Terrorism & extremism, explained.
Luigi Mangione departs Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City on 23 December after arraignment on murder and terrorism charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a Manhattan street on 4 December (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
It is becoming more difficult and less predictable to identify the ideological bases motivating violent action.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Extremism from the mainstreamExtremism from the mainstream
On 4 December 2024, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot and killed on the street in midtown Manhattan. Following a highly publicised manhunt, Luigi Mangione, was arrested and charged with first degree murder in furtherance of terrorism, along with other counts. Since the shooting, Mangione’s public social media accounts have been picked clean to better understand his wider political leanings and potential motivation for this targeted attack. Rather than highlighting a neat ideological agenda, what was revealed was a dense cocktail of intersecting, and at times competing, ideological influences that run the political gamut.
As part of Mangione’s ideological milieu, there are some easily recognisable names such as Joe Rogan, Andrew Huberman, Ezra Klein, Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, and Edward Snowden, as well as a few less household names. Noticeably, there is not a clear political leaning among this kaleidoscope of influences, nor does anyone on this list stand out as extremist or hard left or hard right. Even the most potentially alarming piece of content on Mangione’s reading list, the Unabomber Manifesto, was suggested to Mangione as part of a book club, and is not particularly outré for those of Mangione’s generation. However, Unabomber aside, what many of these mainstream influences do share is a commonality in their questioning and critique of institutions and systems of democracy as it currently functions in the United States. Mangione appears to be someone who shares a belief system with much of his generational cohort, for whom a main tenet is a mistrust of government and underlying sentiment that the system is broken.
A broadly mainstreamed distrust of institutions and government, declining youth wellbeing and upward mobility are factors that lend themselves towards the radicalisation process, especially when soured by difficult life circumstances.
Mangione is awaiting trial, so more information is likely to come to light and be tested in court. What is so far known appears representative of a growing trend in the extremism landscape, the increasing prevalence of Mixed, Unstable, and Unclear ideologies (MUU). MUU refers to ideological motivations that are not tied to a clear and stable ideological framework and are rather motivated by grievance. It is a trendline that sees individuals becoming much more fluid and intersectional in their ideological makeup, blending or incorporating different ideological inputs to explain their grievance and justify their violence.
Extremist ideology has never been easy to neatly categorise, with the radicalisation process having always been highly idiosyncratic. Grievance and perceived injustice have always been motivating factors. However, should the MUU trendline continue, it will become more difficult and less predictable to identify the ideological bases motivating violent action, presenting a novel challenge to those tasked with identifying and preventing those on the precipice of violent action.
What’s more, the reactions to the killing of Thompson are telling. While the attack was venerated in both far-left and far-right extremist circles, it was likewise applauded within mainstream society. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue found more than 50,000 posts containing the word “hero” in relation to Mangione in the three days following his arrest on 9 December, with the hashtag #FreeLuigi appearing in more than 17,000 posts across various social media platforms from 9-14 December. This suggests that rather than being seen as an abhorrent act of violence, the killing has garnered a sense of broader acceptance and legitimacy.
While this support is rooted in deeply felt frustration with the flawed US healthcare system, it is also symptomatic of wider societal dissatisfaction and a potential growing acceptance of political violence as a solution to society’s ills.
There is a potential growing acceptance of political violence as a solution to society’s ills (Campbell Jensen/Unsplash)
The normalcy of Mangione’s media diet and the mainstream reaction to the act of violence highlight several important considerations. Rather than an individual at the extreme ends of society, Mangione’s online footprint suggests he held the kind of worldview that many might assemble out of the commonplace popular media. This by itself does not explain Mangione’s alleged crime. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that a broadly mainstreamed distrust of institutions and government, declining youth wellbeing, and upward mobility are factors that lend themselves towards the radicalisation process, especially when soured by difficult life circumstances. Additionally, there is the emergence of those said to be inspired to commit similar targeted killings, like a woman recently arrested for an attempt to kill Trump cabinet members.
This is not to say we should expect to see a sudden wave of extremist violence, but simply that the cohort of would-be violent actors has potentially increased in today’s fractured and dissatisfied political environment. Compounding the challenge is the compressed time available to engage in intervention. Reports indicate a sped-up radicalisation process, with the average radicalisation timeline shrinking from 18 to 7 months over the last 15 years. Furthermore, these individuals are not operating within known extremist environments or impacted by known extremist influencers, which will make it challenging to identify concerning behaviour or influences requiring intervention
Taken together, the potential is growing for a more fluid and harder to define extremist landscape, as well as one that increasingly creeps from the edges towards the mainstream. Mainstream reactions also suggest that such violent actions are being treated as within the boundaries of “ordinary” violence. All of which complicates an already challenging countering terrorism environment.
About the author
James Paterson
Dr James Paterson is the Research Associate for the Transnational Challenges Program at the Lowy Institute.
Topics
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
