Newly declassified documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on May 24, 2025, have brought to light that the Biden administration considered individuals critical of COVID-19 lockdowns as "domestic violent extremists" (DVEs). The seven-page analysis, which includes input from the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and National Counterterrorism Center, is titled "DVEs and Foreign Analogues May React Violently to COVID-19 Mitigation Mandates" and dates back to 2021.
The report outlines criteria for identifying domestic threats, emphasizing opposition to mRNA vaccine technology and belief in related conspiracy theories. It suggests that those expressing skepticism about vaccines or mandates could be considered security risks. This classification, according to former FBI agent Steve Friend, provided justification for investigating political dissenters, as reported by Trending Politics. Friend highlighted that the classification facilitated the flagging and suppression of certain viewpoints on social media, with agencies pushing for content removal under the guise of combatting domestic extremism.
In an interview with Fox News, Gabbard criticized the administration for conflating political beliefs with violent extremism, mentioning that Americans were being targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights. The report itself acknowledged that some of the activities by DVEs could be constitutionally protected. Nevertheless, it was used to justify the censorship of speech related to COVID policies.
Internal communications from the "Twitter Files" revealed direct contact between the White House and tech companies. Emails exposed pressure from the administration to suppress content that could lead to "vaccine hesitancy." In one instance, Rob Flaherty, the White House digital director, expressed deep concern to Facebook over posts criticizing vaccines in March 2021.
The declassified documents also show that skepticism towards pandemic mandates was treated as an extremist indicator, affecting a wide swath of Americans, including activists, parents, and regular citizens. Critics of the administration's approach argue that this blurred the line between lawful dissent and domestic terrorism, potentially leading to the silencing of opposition and the punishment of free speech.
However, some supporters of the approach argue that the strategy was aimed at reducing threats during a national crisis and that monitoring certain rhetoric was a necessary measure for public safety. The revelations have sparked renewed debate over government overreach and the limits of federal surveillance, with civil liberties groups and lawmakers calling for more transparency and oversight.
As the controversy unfolds, the conversation about how dissent is treated in America continues, with many believing that the classification of lockdown opponents as extremists is a precedent that should not be repeated.
