In 2021, I collaborated with colleagues to launch a whitepaper through 1NAEF’s Strategies Against Violent Extremism program, advocating for a full-spectrum approach to addressing the wide range of extremism active within the Five Eyes nations. This initiative arose from the recognition that fragmented and selective strategies were failing to address the complex threats to our collective security and social fabric, and, at times, were themselves imparting unintended negative consequences. Now, in 2025, the extremism domain is even more multifaceted, with new forms emerging and existing ones adapting and evolving. From shifts in online radicalization to growing ideological polarization, the need for a comprehensive response is more urgent than ever. It is time for analysts, researchers, policymakers, community leaders, and stakeholders across the Five Eyes alliance to adopt a full-spectrum approach that addresses all forms of extremism with equal critical standards, rigor, and foresight.
Despite decades of varying efforts, the persistent focus on certain manifestations of extremism, often those most politically or narratively convenient, while ignoring others has intensified our challenges in preventing and reducing extremism within our borders. This imbalance has distorted public discourse, creating a narrow understanding of the threat landscape that fails to reflect its full complexity. More critically, it perpetuates a cycle of actions, retaliations, polarization, and instability, making it easier for extremists and geopolitical adversaries alike to exploit gaps in attention and responses, undermining our stability and interests.
This selective focus has fueled a tit-for-tat cycle of extremism across societies. Each act of radicalism, whether driven by ideology, grievance, or provocation, prompts a counter-response that deepens societal divides. This dynamic often normalizes once-extreme behaviors by shifting the Overton window, the range of acceptable discourse and action, relative to each incident’s context. This condition persists across the Western world, with each nation facing its own version of this shared cycle, where selective attention amplifies divisions and broadens the scope of extremism, threatening stability and cohesion.
The media, including both traditional outlets and new independent platforms, plays a crucial role in shaping public understanding. However, its influence is a double-edged sword. While the media has the potential to educate, it often prioritizes certain forms of extremism, skewing coverage and leaving the public with a partial understanding of the full range of extremist threats. Similarly, researchers, in focusing on specific manifestations of extremism, can contribute to this selective attention, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This narrowing of focus can overlook or assess less critically emerging or under-acknowledged threats. Such incomplete awareness weakens public discourse and undermines the support needed for vital programs. Closing this gap requires more than improving media and information literacy; it calls for efforts to ensure that citizens, policymakers, and researchers can actively support comprehensive initiatives that address all forms of extremism.
Both neglect and over-focus create fertile ground for new extremist ideologies and adversarial exploration to perpetuate a stability-degrading cycle. When a narrow scope of extremism is highlighted, others grow unnoticed in the shadows. Conversely, excessive focus on one form may provoke new manifestations, emerging out of resentment or defiance against perceived injustice. Further complicating matters, geopolitical adversaries exploit these vulnerabilities, capitalizing on our uneven attention through hybrid warfare tactics. State-sponsored disinformation campaigns, such as those waged via troll farms or covert support for fringe movements, flourish when we neglect certain ideologies or grievances, amplifying divisions tailored to each nation’s blind spots. Within the Five Eyes alliance, this external interference has been observed in efforts to deepen domestic unrest, by stoking ideological fringe groups, targeting societal fractures, or seeking to transform our selective oversight into a tool for further destabilization. This dual dynamic of neglect and obsession critically hampers our ability to confront extremism comprehensively.
Building on the insights of the 2021 whitepaper, I emphasize the urgent need for adaptable, inclusive policies that confront all manifestations of extremism with renewed determination. Since my initial call, the dynamics of these threats have only underscored the need for a system that acknowledges the full spectrum of extremism. I advocate for the development of curricula that sharpen critical thinking, equipping individuals and systems to recognize, understand, and counter all forms of extremism. In this effort, researchers and the media have a crucial role to play. They must shift toward balanced, in-depth analysis, avoiding sensationalism and narrative alignment in favor of work that reveals the full complexity of the threat landscape. Equally important is fostering cross-community engagement to bridge divides between seemingly disparate ideologies. Our nations must commit to broadening these initiatives, ensuring every community is genuinely engaged and understood, preventing the alienation that often fuels radicalization.
In renewing my efforts, I assert that combating extremism demands constant vigilance and a forward-looking perspective, one that envisions a society committed to addressing all forms of extremism. This revitalized push for a full-spectrum approach is not just a response to evolving threats; it is a reimagining of strategy aimed at creating a future where extremism has no foothold, regardless of where it may come from or who it may target.