Takeaways from AP’s report on a study into extremism in the military that used old data

The Associated Press has found that a Pentagon-funded study that looked into extremism in the military relied on old data, included misleading analyses and ignored evidence that could have led to a different conclusion.

Here are takeaways from the AP’s reporting.

What was the study?

After the Jan. 6 insurrection, when military leadership reacted with alarm when people in tactical gear stormed up the U.S. Capitol steps in military-style stack formation, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin outlined a variety of steps. Those included a request for a study by the Institute for Defense Analyses. The IDA, which a spokesman said was paid $900,000 for the study, is a longtime partner to the Pentagon that has received more than a billion dollars in contracts over the past decade to provide research and strategic consulting to the nation’s military.

The IDA’s study, entitled “Prohibited Extremist Activities in the U.S. Department of Defense,” was published quietly just before Christmas 2023 — nearly 18 months late and with no announcement. Its key recommendation: the DOD should “not overreact and draw too large of a target” in its anti-extremism efforts, despite Austin’s promise to attack the problem head-on in the wake of Jan. 6.

What did the AP find?

The AP found that the IDA report’s authors did not use newer data that was offered to it, and instead based one of its foundational conclusions on Jan. 6 arrest figures that were more than two years out of date by the time of the report’s public release.

As a result, the report grossly undercounted the number of military and veterans arrested for the Jan. 6 attack and provided a misleading picture of the severity of the growing problem, the AP has found.

The IDA based its conclusion on arrests made as of Jan. 1, 2022, the year immediately following the attack. As of that date, 82 of the 704 people arrested had military backgrounds, or 11.6% of the total arrests, IDA reported.

But in the months and years that followed, the number of arrestees with a military background nearly tripled.

IDA’s report states that its research was conducted from June 2021 through June 2022. By June 2022, the number of active or former military arrested had grown by nearly 50%, according to the same dataset IDA cited from the Program on Extremism at George Washington University. When IDA’s report was published a year and a half later, in December 2023, 209 people with military backgrounds who attended the insurrection had been arrested, or 15.2%of all arrests.

That has since grown to 18%, according to data collected by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START, at the University of Maryland. It represents a significant statistical increase, and rises above the general population estimates IDA cited among its reasoning for recommending the Pentagon not overreact. START’s research was also funded by DOD and other federal agencies.

What is the extent of the problem of extremism in the military?

The number of service members and veterans who radicalize make up a tiny fraction of a percentage point of the millions and millions who have honorably served their country. Yet their impact can be large.

As the AP reported in an investigation published last month, more than 480 people with a military background were accused of ideologically driven extremist crimes from 2017 through 2023, including the more than 230 arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 insurrection, according to data collected and analyzed by START. Though those numbers reflect a small fraction of those who have served in the military — and Austin, the current defense secretary, has said that extremism is not widespread in the U.S. military — AP’s investigation found that plots involving people with military backgrounds were more likely to involve mass casualties.

The IDA’s 199-page report conceded that there was “some indication” that the radicalization numbers in the veterans community could be “slightly higher and may be growing” but said its review found “no evidence” that was the case among active duty troops.

In fact, data show that since 2017 both service members and veterans are radicalizing at a faster rate than people without military training. Less than 1% of the adult population is currently serving in the U.S. military, but active duty military members make up a disproportionate 3.2% of the extremist cases START researchers found between 2017 and 2022.

IDA’s researchers were offered START’s data, according to Michael Jensen, START’s lead researcher. IDA’s report even called it “perhaps the best effort to date” in collecting data on extremists in the military. But IDA never followed up to get it, Jensen said.

“We showed them data from over 30 years when they visited with us, so they knew the data were out there to look at a longer timespan,” Jensen said. “We offered it, and offered to help in any other way we could, but we never heard from them again after our one and only meeting.”

An IDA spokesman defended the report, saying it remains confident that its findings were “solidly based on the best data available at the time the work was conducted.” The AP reached out by email and LinkedIn messages to several people listed as authors of the report. None provided comment. A Defense official said the department “is committed to maintaining high standards for its data collection and transparency” and referred specific questions on the methodology and analysis of the report to IDA.

Hegseth and Trump’s transition team did not respond to emails seeking comment.

What did others say about the IDA report?

In January of this year, Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump's pick to be defense secretary, told a Fox News audience the study proved that the number of military service members and veterans involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection did not indicate a wider problem in the armed forces.

“They knew this was a sham,” Hegseth said, referring to Austin and other military leaders. “Then they do the study, which confirms what we all know.”

Hegseth, who was working for Fox News at the time and had no involvement in the report, wasn’t alone. The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page highlighted the same report as evidence that extremists in military communities were “phantoms” created by a “false media narrative.” The X account for Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee posted that the study showed the focus on extremism in the military was a “witch hunt.”

—-

Aaron Kessler contributed reporting from Washington, D.C.

—-

Contact AP’s global investigative team at [email protected]