Law enforcement agencies have come up with a new category of threats to national security. Seriously.
U.S. security forces began to describe protests against AI in the language of the fight against extremism. Reports of the US Department of Internal Affairs, the FBI and regional intelligence centers are a number of real threats of violence, criticism of technology companies, fears due to the automation of jobs and the meeting of residents who are dissatisfied with the construction of data centers near the houses.
WIRED magazine has received more than 1 000 pages of unpublished materials through requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The documents show that federal agencies and local police are beginning to highlight anti-technological extremism as a separate internal threat. The wording covers not only people discussing sabotage or attacks, but also activists, critics of AI, opponents of data centers and groups who oppose the influence of large technology companies.
A new focus appeared against the backdrop of the decisions of the administration of Donald Trump. Presidential Memorandum on National Security No. 7 has instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute people with anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-capitalist views. Later, the White House counter-terrorism coordinator, Sebastian Gorka, presented a strategy where left-wing extremists are named one of the three main priorities of counter-terrorist work. In this political framework, criticism of AI technology and infrastructure risks moving from a public debate to the police monitoring zone.
Particular attention in the materials of WIRED is attracted by the report of the New York Bureau of Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. Analysts warn that the introduction of AI in the next five years could cause mass protests, riots and violent actions against technology infrastructure, especially in major cities like New York. The document contains the term anti-tech extremism, that is, violent anti-techrynique extremism. In the open handbooks and reports of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the United States or the FBI on internal extremism, such a category has not met before.
Security forces are obliged to respond to the preparation of attacks, threats to company leaders and possible sabotage of infrastructure. The problem begins where too many different phenomena fall under one name: radical groups ready for attacks, people who are afraid of dismissals due to AI, residents of the districts near data centers and specialists discussing the risks of artificial intelligence.
The New York report also mentions the case of Zise Laota, known among radical rationalists. The investigation connects her with a small group of the cult type, three members of which were accused of murder. Around the group has developed an obsession about the future of AI and a possible threat to the existence of mankind. Security forces fear that after the arrest and trial, similar views can spread further.
Fears due to uncontrolled AI are found not only in radical circles. The risk of dangerous AI systems is spoken by AI equalization specialists, machine learning engineers and companies that create advanced models. The professional environment discusses technical limitations, control mechanisms and ethical issues. Extremist groups turn anxiety into a cult or violent ideology. In the police reports, this difference can be erased.
The New York police have already fallen into similar stories. Previously, the department collaborated with the FBI in observing the Signal chat activist group that coordinated volunteers to monitor public hearings in the immigration courts of new York. In the documents of The Guardian, this episode took place as part of a broader test of the possible activity of radical anarchists prone to violence. Now a close approach can apply to critics of technology.
Regional intelligence exchange centers created in the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks play an important role. There are now about 80 such structures in the country. They connect federal intelligence agencies, state authorities and local police. These centers are reports of possible threats to data centers, AI infrastructure, energy and other digital economy facilities.
The center in Western Pennsylvania warned that data centers may be interested in foreign structures, criminal groups, local extremists who are ready for violence, and radical environmental activists. Analysts also admitted that attackers can use the strategic importance of computing platforms for the American economy, launch cryptocurrency mining, or hide behind by front companies to access data and infrastructure.
The North Virginia Regional Intelligence Exchange Center has issued a separate warning about radicals with anti-government and anti-authoritarian views that allow violence. The document argued that people, inspired by mistrust of the state and conspiracy theories, could prepare actions against data centers and other critical infrastructure facilities to interfere with the government’s work. But the list of suspicious signs was so wide that lawyers saw a risk for ordinary protesters.
Among the signs were direct or indirect threats, surveillance, photographing, security checks and attempts to penetrate. Some of these actions can really occur when preparing the attack. But shooting an object, monitoring construction or security issues can be part of a peaceful protest, journalistic work or the participation of residents in public hearings. Spencer Reynolds, senior lawyer at NAACP Legal Defense Fund, believes that such reports often turn strong views or protest activity into a possible harbinger of violence.
The FBI said it is investigating people who commit violence are preparing for violence or federal crimes related to national security threats. The U.S. Department of Internal Affairs did not respond to the request of journalists.
The same North Virginia center distributed reports on events and demonstrations that are formally protected by the U.S. Constitution. The list included shares of Tesla Takedown against Elon Musk and the protest Break Up With Tech Rager, which was supported by the group Eject Elbit. Activists Eject Elbit oppose investment in Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit. In police materials, these events were close to the topic of threats to the technological infrastructure.
The online environment is watched not only by government analysts. Private companies that sell intelligence to law enforcement officers on open sources are also looking for anti-technological sentiments on the network. In January 2025, SITE Intelligence sent a bulletin about the neo-Lood Dscord server to the reconnaissance centers. The report claimed that the discussions there turned to violence: one user called for the attack of the heads of technology companies and power plants.
Reynolds points to the weak point of such monitoring. Social networks are full of anonymous accounts, jokes, slang, internal memes, different languages and ambiguous phrases. Private contractors promise to make reliable threats from this noise, but in practice can increase attention to people with unpopular views on the police, abortion, economic inequality, vaccination or other conflict. The founder of SITE, Rita Katz, answers that the company narrows the focus to communities associated with real harm, and the surge in threats of sabotage against data centers considers a serious reason for alarm.
The materials also show that the face-to-face meetings were also monitored. The North Virginia Center has been preparing reports on local civilian events, including the Arlington County Budget Meeting and the Fairax County School Board meeting. For residents, such sites have become the main way to object to data centers near houses, schools and urban infrastructure.
Protests against data centers are really growing. The Data Center Watch project, created by 10a Labs, which deals with AI security, tracks resistance to the construction of data centers. According to him, hundreds of organizations in 42 states of the United States opposed such facilities in their cities and districts. Conflicts go to detentions: in California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Wisconsin, the police removed or arrested participants in public meetings criticizing data centers. In one case, the man was detained before the speech.
A separate problem is related to American law. In the United States, domestic terrorism is not an independent charge at trial. But the norms on internal terrorism allow the surveillance of extremists, and then increase the punishment under other articles. Therefore, activists can be monitored by extremism, and in court face charges of illegal intrusion, damage to property or vandalism.
A separate block of materials is associated with the researcher of extremism Mauro Lubrano. The invitation to his lecture was distributed to intelligence polling stations throughout the country. Lubrano wrote the book Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Technology, where he describes three directions of a new threat scheme: anarchists focused on rebellion, eco-extremists and eco-fascists. He refers to this field the followers of Ted Kaczynski, German anarchists, Mexican eco-extremists and far-right members of the Terror Collective. According to him, these groups differ in ideology, but everyone is united by a willingness to plan or commit violence for their own purposes.
Lubrano himself warns that the term anti-technological extremism should be used carefully. Violence against people and infrastructure is unacceptable, but the fight against it should not turn into a way to declare any criticism of AI, data centers and the course of technology companies dangerous. Reynolds formulates the risk more rigidly: peaceful protesters, AI skeptics and ordinary people dissatisfied with the impact of technology on work, urban environment and everyday life can fall into too broad a category.
In a January report by the U.S. Intelligence Agency’s 2025 report, Luigi Manjone, accused of the murder of UnitedHealth head Brian Thompson, tried to connect with Ted Kaczynski and his anti-technological views. The document did not give detailed evidence, but warned that company executives face increased risk of threats and attacks if society perceives them as people benefiting from less wealthy citizens.
The most indicative episode is related to the SITE Intelligence report for April 2025. The company noted a video of the progressive non-profit organization More Perfect Union about the dangers of a data center for residents near the facility in Georgia. There were no calls for violence against people or property. But because of too broad an approach to monitoring, ordinary critical material found itself in mailings for law enforcement and intelligence agencies as a possible source of threat.
There are real threats to data centers, company executives and infrastructure. But a new category of anti-technological extremism can be a convenient reason for observing dissenters. The key question is where the security forces will draw a line: between the preparation of violence and a public dispute about how AI, data centers and large technology companies are changing people’s lives.
U.S. security forces began to describe protests against AI in the language of the fight against extremism. Reports of the US Department of Internal Affairs, the FBI and regional intelligence centers are a number of real threats of violence, criticism of technology companies, fears due to the automation of jobs and the meeting of residents who are dissatisfied with the construction of data centers near the houses.
WIRED magazine has received more than 1 000 pages of unpublished materials through requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The documents show that federal agencies and local police are beginning to highlight anti-technological extremism as a separate internal threat. The wording covers not only people discussing sabotage or attacks, but also activists, critics of AI, opponents of data centers and groups who oppose the influence of large technology companies.
A new focus appeared against the backdrop of the decisions of the administration of Donald Trump. Presidential Memorandum on National Security No. 7 has instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute people with anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-capitalist views. Later, the White House counter-terrorism coordinator, Sebastian Gorka, presented a strategy where left-wing extremists are named one of the three main priorities of counter-terrorist work. In this political framework, criticism of AI technology and infrastructure risks moving from a public debate to the police monitoring zone.
Particular attention in the materials of WIRED is attracted by the report of the New York Bureau of Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. Analysts warn that the introduction of AI in the next five years could cause mass protests, riots and violent actions against technology infrastructure, especially in major cities like New York. The document contains the term anti-tech extremism, that is, violent anti-techrynique extremism. In the open handbooks and reports of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the United States or the FBI on internal extremism, such a category has not met before.
Security forces are obliged to respond to the preparation of attacks, threats to company leaders and possible sabotage of infrastructure. The problem begins where too many different phenomena fall under one name: radical groups ready for attacks, people who are afraid of dismissals due to AI, residents of the districts near data centers and specialists discussing the risks of artificial intelligence.
The New York report also mentions the case of Zise Laota, known among radical rationalists. The investigation connects her with a small group of the cult type, three members of which were accused of murder. Around the group has developed an obsession about the future of AI and a possible threat to the existence of mankind. Security forces fear that after the arrest and trial, similar views can spread further.
Fears due to uncontrolled AI are found not only in radical circles. The risk of dangerous AI systems is spoken by AI equalization specialists, machine learning engineers and companies that create advanced models. The professional environment discusses technical limitations, control mechanisms and ethical issues. Extremist groups turn anxiety into a cult or violent ideology. In the police reports, this difference can be erased.
The New York police have already fallen into similar stories. Previously, the department collaborated with the FBI in observing the Signal chat activist group that coordinated volunteers to monitor public hearings in the immigration courts of new York. In the documents of The Guardian, this episode took place as part of a broader test of the possible activity of radical anarchists prone to violence. Now a close approach can apply to critics of technology.
Regional intelligence exchange centers created in the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks play an important role. There are now about 80 such structures in the country. They connect federal intelligence agencies, state authorities and local police. These centers are reports of possible threats to data centers, AI infrastructure, energy and other digital economy facilities.
The center in Western Pennsylvania warned that data centers may be interested in foreign structures, criminal groups, local extremists who are ready for violence, and radical environmental activists. Analysts also admitted that attackers can use the strategic importance of computing platforms for the American economy, launch cryptocurrency mining, or hide behind by front companies to access data and infrastructure.
The North Virginia Regional Intelligence Exchange Center has issued a separate warning about radicals with anti-government and anti-authoritarian views that allow violence. The document argued that people, inspired by mistrust of the state and conspiracy theories, could prepare actions against data centers and other critical infrastructure facilities to interfere with the government’s work. But the list of suspicious signs was so wide that lawyers saw a risk for ordinary protesters.
Among the signs were direct or indirect threats, surveillance, photographing, security checks and attempts to penetrate. Some of these actions can really occur when preparing the attack. But shooting an object, monitoring construction or security issues can be part of a peaceful protest, journalistic work or the participation of residents in public hearings. Spencer Reynolds, senior lawyer at NAACP Legal Defense Fund, believes that such reports often turn strong views or protest activity into a possible harbinger of violence.
The FBI said it is investigating people who commit violence are preparing for violence or federal crimes related to national security threats. The U.S. Department of Internal Affairs did not respond to the request of journalists.
The same North Virginia center distributed reports on events and demonstrations that are formally protected by the U.S. Constitution. The list included shares of Tesla Takedown against Elon Musk and the protest Break Up With Tech Rager, which was supported by the group Eject Elbit. Activists Eject Elbit oppose investment in Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit. In police materials, these events were close to the topic of threats to the technological infrastructure.
The online environment is watched not only by government analysts. Private companies that sell intelligence to law enforcement officers on open sources are also looking for anti-technological sentiments on the network. In January 2025, SITE Intelligence sent a bulletin about the neo-Lood Dscord server to the reconnaissance centers. The report claimed that the discussions there turned to violence: one user called for the attack of the heads of technology companies and power plants.
Reynolds points to the weak point of such monitoring. Social networks are full of anonymous accounts, jokes, slang, internal memes, different languages and ambiguous phrases. Private contractors promise to make reliable threats from this noise, but in practice can increase attention to people with unpopular views on the police, abortion, economic inequality, vaccination or other conflict. The founder of SITE, Rita Katz, answers that the company narrows the focus to communities associated with real harm, and the surge in threats of sabotage against data centers considers a serious reason for alarm.
The materials also show that the face-to-face meetings were also monitored. The North Virginia Center has been preparing reports on local civilian events, including the Arlington County Budget Meeting and the Fairax County School Board meeting. For residents, such sites have become the main way to object to data centers near houses, schools and urban infrastructure.
Protests against data centers are really growing. The Data Center Watch project, created by 10a Labs, which deals with AI security, tracks resistance to the construction of data centers. According to him, hundreds of organizations in 42 states of the United States opposed such facilities in their cities and districts. Conflicts go to detentions: in California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Wisconsin, the police removed or arrested participants in public meetings criticizing data centers. In one case, the man was detained before the speech.
A separate problem is related to American law. In the United States, domestic terrorism is not an independent charge at trial. But the norms on internal terrorism allow the surveillance of extremists, and then increase the punishment under other articles. Therefore, activists can be monitored by extremism, and in court face charges of illegal intrusion, damage to property or vandalism.
A separate block of materials is associated with the researcher of extremism Mauro Lubrano. The invitation to his lecture was distributed to intelligence polling stations throughout the country. Lubrano wrote the book Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Technology, where he describes three directions of a new threat scheme: anarchists focused on rebellion, eco-extremists and eco-fascists. He refers to this field the followers of Ted Kaczynski, German anarchists, Mexican eco-extremists and far-right members of the Terror Collective. According to him, these groups differ in ideology, but everyone is united by a willingness to plan or commit violence for their own purposes.
Lubrano himself warns that the term anti-technological extremism should be used carefully. Violence against people and infrastructure is unacceptable, but the fight against it should not turn into a way to declare any criticism of AI, data centers and the course of technology companies dangerous. Reynolds formulates the risk more rigidly: peaceful protesters, AI skeptics and ordinary people dissatisfied with the impact of technology on work, urban environment and everyday life can fall into too broad a category.
In a January report by the U.S. Intelligence Agency’s 2025 report, Luigi Manjone, accused of the murder of UnitedHealth head Brian Thompson, tried to connect with Ted Kaczynski and his anti-technological views. The document did not give detailed evidence, but warned that company executives face increased risk of threats and attacks if society perceives them as people benefiting from less wealthy citizens.
The most indicative episode is related to the SITE Intelligence report for April 2025. The company noted a video of the progressive non-profit organization More Perfect Union about the dangers of a data center for residents near the facility in Georgia. There were no calls for violence against people or property. But because of too broad an approach to monitoring, ordinary critical material found itself in mailings for law enforcement and intelligence agencies as a possible source of threat.
There are real threats to data centers, company executives and infrastructure. But a new category of anti-technological extremism can be a convenient reason for observing dissenters. The key question is where the security forces will draw a line: between the preparation of violence and a public dispute about how AI, data centers and large technology companies are changing people’s lives.
