The White House unveiled its plan for addressing domestic terrorism on Tuesday, rolling out a strategy that set goals and acknowledged challenges as much as it outlined specific steps for combating a growing threat. 

The strategy includes a call to bolster law enforcement partnerships and stem extremist recruitment paired with elements deemed more essential after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, including better analysis of social media and programs to boost civics education and battle disinformation.

It also touches on other priorities from President Biden, echoing previous calls for gun control in order to address mass shootings.

“We cannot ignore this threat or wish it away. Preventing domestic terrorism and reducing the factors that fuel it demand a multifaceted response across the federal government and beyond,” Biden wrote in the strategy’s opening.

The plan follows a March report from the intelligence community ordered on Biden’s first day in office that determined white supremacists and militia groups are the greatest domestic terror threat.

It also builds on a budget that set aside considerable money to boost homeland security funding and grants to law enforcement. 

It calls on the U.S. intelligence community to increasingly focus on “open source” information, including things mentioned in a Jan. 5 FBI report that noted calls to come to the Capitol armed and ready for war.

Senior officials said the administration would be “augmenting information sharing the government does with tech companies.”

“Any particular tech company often knows its own platform very well. But the government sees things, actual threats of violence, across platforms. They see the relationship between online recruitment, radicalization and violence in the physical world. And so helping to illuminate these threats is a process that has already begun between the government and the tech sector,” a White House official said on a call with reporters.

But the plan sparked concerns among civil liberties groups while leaving a task to an intelligence community that has said it struggles to tease out rhetoric protected by the First Amendment from serious calls to act on violence.

“The Biden administration is rightly focused on addressing white supremacist violence, but its strategy includes none of the civil rights and liberties safeguards that rights groups and communities of color have long sought. Embracing civil rights and liberties as a national security imperative means little when this new strategy fails to rein in abusive counterterrorism tools that result in unfair and unjustified surveillance and targeting of Black and Brown people, particularly Muslims,” the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement.

The plan also does not yet address one of the biggest legal questions facing the administration in the wake of Jan. 6: whether the U.S. needs a new domestic terrorism statute to aid its prosecution of extremists that commit violent acts.

Prosecutors often rely on a collection of state statutes when crafting their charges, but the potential for a new law has concerned civil liberties groups, who fear new federal powers could be targeted at minority communities or activists. 

“The president wanted his Justice Department and his new attorney general to take a hard look at the question of whether new authorities are necessary based on that analysis. And so the strategy requests that the Justice Department review this question and come back to him with a recommendation,” a senior administration official told reporters.

The plan follows existing efforts to remain ideology agnostic.

“We are focused on violence, not an ideology. In America, espousing a hateful ideology is not unlawful. We do not investigate individuals for their First Amendment-protected activities,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a Tuesday speech walking through the strategy.

“There is no place for partisanship in the enforcement of the law. The Justice Department will not tolerate any such abuse of authority.”

However, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have in recent months pushed the Justice Department to focus on specific ideologies.

Garland sought to walk that line Tuesday, noting the FBI’s recent determination that a 2017 shooting at a baseball practice was an example of domestic extremism given that the perpetrator opened fire “after confirming that the players were Republicans.”

But he also made pains to highlight that white nationalism and military groups are “the two most lethal elements of the domestic violence extremist threat.”

The plan directs the State Department to work with the Treasury Department on identifying domestic extremist groups with ties to international terror networks.

However, a senior administration official noted that U.S. extremism “is largely today an inside out problem, not an outside in problem.”

The strategy also calls for increased screening of federal employees and law enforcement to weed out those who might pose insider threats — an issue receiving renewed attention after some with military and police backgrounds were arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 riot. 

“We are working to augment the screening process for those who join the military and federal law enforcement as well as any government employee who receives a security clearance or holds a position of trust by considering changes to the … federal employee background questionnaires, along with applicable military screening questionnaires,” the plan states.

The plan also identifies a number of cultural issues as long-term contributors to domestic terrorism.

“That means tackling racism in America. It means protecting Americans from gun violence and mass murders. It means ensuring that we provide early intervention and appropriate care for those who pose a danger to themselves or others,” the White House wrote.

“It means ensuring that Americans receive the type of civics education that promotes tolerance and respect for all and investing in policies and programs that foster civic engagement and inspire a shared commitment to American Democracy.”

Black Democrats are pressing hard on party leaders to stage a reparations vote this month, citing the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre as impetus for Congress to launch a study into the delicate question of whether the country owes Black Americans restitution for slavery.

A number of Congressional Black Caucus members had visited Tulsa, Okla., late last month, joining President Biden at the site of the 1921 massacre in the Greenwood neighborhood then known as Black Wall Street. The lawmakers, though already pushing for a floor vote on the legislation, returned from the experience with a heightened urgency to see it done this summer.

“For those of us who went to Tulsa, it became even more apparent to us how important it is to pass H.R. 40 and to do so certainly before we leave for the August recess,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), citing the House bill number.

Johnson noted that neither the victims of Greenwood nor their descendants were ever compensated for their losses — not even from their own insurance companies — which has only lit a fire under reparations supporters to pass the bill this year.

“We came away united with the strong feeling that now is the time to do [it],” he said. “And so we will now address leadership with this newfound sense of energy and urgency.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), former head of the Black Caucus who was also in Tulsa, offered a similar assessment of the emotional visit, which included meetings between the lawmakers, descendants of victims and the three living survivors of the massacre.

“Tulsa is ground zero, I believe, in terms of raising the level of awareness, and the whys, and the importance of reparations and getting H.R. 40 passed,” she said. “We’re pushing hard. I don’t know of a date yet, but … I’m encouraging and urging and we’re hoping that this is seen as a priority and will be brought to the floor.”

Sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), the Democrats’ reparations measure would create a commission charged with studying the long history of slavery in the United States — as well as the racial discrimination that followed the Civil War, up to today — and recommend ways to compensate living descendants. The bill would not provide direct payments to anyone, nor does it propose any other specific remedial policies.

In a historic vote, the House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation in April, setting the stage for a vote on the House floor.

Yet the issue is a tricky one for leaders of a diverse Democratic caucus, which is home to a number of moderate lawmakers wary of the potential political fallout of a reparations vote during a midterm election cycle that’s been historically perilous for the party of the incumbent president.

The politics of race, hyper-charged under former President Trump, are still roiling the country nearly six months after his departure from Washington. Among other thorny battles, lawmakers remain at odds over legislation designed to fight racial bias in law enforcement, and Republicans are hammering the Biden administration over its handling of the increase in migration at the southern border.

Republicans don’t appear ready to provide those Democratic moderates with any cover. Every GOP lawmaker on the Judiciary Committee had voted against the measure, largely out of concern that the outside commission would be stacked with Democrats and lead inevitably to astronomical cash payouts they say the Treasury can’t afford.

The partisan nature of the debate, combined with the concerns of moderate Democrats, means the legislation is hardly guaranteed passage if and when it does come to the floor. The legislation has 189 co-sponsors — all of them Democrats, most of them liberals — setting up what could be a divisive showdown between centrists and progressives at a time when leadership is fighting to hold the party together for the sake of passing Biden’s ambitious agenda. 

The White House in February expressed support for studying the issue of reparations.

Jackson Lee says she’s been in close communication with Democratic leaders and remains confident the bill will hit the floor in the coming weeks.

“We’re still working with everyone, all the parties who have to make decisions, for a vote in June,” she said. “The time spent by the president in Tulsa regarding Greenwood was a very moving experience for all of us. And I couldn’t come away more positive about how we can try to find a good way of compromise to move a bill dealing with repair, and a study — that it’s not offensive to anyone to move it forward.”

Reparations supporters point to a host of reasons the study is necessary, citing vast discrepancies between the races across a swath of social arenas, including education, criminal justice, the accumulation of wealth and access to health care, a problem highlighted by the coronavirus pandemic.

“You have generational trauma. All of this is manifested today in much of what the Black community is still living with,” said Lee. “And so this is a very important moment. It’s a day of reckoning, I think. And it’s time that this country live up to its promise of justice.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) are both vocal supporters of the reparations concept but have yet to commit to a vote on the floor.

“Conversations about H.R. 40 are ongoing, and Democratic Leadership and the White House are working together to chart a path forward,” a senior Democratic leadership aide said Monday in an email. “We will continue to discuss it with the Caucus.”

Black Caucus leaders, meanwhile, have other powerful allies in the effort.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he thinks the bill “ought to hit the floor” and the only stumbling block is “time allocation.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is also on board and actively urging floor consideration.

“We have to acknowledge our history if we are to try to address these issues,” she said.

Amid the debate, liberal supporters of reparations are increasingly pressing their moderate Democratic colleagues to shed their opposition to such a vote, even if the bill has virtually no chance of passing the Senate. They’re framing the effort as a moral imperative, not a political fight.

“It’s always going to be inconvenient, but now is the time,” said Johnson. “If you go back and look at the Tulsa situation and see how these people are still out there — have not been able to get redress for the wrongs that were done to them — I mean, if you can’t see reparations from that viewpoint, then you just don’t want to see reparation.”

Lee was even more terse.

“The time to do the right thing is always now,” she said. “If not now, you tell me when.”

Newly revealed documents obtained by the House Oversight and Reform Committee reveal that former President Trump and his allies pressured the Department of Justice (DOJ) to back his unproven claims of election fraud in the days and weeks before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The documents, released publicly on Tuesday, show Trump, his then-chief of staff Mark Meadows and outside allies putting pressure on senior DOJ officials to probe claims of voter fraud in December and early January.

Emails provided to the committee revealed that Trump sent allegations of election fraud to top DOJ officials minutes before he announced their promotions, which were sparked by the resignation of then-Attorney General William Barr.

Approximately 40 minutes before Trump tweeted that Barr would be stepping down and that then-Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue would be promoted, his White House assistant sent Rosen an email with the subject “From POTUS,” which contained materials alleging voter fraud in Antrim County, Mich. The email also included “talking points” that claimed “a Cover-up is Happening regarding the voting machines in Michigan” and “Michigan cannot certify for Biden.”

Trump then sent the same documents to Donoghue, according to the committee.

The documents also revealed that Trump used official White House channels and a private attorney to urge the DOJ to file a lawsuit in the Supreme Court that asked the court to declare that the Electoral College vote in six states Trump lost cannot be counted and request a special election to vote for president.

Additionally, the documents illustrated attempts by Meadows, who was then the White House chief of staff, to ask DOJ officials on at least five occasions to pursue claims of election fraud.

“These documents show that President Trump tried to corrupt our nation’s chief law enforcement agency in a brazen attempt to overturn an election that he lost,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who chairs the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said in a statement.

“Those who aided or witnessed President Trump’s unlawful actions must answer the Committee’s questions about this attempted subversion of democracy. My Committee is committed to ensuring that the events leading to the violent January 6 insurrection are fully investigated,” she added.

The document dump, first reported by The New York Times, was provided to the committee in response to a letter sent to the DOJ requesting records related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election prior to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, according to the committee.

The Hill has requested comment on the released documents from Trump’s office.

In a House Oversight hearing later Tuesday, Maloney said the committee has already requested interviews with a number of Trump-era officials involved in the emails.

“As the next step in our investigation, the committee has requested transcribed interviews with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who directly pressured DOJ officials at least five times to investigate fake claims of election fraud. We also plan to interview former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and other senior officials with first-hand knowledge of President Trump’s campaign to overturn the 2020 election,” she said.

During the same hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a vocal Trump defender, sought to downplay the email exchanges. He argued that asking Rosen to “look into” allegations of election fraud shouldn’t constitute pressure.

“[Meadows] sent an email to Mr. Rosen, the acting Attorney General, ‘Can you have your team look into these allegations of wrongdoing.’ Wow, a lot of pressure there,” Jordan said sarcastically. “Every chief of staff I bet for every single one of us sends the same kind of emails and letters every day. You get constituents, if people call you [with concerns], you send it to the agency: ‘Can you look into this?’”

He said Rosen and DOJ deserve more scrutiny for not jumping on the request.

“When the chief of staff to the president of the United States asks someone in the executive branch to do something, and they basically give it a finger, I think that’s the problem we should be looking into.”

— Rebecca Beitsch contributed.