Following its victory in disbanding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “Homeland Intelligence Experts Group,” America First Legal (AFL) has released the third tranche of the group’s internal meeting notes, exclusively obtained from litigation. This marks the third installment of #DeepStateDiaries, a series of releases featuring newly obtained documents.
The latest release highlights discussions among Biden administration allies on the Brennan-Clapper committee about using the January 6 Capitol riot and the raid at Mar-a-Lago to justify increased targeting and surveillance of political dissent.
One group member remarked that before January 6, during the Trump administration, it was deemed inappropriate to collect intelligence on Americans. However, after January 6, there was a noted shift in collection and reporting methods.
The documents suggest that the Biden administration has utilized the events of January 6 to justify expanding intelligence efforts on what they classify as “Domestic Violent Extremists” (DVE). According to the second installment of #DeepStateDiaries, DVE includes individuals who are religious, in the military, or supporters of President Trump. The Brennan-Clapper-led group discussed focusing intelligence collection on sites where they anticipated finding indicators of domestic extremism threats.
The group also grappled with the challenge of interpreting online speech, questioning how to differentiate between serious threats, political discourse, and hyperbole. The Biden administration’s approach, as shown in these documents and exemplified by the Department of Justice’s sentencing of Douglass Mackey for posting memes before the 2016 election, seems to only take online speech seriously when it comes from conservative voices. Another participant in the discussions highlighted the significant changes in intelligence collection efforts post-January 6.
Further discussions revealed that the committee observed a shift in support for their mission at the departmental level post-January 6, indicating a more political direction. The committee appeared interested in encouraging the DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) to expand activities traditionally considered off-limits, using January 6 as a justification.
One unidentified group member urged I&A to adopt practices that the FBI claims it lacks authority to execute, that the Senate has not granted to any law enforcement agency, and that Members of Congress generally oppose. The focus was on obtaining actionable intelligence by ramping up surveillance on U.S. persons without a foreign nexus, even if it meant trading civil liberties.
The group discussed that around January 6, the FBI testified about limitations on their ability to act on social media intelligence, but “action reporting” might have evolved since then. This indicates a potential plan to advise DHS to enhance monitoring of political dissent on social media.
Moreover, the group considered using the raid on President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence—deemed fabricated and illegal, with staged photographs by the FBI—as a rationale for expanding surveillance activities. They noted concerns about a violent reaction following the raid.
They also discussed whether their actions were politically driven or within their mission space, with a group member emphasizing the need to be mindful of public optics. In examining threats of violence, the group pondered hypothetical scenarios, such as a shooting with multiple injuries, and whether such incidents would necessitate a national response from DHS, classifying them as domestic violent extremism.
These documents, obtained through AFL’s litigation against DHS, underscore a stark contrast in how the DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis operated before and after January 6. They suggest a departure from the standards upheld during the Trump administration, which emphasized respecting Constitutional rights and civil liberties, to a more expansive surveillance approach under the Biden administration.
