Print
A Quiet but Alarming Disclosure
Recently declassified documents have revealed that the Biden administration, through a joint report involving the FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), identified dissenters of COVID-19 mandates—such as vaccine and mask requirements—as potential “Domestic Violent Extremists” (DVEs).
The report, originally classified and dated December 2021, outlines how individuals expressing opposition to public health policies might pose a threat to national security, even when those expressions are nonviolent and constitutionally protected.
This revelation raises troubling questions about the extent to which government agencies may have overstepped their constitutional boundaries during the pandemic response. With the report now public, critics warn of chilling implications for free speech and the First Amendment.
What the Declassified Document Says
The report, titled “DVEs and Foreign Analogues May React Violently to COVID-19 Mitigation Mandates,” argued that COVID-19 mitigation measures became a rallying point for anti-government sentiment.
According to the assessment, such mandates were viewed by some militia and anti-authority groups as evidence of government tyranny or overreach. The document goes further, linking public opposition to vaccine mandates—especially those affecting children—to the kind of rhetoric that, in the report’s view, could incite violence.
It emphasized that “narratives” around vaccine safety, government control, or distrust of health institutions had been adopted by groups the government has labeled as potential threats. The report attempted to justify increased scrutiny of individuals who promoted these views, even when no specific threats were issued.
From The Right To Dissent to Becoming a Domestic Threat
Perhaps the most concerning part of this report is how it broadens the definition of domestic extremism. By conflating skepticism of pandemic policies with violent extremism, the federal agencies behind the report effectively opened the door to surveilling Americans who simply disagreed with government mandates.
Former CBS News correspondent Catherine Herridge, who first highlighted the declassified material, noted that designating an individual as a DVE gave the FBI “an articulable purpose” to initiate an assessment. This means that under the guidance of the report, law-abiding citizens who posted critical opinions online or attended peaceful protests could be entered into an investigative process typically reserved for those suspected of terrorism.
Such an assessment is the first step in a broader surveillance and investigation protocol, which could result in long-term monitoring, data collection, and even unwarranted scrutiny of social media behavior, travel records, and personal affiliations.
Weaponizing Intelligence Against Innocent Citizens
Steve Friend, a former FBI agent turned whistleblower, weighed in on the implications. According to Friend, this framework allowed the federal government to hand over flagged content to social media companies under the pretense of combating extremism.
The end result, he said, was the censorship of legitimate political dissent and the normalization of viewing everyday Americans as security threats.
This government-corporate cooperation in suppressing speech adds to the growing concerns about the erosion of civil liberties during times of crisis. It also aligns with broader revelations about government involvement in flagging COVID-19 “misinformation” for platforms like Facebook and Twitter—a practice that multiple court rulings have suggested may violate constitutional free speech protections.
Tulsi Gabbard Sounds the Alarm
Former Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard, who played a key role in publicizing the declassified documents, called the report “deeply disturbing.” In her view, the Biden administration used vague, expansive language to target political opposition under the banner of security.
“The government is essentially equating people expressing disagreement with COVID mandates to violent terrorists,” Gabbard said in an interview. “That’s dangerous, and it’s a direct threat to the foundational freedoms of this country.”
Gabbard added that such tactics could be applied to a wide array of political issues in the future, as precedent now exists for equating dissent with extremism. Her concern is that once the mechanisms of surveillance and social media suppression are in place, they can be turned against any politically inconvenient group.
Slippery Slope of Surveillance
This situation highlights the growing tension between public safety and personal liberty in America’s political and legal systems. While no one disputes the government’s responsibility to prevent real violence, critics argue that the criteria for who constitutes a DVE are now so vague that any form of government criticism could eventually qualify.
This shift has profound implications. A society that treats debate and disagreement as threats is not only violating constitutional rights but also undermining the very democratic norms it claims to protect. The normalization of surveillance against critics of official narratives, particularly during times of national emergency, echoes the playbook of authoritarian regimes—not that of a constitutional republic.
A Dangerous Precedent for the Future
The former Biden administration has not issued a formal response to the public backlash following the report’s release. However, the lack of transparency and accountability continues to fuel concern among civil liberties advocates.
If labeling skeptics of COVID-19 policy as extremists can happen quietly behind closed doors, what other forms of dissent are vulnerable to similar treatment?
The report’s declassification does not mark the end of the issue. Rather, it should serve as a warning—a signal that the tools of government surveillance, once justified under the guise of crisis management, can easily be turned inward on the very citizens they are supposed to protect.
Nothing Short Of Tyranny
The exposure of this document has sparked outrage and a renewed call to safeguard the First Amendment. Americans who questioned the scientific consensus, protested lockdowns, or simply refused to comply with mandates were not threats to national security—they were participants in a democratic society exercising their rights.
The revelation that such voices were quietly cataloged as extremists must not be forgotten. Whether one agreed or disagreed with COVID-19 mandates, the right to speak freely and challenge authority remains a bedrock of American liberty—and one that must be vigilantly defended.
