Solving for Bias - Data Driven Approaches and the Current Threats to the Counterterrorism Field
One of the most significant pitfalls in addressing any threat is falling into the trappings of defining your enemies based on your own ideological biases. That is perhaps especially true when it comes to highly politicised threat areas, such as extremism, terrorism, and mass casualty violence.
Last week saw much politicised discourse on how extremist threats across the spectrum are perceived and quantified.
President Trump designated Antifa as a "domestic terrorist organisation."
CSIS (the Centre for Strategic and International Studies) released a report announcing that left-wing extremism was on the rise, and that attacks from the far left for the first time in 30 years outnumbered those from the far right.
The Heritage Foundation, along with its spin-off, the Oversight Project, has called on the FBI to add "Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism" to its list of domestic extremist groups, building on familiar rhetoric from across the right.
All of these actions lead to a distorted public image of the realities of the threats facing both Americans and the world.
At Revontulet, we are aware of the implications of a biased worldview when assessing threats. We therefore work consciously and consistently to continuously evaluate and understand our own biases and develop methodologies to mitigate these.
The Trans Shooter Narrative
The Heritage Foundation, an American right-wing think tank, most well known for developing Project 2025, and its spin-off, the Oversight Project, has, in a recent petition, called on the FBI to add "Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism" (TIIVE) to its list of domestic extremist groups. The call for the designation of TIIVE is based on flawed data.
Rumours in DC claim an Executive Order to designate TIIVE is imminent. The rumoured EO follows similar actions taken against Antifa and anyone seen as aligned with or associated with the movement last week. The move also follows the discourse in the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which further fueled the "trans shooter" narrative both in terms of political violence and mass casualty attacks.
To gain a better understanding of the development of the Trans Shooter narrative, we reviewed Google Analytics data to understand better when the term originated and in relation to which attacks it had spread.
Screengrab of statistics on the search term “trans shooter” in Google Analytics.
As the search data shows, the term was hardly in use at all before May 2022. May 2022 saw several significant mass shootings in the United States, one in Buffalo, New York, inspired by far-right attackers as previously seen in the attacks in Christchurch in 2019 and Utøya/Oslo in 2011. The other attack in May 2022 was on a school in Uvalde, Texas.
Following the shooting in Uvalde, U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, a far-right Republican and major supporter of Donald Trump, tweeted the false allegation that "a transsexual leftist illegal alien" was responsible for the attack.
Salvador Rolando Ramos, the perpetrator of the attack in Uvalde that cost 22 lives and injured 21, was not trans, a U.S citizen, born in Fargo, North Dakota, a resident of Uvalde, and a former student at the school he attacked. He died in a classroom where he had been taught as a child.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene joined the list of far-right political voices, adding to the spread of misinformation suggesting Ramos was trans and engaged in cross-dressing, despite no evidence to back this up. These rumours seem to have originated on 4chan, where images of a trans woman were shared next to pictures of Ramos, suggesting they were the same person. As the story evolved, other photos of trans individuals were stolen and misappropriated to advance the harmful narrative further, misidentifying the perpetrator and putting the lives of trans women at risk. This behaviour has become a common meme in the aftermath of multiple acts of mass violence.
Following the spread of misinformation in the aftermath of the Uvalde shooting, there were reports of violence targeting trans individuals in Texas by perpetrators blaming the trans community as a whole for the shooting. When the victim of one violent attack reported to law enforcement, they refused to make a formal report of the attack. According to reports, it was only after Vice News contacted local police that they initiated an investigation into the claim.
The Gun Violence Archive, which tracks mass casualty attacks in the U.S., has listed five mass shootings by transgender or nonbinary people since January 2013.
Since 1966, 1,714 people have been killed and 2,657 injured in mass public shootings, according to the Rockefeller Institute of Government. Mass shootings have been steadily increasing in frequency since 1966, and are a significant and growing problem in the U.S. and globally.
According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, approximately 1.0% of U.S. individuals aged 13 and older identify as transgender.
If mass shooters were reflective of the general population, this means about 1% of the perpetrators would be trans; however, considering less than 0.1% of perpetrators are trans, this means trans individuals are significantly less likely to be mass shooters than other groups.
On the other hand, 95.3% of perpetrators of mass shootings are male - that's quite an overrepresentation - 54.4% of the perpetrators are also white.
To claim, as Donal Trump Jr. did in a Fox News interview that he couldn't "name a mass shooting in the last year or two in America that wasn't committed by, you know, a transgender lunatic" is highly demonstrative of both incompetence in assessing the realities of a threat, and of the anti-trans bias fueling his, and likely his father's worldview. The data exists, yet he chooses to ignore it.
The recent spike in the search data follows the 27th of August shooting outside the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis. While the shooter in Minneapolis had legally changed their name and at one point identified as trans, they had not received gender affirming care. According to a Wired article, "police say the attack was fueled by hostility toward Jews, Christians, and minorities, along with a quest for notoriety. "This aligns with findings related to the shooting.
By labeling "trans ideology" as violent extremism and terrorism, law enforcement agencies would be able to take extreme and authoritarian measures, conduct surveillance and take steps targeting already marginalized civilians - they would employ the measures put in place both before and after 9/11 - for the protection of the freedom of Americans - to remove the civil liberties and freedom of the already targeted trans community.
As a community, those of us dedicated to working around the globe against violent extremism and terrorism have a duty to stand up against this - to ensure we remain laser focused on real threats, on keeping people safe, and on protecting freedom from oppression.
We mustn't allow the transphobic far-right to hijack the critical issue of mass shootings by falsely accusing a marginalised group, accelerating the spread of hate and targeted violence, while doing nothing to resolve the actual issue at hand.
Instead, we must continue to stand up for fact-based approaches, continue to ensure data and statistics rooted in reality remain collected and available, and continue to do everything in our power not to let fear and hatred divide us in the fight against mass shootings and for safer communities.
The spike in the data on the search term "Trans Shooter" seems to have continued through September, following the assassination of Charlie Kirk on the 10th of September. Following the assassination, it has been alleged that the shooter was driven by concerns over gay and trans rights, claiming Mr Kirk was "spreading too much hate." Charging documents, however, do not indicate the relevance of these claims as a motivating or driving factor behind the attack.
The alleged shooter's roommate, who is undergoing transition, had no prior knowledge of the attack, has been described as shocked by the attack, and has been very cooperative with the investigation, providing law enforcement with incriminating evidence. Despite many claims that the alleged shooter was a leftist, there is no evidence that he belonged to any left-wing groups. Despite the lack of evidence, the assassination has inspired severe threats of crackdowns on the left from elected Republican leaders and conservative voices in the United States, potentially advancing President Trump's executive order to designate antifa as a "domestic terrorist organisation."
Designating Antifa as a Terrorist Organization
In an Executive Order on the 22nd of September, 2025, President Trump designated Antifa as a "domestic terrorist organisation."
The Executive Order proclaims Antifa to be "a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law." The order gives sweeping orders saying "All relevant executive departments and agencies shall utilise all applicable authorities to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal operations — especially those involving terrorist actions — conducted by Antifa…"
Considering both the fact that the United States does not have a framework for designating domestic terrorist organisations or federally prosecuting domestic terrorism, and the fact that Antifa doesn't have any organisational structure and can hardly be seen as an organisation at all, this was generally considered a strange move by the broader counter terrorism community.
The Executive Order is also referenced in the Presidential Memorandum of September 25, Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organised Political Violence, which again cemented sweeping powers for government agencies to address Domestic Terrorism.
Following the Executive Order and Presidential Memorandum, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a press release on September 26 to outline its efforts, "Fighting Back Against Antifa Violence."
In the Press Release, they present a "non-exhaustive list of the arrests DHS has made to keep America safe from Antifa-aligned domestic extremism." The list primarily consists of individuals who have committed actions against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security. Representative LaMonica McIver, a Democratic member of Congress, is among the individuals listed in the press release.
A federal department focused on internal security targeting politicians from the opposition should raise alarm bells for anyone with an interest in protecting political freedom and democracy.
Most of the individuals listed by the DHS, according to the press release, are either Antifa-aligned or Antifa-affiliated. It is unclear what distinguishes alignment from affiliation and what substantiates the claims of any relationship to Antifa as a definable entity.
The Executive Order, the Memorandum, and the DHS press release all leave considerable ambiguity regarding the meaning of the language within them and their enforceability. Both the Memorandum and the Executive Order clearly proclaim they shall be implemented "consistent with applicable law." The law that presumably includes the First Amendment of the United States Constitution cements both freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is precisely to protect the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution that the United States has been reluctant to develop laws and mechanisms against Domestic Terrorism up until this point.
As those outside of the United States are not protected by the U.S. Constitution, the United States has a long-standing history of designating Foreign Terrorist Organisations (or FTOs). During the administration of President Trump, this mechanism has been used several times, among others, to designate organised crime groups and cartels as terrorist organisations. This move has been questioned by legal scholars and counterterrorism experts, who are concerned about the government overstepping its bounds and the potential consequences of eroding the existing designation frameworks.
Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Secretary of State is authorized to designate an organization as an FTO if such an entity meets three criteria; the suspected terrorist group must (1) be a foreign organization; (2) engage in "terrorist activity," "terrorism," or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism; and (3) threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national defense, foreign relations, or economic interests of the United States.
While the INA defines terrorist groups based on activity, it deemphasises motivation. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act (FRAA), on the other hand, defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."
A perpetual challenge of definitions like that of the FRAA, which also applies to much hate-crime legislation, is that it relies on being able to discern the perpetrator's motivation. Relying on motivation often entails legislating against political opinions and thoughts, which may be seen as inconsistent with the protection of freedom of expression.
It is also often hard to discern motivation, especially in circumstances where the perpetrator of a crime is unknown, has been killed, or appears self-conflicting, confused, or suffers from mental illness. In many cases, judicial systems thus choose to rely on the facts of crimes for prosecution, on the acts as described in legislation such as the INA, rather than on the motivation behind them.
While the definitions in both the INA and FRAA are reasonably straightforward, they do not provide insight into the designation of Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organisation, as no framework for this exists at the federal level in U.S. law. In place of such legislation, the U.S. judicial system has relied on existing laws that criminalise acts of violence. In some circumstances, non-federal courts have been able to enhance punishment for crimes at the State level through more localised frameworks for defining terrorism or extremist violence.
Reading the Executive Order, it is easy to get the impression it is designed not to target an existing terrorist threat, but rather to silence dissent and target opposition to government action, such as that taken by ICE, and by the executive branch in deploying the National Guard to various cities. However, when President Trump quickly labelled Antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation after Charlie Kirk's assassination—an act he and his supporters claimed was a left-wing attack without publicly available evidence—he also strengthened his image among supporters. This move gave the impression that he was taking decisive action while simultaneously targeting political opponents and cutting off funding and support for organisations he views as misaligned with his political goals, such as those combating far-right extremism.
This doesn't make anyone safer.
Agencies like DHS still act in accordance with the Executive Order, with little resistance and restraint. It is clear from their communications that they, too, are willing to paint with a broad brush to target the wider left rather than any specific organisational core of Antifa, as would be appropriate if Antifa indeed constitutes a terrorist threat and is a specified target of their actions.
As made evident by actions last week, both federal departments and political leadership in the Republican Party will continue to proclaim that political opposition is supportive of terrorism. The attacks on political opposition can only be seen as a move towards authoritarianism. We have seen this time and time again in the past in other authoritarian regimes around the globe, where counter terrorism legislation is actively abused to suppress, imprison, and execute members of the political opposition to maintain the power of an autocratic government.
The issue of U.S. officials painting political opposition as terrorism and violent extremism has not remained isolated to the United States. In countries like Hungary and the Netherlands, elected right-wing officials have responded by seeking to label Antifa as an extremist and terrorist group in echoes of the U.S. Executive Order.
Counter terrorism efforts blatantly abused to defend authoritarianism bring into question the validity of the field of Counter Terrorism and Countering Violent Extremism. At Revontulet, our mission is to make people safer. To achieve this, we believe it is essential to uphold our values by fighting for inclusive and thriving communities, equality before the law, democracy, human rights, and dignity. Politicisation of counterterrorism legislation and designations is counter to this.
While we may expect political allies and the agencies of the U.S. government to dance to the tune of President Trump, even when that misaligns with the Constitution and existing law, it is disconcerting when other civilian actors abandon principle, academic rigour, and integrity to align their work with that of their government.
The Threats to Academia and Civil Society Efforts to Monitor and Tackle Violent Extremism
On the 23rd of September, an article appeared in The Atlantic proclaiming left-wing terrorism to be on the rise, and that attacks by the far left for the first time in 30 years outnumbered those by the far right. The article by Daniel Byman and Riley McCabe presented the findings of their study for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Building on the credibility of CSIS, the objective of the article, due to its content and the timing of its publication, could be construed as providing cover for the narrative of President Trump, his Administration, and the U.S. far right, warning of the dangers of the left and opposition to the actions of the U.S. Government. Citing "data," the article claimed 2025 marked the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing attacks outnumbered those from the far right.
What the Atlantic Article conveniently didn't provide was much background on how they defined the terms' far-right' and 'far-left'. The CSIS article thankfully provides further clarification on the terms. Despite its categorisations, it does, however, point out that "in many cases, clear ideological categorization of perpetrators is difficult."*
The difficulty of categorising perpetrators by ideology is a persistent challenge in datasets that attempt to neatly categorise often complex and nuanced ideologies as either left- or right-wing, as if extremists would somehow adhere to the confines of the traditional political spectrum established after the French Revolution.
What often gets labelled as" far left" or "left wing extremism" ranges from authoritarian communism to movements fighting authoritarianism, liberation movements pushing back against colonialism and imperialism, environmentalists and animal protection groups, groups fighting for racial and social justice, and anarchist groups, to mention a few. The spectrum of groups on the list that care about governance spans from those who promote authoritarianism to liberation movements and anarchist movements; meanwhile, some of the groups have no overarching political objective beyond a single cause that, for often inexplicable reasons, has been declared to be "leftist." The terms "far left" and "left wing extremism" thus become a catchall for whatever authorities determine it to be, which is unhelpful from both an academic and security perspective.
"Far-right extremism" is somewhat easier to categorise and can often be framed as ethnocentric authoritarianism, where power (and capital) is centralised among people of a specific in-group, usually determined by markers such as ethnicity or vaguer markers of common "heritage." Even on the far right, there is, however, a broad spectrum and a wide array of variations in both approaches to governance and the focus on issues.
It has over the past decades not been uncontroversial to identify where to draw the lines between what to consider "normal" political discourse and far right extremism, leaving to a constant and consistent debate over "grey zones," freedom of expression, the ever-shifting overton window and to what extent memes and jokes with far right undertones and connotations are in fact extremist or simply people on the internet having a laugh.
The challenge of defining "left-wing extremism" makes it difficult to find cohesive academic research and literature on the issue. Instead, it's worth examining literature on specific groups, organisations, and struggles, such as the IRA, ETA, RAF, FARC, the May 19th Communist Organisation, the Weather Underground, and the Black Liberation Army, among others.
A unifying factor among much of the "far left" is that their attacks tend to either fall in the category of destruction of property or be highly targeted, rather than seeking mass casualties. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but the objective of the far left is primarily to win support and protect the proletariat, and with that all people, rather than to spread fear among them. Indiscriminate killing essentially renders it impossible to garner popular support. This tactical distinction may be one of the reasons "far left" terrorism, when viewed by casualties, does not have a comparable death toll to that of far-right terrorism.
Instead of the death toll, the core argument of the CSIS article rests on the total volume of attacks, proclaiming that there have been more left-wing attacks than far-right attacks in the U.S. to date in 2025. There are several issues with that statement.
With some of the recent attacks in the United States, it's hard to ascribe clear ideologies to the perpetrators. While the selection of targets in some cases can give insights into motive, other factors are also at play. Personal grievances, a quest for notoriety, or a desire to "troll" may all be at play, but this is hardly consistent with any grander political objective or movement.
Among the incidents CSIS cites to make their argument that far-left attacks now outnumber far-right attacks are the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and the assassination attempts on President Trump. They also reference the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The attacks cited have in common that they were highly targeted and not mass casualty events, consistent with the general strategy of far-left attackers. A challenge is that the researchers, when discussing these attacks, ascribe ideology where ideology may be absent or, at best, unclear. As previously stated, there is no public evidence at this stage to suggest the perpetrator of the assassination of Charlie Kirk was associated with any far-left group or network. Instead, he may have been driven by personal grievances. The ideological backing of other attacks, including those on President Trump and on Brian Thompson, is also questionable at best.
While leaning on these attackers with, at best, vague ties to ideology to claim the growth in numbers of attacks by the" far left," the authors, as Dr. John Horgan correctly points out that, exclude contemporary school shootings, many with clear elements of right-wing extremist ideology and sentiment, are documented both in manifestos, online content, and statements made by the perpetrators.
Dr Horgan, a leading researcher and psychologist specialising in the psychology of extremists, observes that a mix of ideological and personal, public and private motives is present in every person who commits a terrorist attack. This means all acts of terrorism are both personal and ideological - one does not negate the other, and both must be understood to assess threats accurately.
With increasing frequency, we see the desire for notoriety, or simply to “troll” the public and law enforcement as motivating factors both in committing acts of mass violence and in the often deliberate trial of evidence left by a perpetrator, designed to draw attention in specific, and frequently not genuine directions.
Despite the disputed inclusion criteria and data coding, the CSIS article highlights that from 2016 to 2025, their dataset records 152 far-right attacks compared to 35 far-left attacks. Additionally, far-right attacks have resulted in 112 deaths, while far-left attacks caused 13, showing that the far right is both more active and deadlier.
In an evolving threat landscape, the left/right binary and the academic objective of neatly categorising complex ideologies may not be the most helpful approach to assessing threats and keeping people safe. In the interest of public safety, it's worth understanding both the direct harms caused by extremism and the indirect harms that result from failures to communicate such threats accurately.
In the past, we have seen research on extremism abused to fan the flames of islamophobia. Now we are seeing it play into the hands of transphobes seeking to escalate violence against a marginalised minority. We also see it utilised by those seeking to attack left-leaning political opposition by labelling it left-wing extremism while exaggerating the threat posed by the "far left."
A significant concern among researchers focused on extremism and terrorism across the spectrum is that misrepresentation of data to overemphasise risks associated with specific groups, minorities, or political opposition leads to exaggerated fears, discrimination, hatred, and repression driven by a misinformed general public and political decision-makers alike.
The motivations behind the researchers at CSIS remain uncertain. However, the changes implemented by the U.S. administration have resulted in significant crackdowns on funding, projects, and programs designed to support institutions and organisations that research, counter, and prevent violent extremism and terrorism. These impacts have been felt not only in the U.S. but across the globe.
In the time following the publication of the CSIS report, FBI Director Kash Patel has also terminated the relationship between the FBI and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), seemingly after discovering that the ADL, in its Glossary of Extremism, had included Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the organisation established by Charlie Kirk. Before the severance from the FBI, the ADL had removed the entire Glossary from their website in an apparent attempt to appease the U.S. Government. In response to Mr Patel's actions, the ADL published a statement reiterating its support for the FBI.
A hallmark of authoritarianism is that it targets and undermines established academic institutions, civil society organisations, and research organisations—the primary bearers of knowledge in a society—to shape and legitimise the government's political narrative.
While examples of this include events such as the mass arrests of academics in Turkey following the attempted coup in 2016, this is echoed in the U.S. in the lawfare against universities such as Harvard, and significant cuts in grant funding for vital research across the board.
Inevitably, these attacks lead to an academic sector that is either compelled or willing to distort reality, cherry-pick data, and align their findings with the government's objectives for survival, thereby undermining the credibility of the field as a whole and providing justification for crackdowns on political opposition.
Against government pressure, the integrity of organisations and institutions that depend on government support crumbles. This is an inherent flaw of a field that has been overdependent on the U.S. Government and the Department of Homeland Security as a source of funding and institutional support.
Maintaining integrity in this landscape requires independence. Hardly any organisation or institution has managed to maintain such autonomy, having been built and sustained by government funding, corporate funding, and interest groups that depend on the United States government for their existence. This has been a consistent challenge rooted in the hegemonic power of the United States in international affairs, and is marked both among domestic organisations within the U.S. and in the broader landscape of organisations among U.S. allies as the Counter Terrorism and Countering Violent Extremism sectors have evolved.
Globally, we have seen a reorientation away from firm dependence on the United States as a partner in defence, aid, and international work over the past few months. This reorientation has been marked across NATO, particularly in relation to the ongoing war in Ukraine, as well as concerns over political issues in the Arctic, including U.S. threats to occupy Greenland. It has also been a consequence of the massive cuts in aid support through USAID. The United States has, in the eyes of the world, become an unreliable ally. This should also be evident in the field of countering terrorism and extremism, both within the United States and globally.
Global affairs tend to change slowly. The U.S. has historically led efforts on security issues related to terrorism and extremism; its influence remains significant. As a result, former allies often prioritise maintaining normal relations with the U.S., even in extraordinary situations. We therefore run the risk of a world where decisions, designations, and funding cuts are driven by a government seeking to silence political dissent rather than genuinely assess and engage with global security challenges.
Indicative of the current threat to reality-oriented approaches to understanding and tackling terrorist threats is the early funding cuts by the Trump administration targeting the Global Terrorism Database, which formerly ran out of the University of Maryland.
An easy step to alter global perceptions of a threat is to undermine the data. If we do not have access to accurate data, or if academics, to please a government agenda, refuse to code for specific threats — i.e., those posed by far-right extremists — with equal rigour to other threats, that leaves massive strategic blind spots.
During his first term, President Trump said of COVID-19 testing, "When you do testing to that extent, you're going to find more people. You're going to find more cases. So I said to my people, 'Slow the testing down, please.'"
If this approach to data becomes standard practice for understanding security threats posed by violent extremists and terrorists, it poses a significant threat.
In response to this threat against valuable data critical to understanding the global landscape of terrorist threats, we must defend the continued existence of independent institutions and ensure that we continue to collect, code, store, and maintain such datasets, despite the threats posed by individual governments and funders.
Our Approach and Independence
While designations, when applied appropriately, can be a useful tool for state actors to impose financial sanctions and other measures to mitigate the threats posed by a specific actor, they are a flawed tool when it comes to addressing the complexities and rapidly evolving nature of modern-day terrorism. When abused by powers seeking authoritarian rule, they become dangerous tools of oppression.
A lack of, and misrepresentation of, data, ideologically driven decisions, and designations wielded like sledgehammers, rather than with the surgical precision with which they are most effective, leaves everyone vulnerable.
At Revontulet, we enjoy a high degree of independence. We have the privilege of operating within the relatively stable political environment of the Nordics. While the cuts in U.S. funding and the reorientation of the global corporate sector have been felt, our location and global focus still allow us relative independence, allowing us to remain true to our values as we continue to strive towards a safer world for all.
One advantage of our approach at Revontulet is the data model that forms the backbone of both our database and data services, as well as our intelligence and broader research. This model has been developed with robustness and flexibility in mind, trying to avoid some of the classic pitfalls of describing the complex phenomenon of terrorism and violent extremism in simplistic ideological buckets. Our tools are therefore applicable to users who depend on enforcing designations, as well as to those who, with greater nuance, need to understand the evolving and emerging behaviours of threat actors operating outside of organisational and designatable norms.
Our framework is rooted in our ability to code for complex and documentable behaviour. In granular detail, we can code data for an unlimited number of, and sometimes conflicting, indicators of beliefs. We base our work on documentable findings from manifestos and other statements by the perpetrators, as well as evidence and statements shared by official investigations and court records. Additionally, we consider the use of visual symbols, memes, and references, as well as tactics, target selection, offline behaviour, interactions with others, and other factors. Through this, we gain a clearer picture of the perpetrators and their sources of inspiration and influence.
Rooting our work in this framework for modelling complex worldviews and motivations based on behaviour allows us to remain ideologically agnostic, enabling us to work with a wide array of clients who have different perspectives, definitions, and designations. Clients often also have to reconcile their own frameworks with definitions, perspectives, and designations imposed by governments and regulatory bodies. We built our model to address this and provide our clients with the best guidance tailored to their specific situation, needs, and legal landscape.
This complex and multidimensional approach is resource-intensive, but far more helpful than simply ticking a box to determine whether a perpetrator was "far right" or "far left."
In an era of painting political opposition as terrorism, wielding state powers to align with a political agenda, threat and funding cuts against academia and organisations, and attempts at misrepresenting and undermining the data that underpins any reality-oriented work for countering the spread of terrorism and violent extremism, our work and our integrity are more important than ever.
We continue to strive to engage with the field in the United States and support and stand by independent researchers as they continue their work under current conditions. We will strive to remain true to our values and our aspirations for a more data-driven, ideologically agnostic, and nuanced approach to both understanding and countering all forms of violent extremism and terrorism in the time to come.
By continuing to fight for our independence and integrity, we aim to prevent the strategic blind spots that come with politically motivated attempts to undermine evidence-based data and the credibility of our field. This is vital as we continue to strive towards our stated mission of creating a safer world for all.