Counterterrorism Czar’s Blueprint Targets Leftists, Ignores Far-Right Violence and Heaps Praise on Trump

Lead

The White House's newly released national counterterrorism strategy, drafted by counterterrorism czar Sebastian Gorka, has drawn sharp criticism from current and former intelligence officials and threat analysts, who say the document ranks threats based on political considerations rather than intelligence assessments. The 16-page blueprint, released May 6 after months of delays, prioritizes Latin American drug cartels over Islamist militant groups and omits any mention of the violent far right, despite the FBI repeatedly labeling such groups as the leading domestic threat.

Coverage Comparison

The strategy, which Gorka has described as his "life's work" and a "massive" overhaul of the U.S. approach to counterterrorism, was the subject of a recent ProPublica report. The Intercept also covered the document, focusing on the administration's "global killing spree" and inconsistencies in Gorka's claims about the number of jihadis killed.

ProPublica's reporting emphasizes that the strategy's threat rankings diverge from standard intelligence assessments. Islamist militant groups—traditionally the top concern—now come second to Latin American drug cartels, while "militant leftists," a small subset of extremist violence in the United States, are portrayed as a threat on par with global terrorist networks such as al-Qaida. The document also lavishes praise on President Trump's national security agenda but offers few details on tackling the administration's top priorities: Latin American "narcoterrorists," Islamist militant groups, and violent leftist antifascists and anarchists.

The Intercept, meanwhile, highlights the administration's aggressive military actions, particularly in Somalia. The Intercept reports that the U.S. has conducted at least 190 attacks during Trump's second term, resulting in increased terrorist violence. Gorka's claims about the number of jihadis killed have been inconsistent, the report notes, and the administration has loosened rules of engagement, leading to civilian casualties.

Key Claims

• Threat Prioritization: The strategy prioritizes Latin American drug cartels over Islamist militant groups, according to ProPublica and The Intercept. Several current and former counterterrorism officials and threat analysts told ProPublica this ranking is based on politics rather than intelligence.

• Omission of Far-Right Violence: The strategy omits the violent far right as a domestic threat, a claim made by ProPublica. The FBI has repeatedly called far-right extremists the leading domestic threat.

• Praise for Trump: The document praises President Trump's national security agenda, a detail reported by ProPublica.

• Mentions of Biden: The strategy mentions President Biden seven times, according to ProPublica.

• Civilian Casualties: The Trump administration has loosened rules of engagement, leading to civilian casualties in Somalia and elsewhere, as reported by The Intercept.

• Inconsistency in Gorka's Claims: Gorka's claims about the number of jihadis killed are inconsistent, according to The Intercept.

Perspectives

• The Trump Administration's View: Gorka has called the document a "return to common sense" after the 2021 Biden strategy, which he says centered on mostly far-right domestic threats. The strategy's emphasis on cartels and leftist groups aligns with the administration's stated priorities.

• Critics' View: Several counterterrorism officials and analysts argue the strategy is politically motivated and ignores the actual nature of current threats. As Cynthia Miller-Idriss, founding director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab, told ProPublica: "What it tells me is that this administration is not paying attention to the data, to what our allies are seeing globally, or to where the biggest threats of violence come from or how they might be prevented."

• The Intercept's Perspective: The Intercept emphasizes the consequences of the administration's strategy in practice, particularly in Somalia, where increased strikes have been linked to a rise in terrorist violence. Critics quoted in The Intercept question the effectiveness of a strategy focused on killing jihadis, calling it "whack-a-mole" that fails to address underlying causes.