The language between the news article and the report seem to differ. Having a closer look at report I see the following:
There is a super text reference [6] but I can't find it's source. Opposition to government authority seems like a big net to group as "far right". It would be nice to know which groups were included here with this definition.
I'll see if I can find something in that later, if I get back to my desk. (Working on the phone sucks.)
@greg0205 in other news, Greg, it's 2 -2.
edit: my guess is they apply those lenses as motivations, as I've seen similar language in other material relating to "left wing terrorism".
as the very first link highlights, the definitional problem on this is quite real. there's been a wholesale aversion by both parties to calling anything domestic "terrorism" for a long time. I got interested on the back of Gerry Spence's work on the Ruby Ridge thing, and my sense is that their cock-ups on things like that made them gun-shy of labelling anything domestic. especially in light of the fact that before that, it was no issue. the weathermen, the SDS, etc. were all understood to be terrorists and discussed as such.
edit edit: Ruby Ridge really blew it up and made people draw lines - there's a strong argument that that was the moment that militia movements crystallised, even in their own minds. much of the subsequent slow-burning war between the anti-government militias and the federal state traces itself back to that, and almost all of them reference Ruby Ridge in their mythologies.
edit edit:
@2021 on the actual
link, they have an option to "download the methodology", but it doesn't give much more than you have already seen. (you'd probably have to mail them and ask for the dataset. i can do it for you, if you like, but, heads up, it might take some time to get.) that aspect of the brief itself seems to rest on their endnotes 31 and 32, which makes me believe they're relying on a commonly held definitions, since those direct to the FBI and DHS. personally, i'd be curious as to how they define "right-wing" as well. as I said, big definitional issues.