The content circulates as currency. The violence is both goal and method.

The question is whether institutions designed for twentieth-century threats can adapt to twenty-first-century realities. The 764 network does not respect the jurisdictional boundaries between nations, the bureaucratic distinctions between agencies, or the categorical separations between terrorism and child exploitation. An effective response will require the same fluidity: cross-border cooperation, multi-agency coordination, platform accountability, and sustained investment in prevention alongside prosecution.

About Rise to Peace: Rise to Peace is a counterterrorism and peacebuilding research organisation dedicated to analysing emerging security threats and developing evidence-based policy responses. For more information, visit risetopeace.org.

Imagine a world where your hard-earned tax dollars help keep afloat a regime that has permanently banned your daughter from school. That’s not a classroom debate. That’s the reality tied up in Afghanistan right now.

I’m Ahmad Shah Mohibi. I was born in war. I’ve spent years in peace work. I wrote WarGuy. And I’m telling you straight: Afghanistan today isn’t a functioning government. It’s a hostage situation wearing a flag.

The Physical Cash Pipeline

Since the collapse in August 2021, tens of millions of dollars have been landing in Afghanistan on a regular basis as physical cash—not clean, audited wire transfers—because the system on the ground is broken and tightly controlled. People argue over the labels: “humanitarian,” “stabilization,” “aid operations,” “currency support.” Fine. Call it whatever you want.

Here’s what doesn’t change: when money enters a Taliban-controlled environment, the Taliban benefits. If they control the checkpoints, the ministries, the banking access, and the intimidation, they control the outcome. They don’t need to rob a truck to win. They just need to regulate the air you’re pumping into the room.

And while this cash keeps moving, Afghan women are being erased from public life—banned from education, blocked from work, pushed back into forced dependency. Abuse and coercion rise. Families suffocate. The Taliban grows more confident because the world keeps normalizing “business as usual.”

This is the contradiction: we say we stand for human rights—then we keep the oxygen flowing into the same system that crushes those rights.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if the cash stops and the currency collapses, the truth becomes obvious. The “stability” was never Taliban competence. It was outside oxygen.

The “Stability” Subsidy

The official story is always the same: We have to do this for humanitarian reasons. We have to stabilize the currency. If we stop, the economy collapses.

I’m not dismissing humanitarian needs. Afghans need help. Full stop.

But let’s stop lying to ourselves about what this cash really does in practice.

When you keep a currency from free-falling under a sanctioned, unaccountable regime, you aren’t just “helping civilians.” You are also subsidizing the system the regime controls. You’re helping the Taliban maintain the look of order while they enforce fear. You’re helping them project competence while they tighten the rules. You’re helping them survive long enough to keep negotiating from a position of strength.

If the pipeline gets severed, the mask slips. And that’s exactly why the pipeline keeps getting defended.

A Bipartisan Legacy of Betrayal

This didn’t happen because of one party. Blaming only one side is lazy. Afghanistan became a multi-administration project under Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden—twenty years of decisions, compromises, corruption, wishful thinking, and moral shortcuts that ended in collapse.

And this cash dilemma didn’t magically start and stop with one name either. The mechanism has stayed alive across leadership changes because nobody wants to own the consequences of turning off the tap—even if leaving it on is quietly feeding the problem.

So yes: this is an American responsibility. Not a cable-news sport.

The Danger of “War Entrepreneurs”

Here’s the part people don’t want to talk about: desperation attracts predators.

You’ve got a class of “war entrepreneurs” who live comfortably in the DMV, London, or Europe, raising money online for “resistance” like it’s a brand campaign. They sell hero fantasies. They chase headlines. They post slogans. Then they encourage young Afghans—kids—to walk into death with no intelligence, no air support, no coordination, no plan beyond “be brave.”

That’s not leadership. That’s a meat grinder with a fundraising link.

If you want to help Afghans, don’t bankroll delusion. Don’t finance suicide missions dressed up as patriotism. Don’t confuse Instagram bravery with strategy.

Leverage Is the Only Path Forward

If we keep treating the Taliban like a permanent charity case, we get permanent Taliban results.

The only serious path is leverage—real pressure tied to clear conditions.

That’s why legislation aimed at preventing U.S. dollars from indirectly benefiting the Taliban matters. Not because it’s a magic wand, but because it forces the argument back to the only language regimes understand: cost.

The goal isn’t endless war. The goal is a negotiated framework that ends the cycle—something inclusive, something enforceable, something where girls’ education is non-negotiable and women can work without fear. A structure that includes real stakeholders and builders—technocrats, civil society, and whatever power realities exist—without letting one armed group hold the country hostage forever.

A country doesn’t heal through slogans. It heals through systems.

Stop funding them like it’s normal. Use leverage. Force negotiations. Put real pressure on the table.

The Question Americans Can’t Avoid

At some point, every taxpayer has to face the uncomfortable question:

Why does the United States keep sustaining—directly or indirectly—a system that props up a regime that stands against everything we claim to support?

If you want change, “thoughts and prayers” won’t do it. Pressure does. Conditions do. Oversight does. Transparency does.

And if we’re not willing to do any of that—then let’s at least stop pretending we’re shocked by the outcome.

By Nicholas Oakes – Rise to Peace Fellow

For decades, the prominent image of terrorism has been an attack on civilians in a public space. The 20th century model of terrorism has largely fit into this image; the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, the 2015 attack in Paris – both examples depict public violence aimed at sending shockwaves across the country.

But in the 2020’s thus far, this model has begun to evolve. Increasingly, terrorist actions are not aimed at inflicting mass casualties, but instead at critical infrastructure. The goal is no longer merely to kill, it is to disrupt, and financially weaken. Modern terrorism is opting to target infrastructure that underpins globalization and the overall economic order of states.

This shift reflects both opportunity and strategy. As global economies become more interconnected, from supply chains to renewable energy networks, these shared systems have emerged as attractive targets for non-state actors. Attacking them often inflicts severe harm to a nation’s most crucial interests, but more importantly, provides a tremendous amount of political pressure relative to the resources that went into the attack.

Recent events across the Middle East and Europe demonstrate that terrorism is seemingly entering a new phase.

From Public Spectacle to Strategic Disruption:

Traditional terrorism sought visibility through mass-casualty attacks. A very straightforward logic was applied: kill civilians, generate fear, and use that fear to leverage governments into political concessions. While attacks such as the October 7th attacks in Israel demonstrate the original model persists, the strategic environment has largely evolved.

First, as a result of globalization, shared infrastructure has never been more vulnerable. Shipping lanes and digital systems are the backbone of modern economies. Disrupting them causes effects across continents.

Second, the proliferation of cheap drones, and cyber sabotage techniques has greatly lowered the barrier to entry. Non-state actors no longer need to conduct complex plots to generate impact. A missile fired at a cargo ship holding materials used for every day goods yield large results.

This evolution has not outright replaced the traditional image of terrorism, it supplements it. The most strategically significant attacks increasingly target systems that a state needs in order to function.

The Red Sea: Supply Chains as a Battlefield

Nowhere is this transformation more visible than in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Since late 2023, Yemen’s Houthi group has launched repeated attacks on commercial shipping, using drones and missiles to target vessels transiting valuable resources out of one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints.

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait connects the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. A 2018 estimate projected that 6.2 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products flowed through the Bab el Mandeb. Needless to say, the strait is vital for numerous countries across the globe. By targeting commercial vessels, the Houthis were able to garner international attention for their cause, in this case, the liberation of Palestine.

Major shipping companies were forced to reroute vessels around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope to avoid risk. Doing so led to lost revenue for international suppliers, and significant shipping delays.

The Houthi’s actions rippled across global markets, raising fuel costs, increasing insurance premiums, leading to shipping firms being hesitant to return to normal shipping routes three years later. Houthi officials have threatened to close the Bab el-Mandeb and target oil facilities to disrupt exports to Western markets. These statements highlight that the group is fully aware of their strategic intent, attacking infrastructure exerts pressure far beyond the borders of Yemen.

This is terrorism as economic warfare, not aimed at killing sailors, but to demonstrate the ability to hold global commerce hostage. By striking in such a manner, the Houthis have transformed a regional conflict into a systemic economic threat.

ISIS and the Weaponization of Energy:

The evolution toward infrastructure-focused terrorism is also visible in Syria, where ISIS has systematically targeted oil and gas assets as part of its grand strategy. Rather than attempting to seize and govern territory on the scale it once did, the group has shifted toward recurring sabotage operations designed to undermine state authority, generate revenue, and preserve operational relevance.

Since losing most of its territorial control between 2017 and 2019, ISIS cells in central and eastern Syria have repeatedly attacked energy infrastructure in the country’s Badia desert region. Pipelines carrying crude from Deir ez-Zor fields toward refineries in Homs have been bombed or disabled, forcing temporary shutdowns and costly repairs. In August 2020, coordinated explosions struck a natural gas pipeline in the Homs desert, causing blackouts in several government-held areas. The Syrian government was forced to reroute fuel supplies and impose rolling blackouts as a result. Similar attacks occurred throughout 2021 and 2022, often involving improvised explosive devices planted along remote pipeline stretches.

In a nation such as Syria, where energy resources are one of the only areas to generate GDP. gas infrastructure has proven to be an especially attractive target. Syria’s electricity grid relies heavily on gas-fired power plants, meaning disruptions to gas supply can quickly translate into urban power outages. Even short-term interruptions strain an already fragile energy system and force authorities to divert military resources toward protecting remote infrastructure.

Importantly, these attacks blur the line between insurgency and terrorism. They are not designed primarily to produce mass civilian casualties. Instead, they aim to degrade state capacity, undermine economic recovery, and maintain the group’s relevance in a crowded militant landscape. This model, which targets infrastructure to achieve strategic effects without holding territory, has become a template for other non-state actors operating in resource-dependent states.

Syria’s experience underscores how energy infrastructure can function as both a vulnerability and a lever in modern conflict. Pipelines, refineries, and power stations are fixed assets that cannot easily be relocated. They often run through remote areas where protection is difficult and expensive. For groups like ISIS, attacking them offers a way to impose recurring costs and sustain a sense of momentum even in the absence of conventional battlefield victories.

Assessing Examples Within Europe:

The evolution of terrorism is not confined to the Middle East. Europe has seen a growing number of attacks targeting energy and environmental infrastructure, reflecting the evolution of terrorism is not exclusive to one region of the world.

In January 2026, a left-wing extremist group claimed responsibility for an arson attack on Berlin’s power grid, cutting electricity to tens of thousands of homes and businesses. Authorities treated the incident as terrorism, noting that it endangered lives and critical services.

The group framed its actions as resistance against fossil fuels and environmental destruction. It described the attack as an act “aimed at the common good” and an expression of solidarity with environmental causes. Regardless of the rhetoric, the effect was clear: the deliberate disruption of a major urban energy network.

This attack illustrates a broader trend. As societies transition toward renewable energy and electrification, energy infrastructure becomes just as crucial as the economic lifelines previously mentioned.

While the emphasis on sustainability has opened up a new avenue for terror attacks in the modern day, perhaps no contemporary developmental phenomenon can be used to aid attacks quite like digitalization.

The digitalization of infrastructure has opened another front: cyberattacks. Energy systems, dams, and waterways increasingly rely on networked control systems that can be both operated, and infiltrated remotely. In Norway, authorities warned of alleged Russian cyber intrusions targeting dam and waterway infrastructure. While attribution remains complex, intelligence services have highlighted the risk of cyberattacks on hydropower systems, which generate much of the country’s electricity.

Cyberattacks on dams and water systems can have severe consequences. Manipulating water levels or disabling control systems can disrupt electricity generation, threaten flooding, or undermine public confidence in infrastructure security.

Unlike traditional terrorist attacks, cyber operations are unlikely to produce immediate casualties. Their impact lies in disruption, uncertainty, and economic cost. They also allow perpetrators to operate with plausible deniability, complicating attribution and response.

As infrastructure becomes more digitized, the potential for cyberterrorism grows. Non-state actors can exploit vulnerabilities in systems that were not designed with modern threats in mind. The result is a new form of terrorism that targets the digital backbone of physical infrastructure.

The Logic Behind the New Wave of Terrorism:

The growing focus on developmental infrastructure reflects a shift in how non-state actors calculate impact. Modern economies depend on tightly integrated systems; shipping lanes, power grids, pipelines, and digital networks, that are both indispensable and difficult to fully secure. Striking these systems can generate effects far beyond the immediate site of an attack. A relatively inexpensive drone or explosive device can force global shipping firms to reroute vessels and absorb higher insurance costs. A cyber intrusion into a dam, port terminal, or electrical grid can halt activity across entire regions. For groups with limited resources, the appeal is obvious: the cost of disruption is often dramatically lower than the cost required for states to defend, repair, and insure against it.

Infrastructure-focused operations can also present a lower operational risk than traditional mass-casualty attacks in crowded urban spaces. Large-scale attacks against civilians require extensive planning, coordination, and exposure to intelligence detection. Sabotage against pipelines, transmission lines, or construction sites can often be carried out by small cells with minimal equipment. While the consequences may be less immediately visible than a bombing in a public square, the downstream effects, power outages, price spikes, and supply shortages, can ripple widely. Because the harm is indirect, such actions may not trigger the same level of public outrage or international condemnation as attacks designed to maximize civilian casualties, even though they can endanger vulnerable populations and strain public services.

Targeting infrastructure also serves as a form of strategic signaling. Groups that lack the capacity to seize and hold territory can still demonstrate relevance by showing they can disrupt critical systems. Attacks on shipping corridors, energy facilities, or transportation networks signal reach and capability, amplifying a group’s perceived strength. This signaling effect can be as important as the material damage itself, attracting media attention, reinforcing internal cohesion, and reminding governments and publics alike that the group retains operational capacity.

Finally, infrastructure attacks are often wrapped in ideological narratives that seek to justify them. Some groups frame sabotage against fossil-fuel facilities, industrial projects, or energy networks as acts of environmental or anti-capitalist resistance. Others portray attacks on pipelines, ports, or logistics hubs as strikes against globalization or state authority. Such framing does not reduce the real-world harm caused by these actions, but it can help perpetrators position themselves within broader political or ideological movements. In an era of polarized politics and contested energy transitions, infrastructure offers both a strategic target and a symbolic one, representing the economic systems and policy choices that different actors seek to challenge or disrupt.

Another feature of this evolution is the blurring of lines between terrorism, sabotage, and hybrid warfare. State and non-state actors may collaborate or operate in parallel, complicating attribution.

In the Red Sea, for example, the Houthis operate as a non-state actor but are widely seen as aligned with broader regional strategies. Attacks on shipping lanes can serve both ideological and geopolitical objectives.

Similarly, cyberattacks on infrastructure may involve criminal groups, hacktivists, or state-linked actors. The ambiguity complicates responses and raises questions about deterrence.

This convergence suggests that modern terrorism cannot be understood in isolation. It operates within a broader ecosystem of asymmetric conflict, where economic disruption is a central objective.

Implications for Security:

The shift toward infrastructure-focused terrorism carries significant implications for how states think about security. Protecting crowded public spaces remains important, but the systems that underpin modern economies, energy grids, ports, shipping lanes, water systems, and digital networks—now demand equal attention. Much of this infrastructure is privately owned and geographically dispersed, which complicates traditional security models built around centralized protection. Effective defense increasingly requires close coordination between governments, private operators, insurers, and international partners.

Maritime security in contested waterways now involves naval patrols, convoy systems, and real-time intelligence sharing, while energy infrastructure protection must combine physical security with robust cybersecurity measures capable of detecting and responding to intrusions quickly.

At the same time, policymakers are recognizing that prevention alone is insufficient. Complex systems cannot be made completely invulnerable, and determined actors will eventually find points of weakness. As a result, resilience and redundancy are becoming central concepts in national security planning. Governments and companies are investing in diversified supply chains, backup energy capacity, and rapid repair capabilities designed to limit the duration and scope of disruptions. The goal is not only to deter attacks but to ensure that when they occur, their effects can be contained and systems restored quickly. This shift from pure prevention to resilience reflects a broader understanding that economic continuity is itself a form of security.

Legal and strategic frameworks are also struggling to keep pace. Many existing counterterrorism laws were designed around attacks that produce immediate civilian casualties. Infrastructure sabotage, cyber intrusions, and supply-chain disruptions often fall into gray areas between terrorism, sabotage, and hybrid warfare. Determining how to classify such acts, and how to respond proportionately, poses challenges for policymakers and international law. States must adapt definitions, authorities, and cooperative mechanisms to address attacks that are designed to erode economic stability rather than produce instant spectacle.

Finally, there is a need to recalibrate public perception. When people think of terrorism, they often still imagine dramatic acts of violence in public places. Yet the most consequential threats to stability may increasingly come from sustained disruptions to energy, transport, or digital systems. Power outages, blocked shipping routes, or damaged pipelines can create economic and political pressure that unfolds over weeks or months rather than minutes. Recognizing this shift is essential not only for policymakers but also for the public, whose expectations shape political responses. Understanding terrorism in this broader, infrastructure-focused context will be key to building resilience in an era where the targets of attack are as likely to be economic lifelines as crowded streets.

Terrorism has not abandoned its traditional forms, but it has diversified. In the 2020s, the most strategically significant attacks increasingly target economic and environmental infrastructure. From the Red Sea to Berlin, from Syrian oil fields to Norwegian dams, non-state actors are demonstrating that they can disrupt the systems that sustain modern life.

This evolution reflects a broader transformation in conflict. As economies become more interconnected and infrastructure more critical, the targets of terrorism shift accordingly. The goal is no longer solely to kill and shock, but to disrupt and weaken.

The challenge for states is to adapt. Protecting infrastructure, building resilience, and understanding the strategic logic of economic terrorism will be essential in the years ahead. The battlefield of terrorism has expanded beyond public spaces into the networks that power the global economy.

In this new era, the most dangerous attacks may not be those that produce immediate casualties, but those that quietly undermine the systems on which societies depend.

By Caroline Thomas – Rise to Peace Fellow

In recent years, researchers, policymakers, and journalists have increasingly had to ask a troubling question: why are young men disproportionately represented in extremist movements, particularly those operating online? While radicalization is never the result of one single factor, there is a recurring pattern that is emerging across different ideologies and platforms. Extremist narratives are especially effective at exploiting crises of masculinity, status anxiety, and unresolved identity formation among young men.

Extremist movements offer emotional stories that frame grievances as social injustice, insecurity as awareness, and anger as strength. In digital spaces, identity, status, and belonging are increasingly sought after and perpetuated by algorithms. Because of this, extremist groups have developed skills in turning personal frustrations into political radicalization.

This post will examine how grievance-based masculinity functions as a tool of recruitment in online extremism, why young men are particularly vulnerable during stages of identity formation, and how extremist groups frame themselves as sources of strength and purpose in an era of perceived masculine decline.

Identity Formation

The process of identity formation during the adolescent period and early adulthood is plagued with uncertainty, experimentation, and social comparison. However, significant factors of identity formation have changed, including where the process occurs and how it unfolds, especially now in an era where social media is a major part of daily life. For many young men across the globe who are experiencing identity formation, digital spaces are becoming the primary arena for construction of identity, social validation, and finding purpose.

Additionally, there are main traditional markers and norms of masculinity, including stable employment, independence, family formation, and social status. These markers have become delayed or inaccessible to young men in recent years, causing crises in ego and masculinity. Research suggests that young men today are more likely than ever to experience unemployment, declining wages, and social isolation. These grievances have resulted in many of society’s young men to feel a lack of purpose or belonging. Additionally, in-person participation in civic organizations, religious groups, and community centers has severely declined, essentially forcing adolescent men to turn to online spaces for belonging and mentorship.

Thus, online platforms can intensify the process of identity formation. Social comparison becomes a quantifiable amount, through likes, followers, and engagement analytics as key indicators for users of “status.” For many young men on the internet who are seeking recognition offline and are struggling to achieve it, these digital numbers become indicators of self-worth and purpose. Many studies on social media and mental health suggest that these feedback loops of likes and followers can actually exacerbate feelings of inadequacy and resentment towards society.

Extremist groups are aware of this toxic digital cycle as well. This is why one of their main goals is to frame themselves as more than ideological groups, but as communities who promise social recognition, hierarchy, and purpose, which are often framed through traditionally masculine principles. Additionally, these groups are aware of these social factors that lead to an individual being vulnerable to terrorist recruitment, and they are skilled in capitalizing on these vulnerabilities. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “‘targeted advertising’ is the tracking of online behaviour of Internet users, in which a group can identify those vulnerable to its propaganda and tailor the narrative to suit its target audience”. Thus, in the stages of identity formation, where young men are already vulnerable, extremist groups are preying on adolescent weakness in order to advance their agenda.

Grievance-Based Masculinity

Modern extremist movements have begun to adopt a narrative of “grievance-based masculinity,” which is the belief that men, but particularly young men, are being systematically disrespected and emasculated by social change. These narratives are taking place in what has become known as the “manosphere,” which is “a loose network of communities that claim to address men’s struggles – dating, fitness or fatherhood, for example – but often promote harmful advice and attitudes”. There are two major prongs of grievance-based masculinity, which are injustice and victimhood.

Injustice: This prong is a “dynamic state of identity threat in which men perceive themselves as falling short of idealized masculine norms”. When this happens, the perspective is shifted from feelings of inadequacy to feelings of injustice from social structures. It is a feeling of being morally entitled to reclaim something that has been lost. In this case, it is status, masculinity, and identity.

Victimhood: The other important piece of grievance-based masculinity is the belief that men as a whole are being treated unfairly and are being misrepresented across society. This perspective of victimhood frames male suffering as a product of a systemically biased society, therefore categorizing them as “victims of the system.” Men who are indoctrinated by this ideology feel that they have been wronged by society, prompting revenge and retaliation.

Grievance-based masculinity is one of the main drivers for young men to join extremist organizations, as they feel they provide outlets and tools for them to combat the perceived ills of society. Additionally, rather than encouraging self-reflection and analysis, extremist narratives redirect frustration to external causes, utilizing scapegoats and creating collective enemies. Their members become victims no longer, but they are framed as misunderstood individuals seeking the real truth that others are too weak and naive to face. The narratives that stem from grievance-based masculinity turn insecurity into superiority, which, in the long run, makes disengaging from these groups extremely difficult.

Promise of Purpose

 Another pillar of extremist groups’ propaganda is the promise of finding purpose within the group. This targets young men in society seeking to find belonging, mentorship, and community, that they may be struggling to find in offline forums. Groups emphasize discipline, sacrifice, and strength, while diminishing “weak” or “feminized” characteristics of society. Jessica Mueller, from Alliant International Symposium, stated that terror groups begin “when individuals are facing personal turmoil or experiencing feelings of discrimination or alienation. Such factors make them more receptive to new ideas”. As such, extremist organizations are well versed in seeking out these individuals who may be susceptible to recruitment.

The Islamic State, or ISIS/ISIL, actually recruits members directly on social media. Through analyzing the content they engage with, the online forums or groups they are members of, and the content of their actual posts, extremist groups are able to identify potential recruits to contact. This demonstrates how well-adapted these groups are in utilizing digital forums and evaluating key profile indicators to advance their cause.

Algorithmic Pipelines

Online platforms are not without blame, either. These forums themselves actually play a major role in amplifying the ideology of grievance-based masculinity. Recommendation algorithms are designed to maximize engagement, and they often favor emotionally charged content. Many say that it is a “slippery slope” for young men to fall into online radicalization. They could be searching for fitness content or discussions about masculinity, and then, they could be exposed to radical material through algorithmic escalation.

This process is gradual, and oftentimes, it does not begin with outward extremism. It begins with content that is depicted as “self-help” or “truth-telling,” which is a method for gaining traction with the viewers and establishing a sense of credibility with them. Then, these narratives begin to incorporate larger and more intense grievance-based themes, like misogyny, racial disparities, or conspiracy theories. This is known as the “radicalization pipeline,” where users are not thrown in the deep end, so to speak, of extremist content, but rather, they are gradually exposed to it.

In addition to this algorithmic pipeline, there is an extra layer of privacy and encryption on certain platforms, such as Discord and Telegram. Once inside these “closed” communities, ideologies are essentially policed. Members are rewarded for conformity with group ideologies, and dissent is portrayed as weakness and betrayal to the group. This is where “echo chambers” develop, which are environments where a person only interacts with opinions or ideas that are the same as their own, and dissent is not common. These types of environments create social incentives to remain not only engaged, but ideologically in line with the group.

Case Study: Christchurch

The 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks in New Zealand is one of the clearest examples of online radicalization translating into real world violence. Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator, was radicalized not through traditional extremist networks, but through transnational online extremist forums, which shows how digital spaces have become pipelines for radicalization. Tarrant belonged to many online white supremacist forums, which included image boards and memes, which blend extremist ideology with humor and irony. These forums frame issues of racism and violence as expressions of strength and masculinity. Environments such as this normalize extremist beliefs and present them as “truths” that mainstream society is too blind to see.

Tarrant’s digital footprint was plagued with grievance-based masculinity. His manifestos were shaped around themes of humiliation and displacement, particularly due to immigration and demographic change. He did not see himself as marginalized, but as a “warrior-defender” which was an identity centered around turning insecurity into purpose. This is a prime example of how extremist organizations reframe personal anxieties into a call to action. Additionally, Christchurch emphasizes how online extremist communities reward ideological escalation. The forums of which Tarrant was a member encouraged performative extremism, including violence, as a way to gain credibility within the group. Following the attack, Tarrant was praised in these online spaces and his persona was turned into memes and other coded language, showing others the social gratification they too would receive if they did something similar. This phenomenon is called “networked lone-actor terrorism” where an individual may carry out an attack alone, but they are deeply embedded in online extremist networks.

Christchurch demonstrates how modern extremist violence can emerge without centralized control, and instead, rely on digital narratives surrounding masculinity and grievance as a call to action. It highlights the shortcomings, including Tarrant’s prolonged online exposure and clear warning signs that did not go challenged on digital forums. Ultimately, it underscores a key shift in contemporary terrorist acts, as radicalization no longer requires physical proximity to a group or formal membership. Today, radicalization can occur through amplification of algorithms and online communities, and these mechanisms are sufficient enough to turn grievance into violence.

How do we counter this?

It is important for us to note that online radicalization is not the moral failure of one individual, but it is a social process that is shaped by networks, narratives, and environments that are cultivated on the digital platforms we use everyday. Young men are often drawn into these extremist spaces because of feelings of uncertainty, isolation, and loss of direction. Extremist groups offer emotional explanations for these experiences, even though many of these explanations are harmful and false. They externalize blame and simplify social dynamics in order to provide a sense of clarity for prospective members. It is critical to understand the process of radicalization in order to know how to disrupt it.

Countering radicalization requires a holistic approach. It is critical that young men are exposed to alternative communities where they can find purpose and belonging that are not harmful, but uplifting. In these communities, positive male mentorship and digital literacy programs can interrupt these pathways towards extremism and shift to positive identity building for young men.

In addition to countering online radicalization, it is also critical that masculinity is addressed. Masculinity must be framed as a piece of one’s identity that can be expressed in healthier ways. However, direct counter-messaging, which is a focus on debunking extremist claims often backfires and causes increased defensiveness and less openness to a change in perspective. A more effective approach is to adopt alternative models of masculinity that place value on responsibility, resilience, and community engagement without relying on exclusion or male domination.

Additionally, it is equally important to advocate to major digital platforms for increased transparency around algorithm systems, stronger moderation systems for hate-based communities, and more support and amplification of positive content. While grassroots work is important in addressing the root causes of radicalization, digital platforms also need to invest in anti-extremism efforts.

The exploitation of young men through online radicalization is not an accident, but a deliberate strategy by extremist organizations to advance their cause. Thus, it is a critical time to shift focus to positive identity development for young men. Addressing the challenge requires a deeper understanding of the constructs of masculinity and how it is contested and exploited in digital forums. By engaging in these underlying dynamics, communities can reduce the appeal of extremist movements and develop healthy pathways for young men to navigate identity formation in a digital age.

By Mildred Miranda – Rise to Peace Fellow

The assassination of Charlie Kirk by Tyler James Robinson on September 10, 2025, serves as a reminder that violent acts often arise from complex personal, social, and emotional dynamics rather than ideology alone. The case of Robinson shows that personal grievances, identity stress, social isolation, and emotional frustration played a far more central role than political or ideological beliefs. The role of ideology is often limited to providing a narrative frame that explains behavior after the fact, rather than being a primary cause of violence.

The patterns observed in lone-actor cases indicate that monitoring the development of grievances, interpersonal conflicts, and emotional strain allows families, schools, and communities, to intervene before violence occurs. The implementation of early intervention can reduce risk before personal frustrations escalate into violent action. The evidence from lone-actor cases demonstrates that addressing relational and emotional stressors, rather than symbolic or ideological narratives, improves the effectiveness of intervention strategies.  The understanding of these processes equips communities to provide support, strengthen resilience, and reduce the likelihood of violent acts.

Lone Actor Violence and Ideology

The trajectory of lone actors often begins with personal frustration, isolation, or perceived injustice with ideology emerging later to legitimize pre-existing emotional motivations. The actions of Robinson appear to have been influenced more by moral anger and personal grievances than by political beliefs.

The patterns observed in other high-profile cases of lone-actor violence show similar dynamics. The case of Dylann Roof, who killed nine people at the Emanuel AME Church, combined social isolation, identity insecurity, and a white supremacist ideology. The attacks carried out by Anders Breivik in 2011 fused personal grievances with anti-immigrant ideology, framing his violent actions as a moral mission.  The 2015 San Bernardino attack reflects a comparable trajectory, in which individual frustrations intersected with extremist narratives to motivate violent behavior.

The evidence from these cases demonstrates that ideology alone rarely explains lone actor violence. The exclusive focus on ideology can obscure emotional, relational, and identity-related pressures that contribute to violent behavior. The understanding of how personal grievance and ideological framing interact is critical for effective prevention. The implementation of programs emphasizing emotional regulation, social connection, and family support is often more effective than efforts that attempt to counter ideology alone.

Family Conflict as a Catalyst

The role of family dynamics is a major factor in shaping vulnerability to violent behavior. The presence of persistent conflict, rejection, or lack of support increases stress and can amplify existing grievances. The disagreements Robinson had with his conservative family regarding politics and personal relationships, including his partnership with a transgender individual, highlight these dynamics. The resulting tensions are likely to increase feelings of isolation and resentment.

The recurrence of family tension is evident in many lone actor cases. The experiences of Roof demonstrate how family conflict and social isolation contributed to feelings of alienation. The reports from Breivik indicate that distant and conflicted relationships with parents and peers, which may have intensified his sense of marginalization. The personal frustration and family estrangement of Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, also played a role in shaping his worldview and willingness to act violently.

The use of family-centered interventions can help reduce these risks. The provision of counseling, mediation, and culturally competent support allows families to address relational stress before grievances escalate.  The involvement of families as active partners in prevention, rather than context for risk, is essential. The guidance on recognizing warning signs, communicating effectively, and engaging in conflict resolution, combined with strong family cohesion, open dialogue, and consistent emotional support, can prevent personal frustration from escalating into violent intent.

Identity Strain and Moral Stress

The experience of identity strain occurs when personal experiences, beliefs, or roles conflict with family or social expectations. The resulting stress can become a key driver of grievance and moral outrage. The conflicts Robinson faced regarding relationships, politics, and gender dynamics likely contributed to his perception of moral threat. The analysis of many hybrids lone-actor cases shows that identity stress often forms the emotional foundation onto which ideology attaches.  

The case of Dylan Roof shows how racial anxieties and social insecurities heightened his sense of threat, later framed by ideology as a moral mission. The experiences of Anders Breivik reflect social marginalization combined with identity stress, which he used to justify his attacks. The San Bernardino attackers similarly fused personal frustration with extremist ideology, creating moral certainty that encouraged violence.

The recognition of identity strain as an early warning sign is critical. The observation by schools, families, and communities of conflicts between personal identity and societal expectations allows for guidance, counseling, and mentoring. The provision of structured support for self-esteem, social skills, and healthy identity expression can prevent emotional pressure from escalating into grievance. The mitigation of identity strain at an early stage can reduce the risk of radicalization.

Community and Peer Networks

The absence of strong family support often leads individuals to seek belonging and validation through peers or online communities. The formation of these chosen families can provide emotional support while also reinforcing grievances and moral certainty. The networks associated with Robinson reportedly strengthened his negative worldviews and moral justification for violent action.

The dual dynamic of emotional support and grievance reinforcement is common across cases of lone-actor violence. The online networks of the Christchurch shooter amplified extremist beliefs and facilitated planning. The Boston Marathon bombers were influenced by peer groups and online content that validated personal and political grievances. The presence of small, insular peer circles in other cases reinforced a sense of moral mission and deepened isolation from moderating social influences.

The prevention of these risks can be achieved by offering non-ideological social networks. The availability of mentoring programs, youth groups, and community counseling allow individuals to experience belonging without reinforcing hostile narratives. The engagement in activities such as sports, arts, volunteering, and peer-led discussion groups provide alternative social connections that reduce grievance escalation. The cultivation of inclusive and connected communities increases resilience against radicalization and lone-actor violence.

Digital Radicalization and Emotional Escalation

The digital environment has become central to the lives of many individuals experiencing isolation or identity strain. The structure of online platforms can intensify anger, amplify grievances, and create echo chambers in which moral certainty grows unchecked. The online activity attributed to Robinson reportedly reinforced his sense of moral certainty and limited exposure to moderating perspectives.

The examination of other cases highlights the power of online reinforcement. The Christchurch attacker used online forums and live streaming to validate and publicize his actions. The San Bernardino perpetrators were influenced by extremist online content that reinforced their motivations. The acceleration of emotional escalation through these platforms can normalize extreme behavior.

The prevention of violence must address both the emotional and informational dimensions of online engagement. The implementation of digital literacy programs, emotional regulation training, and online mentoring can reduce the impact of harmful content. The encouragement of critical thinking, empathy, and exposure to diverse perspectives online allows individuals to manage strong emotions without escalating grievances into violence. The integration of digital awareness into broader prevention frameworks strengthens resilience against radicalization.

From Grievance to Action

The progression toward violent action typically follows a recognizable pattern. The accumulation of personal grievances, combined with social and online feedback, amplifies emotions while moral framing transforms frustration into perceived justification for action. The trajectory of Robinson followed this sequence, as family conflict, identity stress, and online reinforcement converged to produce moral clarity around perceived threats.

The ability to understand these stages is critical for effective intervention. The capacity of families, schools, and practitioners to identify the progression from grievance to action allows for earlier intervention. The emotional and relational pressures can be mitigated before they escalate into violence. The focus on a process-oriented approach prioritizes prevention and helps lower the likelihood of violent escalation.

Recurrent Patterns in High-Profile Lone-Actor

The examination of several high-profile cases of hybrid lone-actor violence reveals a recurring pattern in which perpetrators experience social isolation, family conflict, and identity strain before ideology enters their narrative. The actions of Dylann Roof were shaped by personal alienation and racial insecurity, with white supremacist ideology serving more as moral justification than as the initial catalyst. The case of Anders Breivik similarly reflects the fusion of personal grievance and anti-immigrant beliefs during the planning of violence. The San Bernardino attackers demonstrate how marital, social, and emotional stress intersected with extremist narratives to construct a perceived moral mission. The resentment and estrangement Timothy McVeigh experienced within his family environment contributed to his willingness to commit violence, while ideology provided contextual framing. The Christchurch shooting demonstrates how online networks and echo chambers can strengthen moral certainty and support operational planning for individuals who are already isolated. The consistency across these cases indicates that personal grievance, identity stress, family conflict, and social reinforcement often precede and shape how ideology frames lone-actor violence.

Systemic Gaps in Prevention

The Robinson case highlights systemic gaps in prevention and response. The families involved noticed changes but often lacked clear guidance or referral pathways. The schools, mental health services, and community organizations continue to operate in isolation. The online platforms may detect concerning behavior but frequently face legal and privacy constraints.

The implementation of effective prevention requires coordinated approaches. The use of multi-agency threat assessment models integrate families, schools, healthcare, community groups, and digital platforms. The sharing of information allows early identification of warning signs and proactive intervention. The combination of individual-level support with systemic coordination addresses relational, emotional, and digital dimensions simultaneously.

Prevention and Intervention in Practice

The implementation of practical strategies can reduce lone actor risk. The role of families includes maintaining open communication, monitoring changes in behavior, and seeking counseling when necessary. The training of school staff to recognize identity strain, social withdrawal, and emotional stress is essential. The development of peer mentoring programs, inclusive youth groups, and safe spaces allows communities to support healthy engagement discussion.

The role of digital interventions is crucial in prevention. The focus on online literacy, emotional regulation, and responsible social media use can help curb the amplification of grievances in echo chambers. The guidance of mentors and counselors can support individuals in managing online interactions and regulating emotional responses.

The training of law enforcement and mental health professionals to understand the interplay of family conflict, identity strain, social networks, and online influence ensures more effective threat assessment. The most effective prevention combines family, community, and digital support, rather than relying on ideological monitoring.

Policy Implications

The focus of policies should be on emotional and relational warning signs rather than ideology alone. The key recommendations include funding family and community support such as counseling and mediation, strengthening peer support and mentorship programs, and offering digital literacy and emotional regulation training. The coordination of threat assessment should span families, schools, healthcare, and online platforms, while peacebuilding efforts should aim to increase social cohesion and reduce polarization. The addressing of emotional, relational, and social factors, policies can help lower the risk of hybrid lone‑actor violence and build stronger, more resilient communities.

The explanation offered by forensic psychiatrist Dr. Hans Watson emphasizes that mass violence is rarely the result of sudden mental illness. The acts are typically planned and calculated, and most perpetrators do not meet the criteria for severe mental disorders. The radicalization pathway he describes begins with early confusion around authority, identity, and social roles, followed by limited exposure to adversity that impedes the development of healthy coping skills, accountability, and self-reflection.

The resulting breakdown in self-reflection encourages externalization of blame, leading individuals to construct imagined narratives of victimhood and persecution. The failure to recognize personal limitations, discomfort, or relational challenges leads individuals to reinterpret internal distress as evidence of hostile actions, by external forces. The escalation of this narrative requires increasing detachment from reality, reinforcing a worldview build on perceived attacks rather than lived evidence.

The convergence of these dynamics can culminate in what Dr. Watson identifies as narcissistic rage, in which personalized grievances, sometimes shaped by political or ideological identities, become morally justified and emotionally charged. The presence of intervention at any stage of this process can disrupt the trajectory toward radicalization and reduce the likelihood of violence.

The White House reports that President Trump views radical left-wing organizations as responsible for the attack. The administration has announced plans for a strong response, with Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller overseeing the creation and rollout of the strategy. The administration plans to focus public attention on what it characterizes as an organized campaign culminating in the assassination, according to senior officials.  The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security are expected to utilize all available resources to identify, interrupt, and neutralize these networks. The measures are emphasized by officials intended to protect public safety and uphold the rule of law.

The assessment by a DOJ domestic terrorism expert confirms that the attack meets criteria for domestic terrorism. The absence of a specific federal domestic terrorism statute may limit federal prosecutorial options, with state authorities expected to lead the case and the FBI providing supplementary support. The assessment offered by Robert Pape positions the assassination of Charlie Kirk as part of a broader national pattern of political violence rather than an isolated event. The portrayal of the shooter as motivated in some analyses as driven by liberal ideology advances claims that broad networks of left-leaning groups are encouraging terrorism in ways often compared to ISIS.

The analysis by Robert Pape, a leading authority on political violence with more than 30 years of research on groups like Al-Qaeda, emphasizes that terms like ‘disrupt’ and ‘dismantle’  are typically used to describe actions against organized terrorist networks and their operational hubs. The concern he raises is that labeling domestic political figures in this manner could generate unnecessary public anxiety, particularly among the estimated 75-80 million Americans who identify as Democrats. The year prior saw the United States experience two assassination attempts targeting Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The current political landscape is described by Pape as an era of violent populism defined by increased in political violence across ideological spectrum.

The Charlie Kirk case shows that violence is frequently rooted in personal grievance, relational breakdown, identity strain, and online reinforcement, with ideology playing a secondary, framing role. The capacity to prevent lone-actor violence rests on early warning detection, relational and emotional support, and continued community engagement. The focus on relationships and processes, rather than symbolic or ideological markers, helps individuals regulate emotions, strengthen social bonds, and address grievances before they escalate into harm.

By Alex Fitzgerald – Rise to Peace Fellow


While the massive arctic storm swept across the entire continent over the weekend of the 25^th to the 27^th of January, it was not enough to douse the fire that is burning in Minneapolis. While the protests that increased drastically following an ICE involved killing were occurring, the national attention was elsewhere due to the issues of larger protests against the Iranian regime, Donald Trump’s veiled threats on European countries in his attempt to control Greenland, and the wake of the apprehension of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. But, after two and a half weeks of non-stop protesting across the twin cities area following the death of Renee Good, attention was turned back to the mid-west. Not only due to the ending of the aforementioned events, but also because the winter storm that was incoming forced everyone to stay home during the weekend. Therefore, when another death in an ICE involved shooting occurred in broad daylight in front of onlookers, the whole nation saw. The shooting was recorded by multiple witnesses and was even more central in its location of what became the coldest city in America over the weekend. VA nurse Alex Pretti was shot ten times after being taken down by ICE agents, most of which were fired while he already lay motionless. Per the New York Times:

“At this moment, Mr. Pretti has both hands clearly visible. One is holding his phone, while he holds the other up to protect himself from pepper spray. He moves to help one of the protesters who was sprayed, as other agents approach and pull him from behind. Several agents tussle with Mr. Pretti before bringing him to his knees. He appears to resist as the agents grab his legs, push down on his back and strike him repeatedly. The footage shows an agent approaching with empty hands and grabbing Mr. Pretti as the others hold him down. About eight seconds after he is pinned, agents yell that he has a gun, indicating that they may not have known he was armed until he was on the ground. The same agent who approached with empty hands pulls a gun from among the group that appears to match the profile of a firearm DHS said belonged to Mr. Pretti. The agents appear to have him under their control, with his arms pinned near his head. As the gun emerges from the melee, another agent aims his own firearm at Mr. Pretti’s back and appears to fire one shot at close range. He then appears to continue firing at Mr. Pretti, who collapses. A third agent unholsters a weapon. Both agents appear to fire additional shots into Mr. Pretti as he lies motionless. In total, at least 10 shots appear to have been fired within five seconds.”[1]

 While this video itself was shocking and calls into question the supposed “absolute immunity” that Kristie Noem’s DHS has touted, what followed as a reaction to the shooting was just as alarming but also odd. There were multiple claims by the Trump administration in official capacities and on social media that Alex Pretti was attempting to draw his weapon on the ICE agents, but the video clearly shows different. The gun, a Sig Sauer 9mm handgun with a tactical configuration, nothing out of the ordinary in the open carry state of Minnesota, became the central focus point of every analysis of the shooting; that is, the only gun that did not go off. Therein began a discourse on social media, morning news networks, and even within Capitol Hill that would make the staunchest conservative from the Obama era scratch their heads.

As the argument about the second amendment was unleashed upon the American populace once again, something strange happened: the roles became reversed. Prominent politicians from the right side of the aisle such as U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli claimed, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.” Other right-wing influencers on X and other platforms questioned why Pretti was at a protest with a firearm. FBI director Kash Patel stated unprompted in a press conference that “you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to a protest,” and conservative news host Megyn Kelly quipped on her radio show, “I know I’m supposed to feel sorry for Alex Pretti, but I don’t. You know why I wasn’t shot by Border Patrol this weekend? Because I kept my ass inside and out of their operations.” [2]

 There were many technical analyses around the second amendment that went back and forth over the internet. Users online and Minneapolis officials were quick to refute Donald Trump’s statement about how Pretti approached ICE agents while brandishing, but the ones that stayed originally silent were of the most interest. It took several days for prominent influencers, gun-rights groups and other advocates, who had previously gained their following in their pursuit of preserving the right to bear arms, to actually speak out about the narrative coming from Republican officials. Meanwhile, Democrat lawmakers and scholars began to take the pro-gun side, such as legal scholar Mark Neily. Finally, the NRA sent out an X post that criticized Bill Essayli’s previously mentioned post and defended American’s rights to openly carry when legally allowed to do so. Along with the NRA, another prominent name appeared in defense of Pretti and against the administration’s pushback: Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse, who was tried and found not guilty for the murder of two men after he crossed state lines with an assault rifle in 2020 to assist paramedics during the Kenosha riots, sent out a simple post on X which read “Carry Everywhere. It is your right. #Shallnotbeinfringed.”[3]

Through all of the chaos in the streets of Minneapolis, the gun argument that was exacerbated by the right seemed to take up all of the conversation around the shooting of Alex Pretti. In the days following the killing of Alex Pretti, the administration’s response to Minneapolis reflected a broader pattern that has characterized its approach to domestic unrest, immigration enforcement, and political dissent. Rather than focusing on de-escalation, transparency, or independent investigation, federal action centered on reinforcing law enforcement authority, controlling the narrative surrounding the protests, and expanding the operational footprint of federal agencies in the city. Minneapolis became less a site of mourning or accountability and more a symbolic battleground in the administration’s broader effort to project strength on issues of immigration, public order, and internal security.[4]

Within days of the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security announced an expansion of federal personnel operating in the Twin Cities under the justification of protecting federal property and personnel. This included increased ICE and Border Patrol presence, as well as coordination with other federal law enforcement units. While framed as a temporary security measure, the deployment had the practical effect of intensifying tensions on the ground. Protests continued, but they increasingly resembled confrontations between demonstrators and heavily armed federal officers rather than public assemblies aimed at political expression. The administration consistently described these deployments as necessary responses to “lawlessness,” avoiding direct engagement with questions surrounding Pretti’s death.[5]

At the same time, the administration resisted calls for an independent investigation into the shooting. Requests from Minnesota officials, civil rights organizations, and members of Congress for a special prosecutor or external review were either deflected or folded into internal DHS review mechanisms. Public statements emphasized that agents had acted “within protocol” pending investigation, reinforcing a presumption of justification before any findings were released. This stance deepened skepticism among protesters and community leaders, who viewed the process as inherently conflicted. Messaging from the White House and allied media outlets further shaped the administration’s approach. Minneapolis was repeatedly referenced as an example of what happens when “weak governance” meets immigration enforcement resistance. The protests were framed not as responses to a specific killing, but as part of a broader pattern of disorder allegedly encouraged by political opponents. This rhetorical strategy allowed the administration to sidestep the specifics of Pretti’s case while situating Minneapolis within a national narrative about security, borders, and authority.[6]

Legislatively, the administration leveraged the unrest to renew calls for expanded protections for federal agents and harsher penalties for interference with immigration operations. Draft proposals emphasized criminal liability for protest related obstruction and expanded definitions of threats against federal officers. While these measures were justified as responses to Minneapolis, they were national in scope and reflected long standing priorities rather than targeted solutions. Perhaps most notably, the administration made little effort to engage directly with Minneapolis residents affected by the prolonged unrest. There were no high-level visits aimed at reconciliation, no federal community forums, and no public outreach beyond statements emphasizing enforcement. The city instead became a warning, cited in speeches and posts as evidence of why forceful federal action was necessary. In this way, Minneapolis was not treated as a community in crisis, but as a proving ground. The administration’s actions following the shooting signaled that its priority was not resolution or trust building, but control, deterrence, and narrative dominance, even as tensions on the ground continued to simmer.[7]

The gun argument that took up the majority of attention by right-wing media, and even conventional news outlets, therefore may have been intentional. The prospect of drawing attention away from a shooting resulting in the death of a protestor in Minneapolis would be ideal for a Trump administration which was failing to get a single city under control. Even if energy were directed away from ICE agents nationally, if not in Minneapolis, for a few days, it would have given the agency time to cover their tracks and make sure all ends were tied up with the shooting. Nevertheless, the administration’s immediate reaction to a federally involved shooting is worrying to say the least. Instead of noting on the tragedy of a life lost, the Trump administration resorted, once again, immediately to character slander and claims of domestic terrorism, which has become a key term in countering national pushback against ICE actions.[8] It is safe to say now that there is a broader issue within the training and doctrine of ICE agents in the US, not just in the way they deal with immigration, but in the way they deal with obstruction. Instead of attempts to remedy these problems by the DHS, however, they have leaned into the issues. In a bizarre play by the Trump administration, it was announced that ICE agents would serve as security for the American athletes in the upcoming Olympic Games. Only time will tell if the situation in Minneapolis will further unravel, or if ICE will unravel first. Unfortunately, the latter may lead to more issues like the shooting on January 24^th.[9]

---

[1] Devon Lum and Haley Willis, “Videos Show Moments in Which Agents Killed a Man in Minneapolis,” New York Times, January 27, 2026.

[2] Megyn Kelly (@MegynKellyShow), X (formerly Twitter), January 26^, 2026.

Zach Schonfeld, “Friction Emerges as Gun Rights Groups Clash with Trump Officials Over Minnesota Shooting,” The Hill, January 26, 2026.

[3] Kyle Rittenhouse (@rittenhouse2a), X (formally Twitter), January 26, 2026.

Abene Clayton, “Why the Minneapolis Killings have Driven a Wedge between Trump and Pro-Gun Groups,” The Guardian, January 29, 2026.

[4] Matthew Choi and Dan Merica, “Minneapolis Shooting Prompts Bipartisan Blowback,” The Washington Post, January 26, 2026.

Michelle L. Price, “Trump, Unbowed by Backlash to Minneapolis Shooting, Blames Democrats for ‘Chaos’,” ABC News, January 25, 2026.

[5] Associated Press, “Homeland Security plans 2,000 Officers in Minnesota for its ‘Largest Immigration Operation Ever,’” Times Union, January 6, 2026.

City of Minneapolis, “MN Attorney General, Minneapolis and Saint Paul Sue to Halt ICE Surge into Minnesota,” January 12, 2026.

[6] Hugo Lowell, “Two Agents who Shot Alex Pretti put on Leave as Trump Tries to Quell Backlash,” The Guardian, January 28, 2026.

Myah Ward and Dasha Burns, “’It’s Starting to Turn Against Us’: White House Reckons with Minnesota Fallout,” Politico, January 26, 2026.

Anthony Zurcher, “Trump Abandons Attack Mode as Minneapolis Shooting Backlash Grows,” BBC, January 26, 2026.

[7] MPR Staff, “Bovino Defends Immigration Surge Tactics, Deflects Questions of Abuse,” MPR, January 20, 2026.

[8] Chad de Guzman, “Trump Labels Man Killed by Federal Agents an ‘Agitator’ and ‘Perhaps, Insurrectionist’,” Time, January 30, 2026.

[9] Shannon Heffernan and Tom Meagher, “How ICE and Border Patrol Keep Injuring and Killing People,” The Marshall Project, January 26, 2026.

Giselda Vagnoni, “Italy’s Winter Olympics Security Plan Keeps ICE in Advisory Role,” Reuters, January 27, 2026.

Alexander Smith, Claudio Lavanga, and Matteo Moschella, “ICE Role at the Winter Olympics Prompts Fury in Italy,” NBC News, January 27^, 2026.

San Noor Haq, Barbie Latza Nadeau, Antonia Mortensen, and Karina Tsui, “Italians Furious Over Deployment of ICE Agents to Bolster US Security at Winter Olympics,” CNN, January 29, 2026.