Newly Declassified Documents Reveal COVID Lockdown Opponents Labeled as Domestic Extremists

Newly declassified documents have revealed that opponents of COVID lockdown measures were labeled as domestic extremists by certain agencies. This information sheds light on how authorities viewed and monitored protestors during the pandemic.

Declassified documents released on May 24, 2025, by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reveal that the Biden administration labeled critics of COVID-19 lockdowns as “domestic violent extremists” (DVEs). The documents include a 2021 joint analysis from the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and National Counterterrorism Center, titled “DVEs and Foreign Analogues May React Violently to COVID-19 Mitigation Mandates.”

The report outlines criteria for identifying domestic threats, which included opposition to mRNA vaccines and belief in related conspiracy theories, suggesting that vaccine skepticism could be seen as a security risk. Former FBI agent Steve Friend said this classification was used as justification to investigate political dissenters and suppress certain viewpoints on social media, labeling dissent as extremism to push for content removal.

Tulsi Gabbard criticized the administration in a Fox News interview, saying that Americans were being targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights and condemned the government for equating political beliefs with violent extremism. Despite acknowledging that some flagged individuals were engaged in constitutionally protected activities, authorities used the label to justify censorship of speech related to COVID policies.

Internal emails from the “Twitter Files” revealed direct pressure from the White House on tech companies to suppress content causing “vaccine hesitancy.” For example, in March 2021, White House digital director Rob Flaherty pressured Facebook about vaccine-critical posts, highlighting the administration’s concern over “harmful narratives.” Gabbard confirmed that parents opposing mandates and school vaccinations were also targeted.

The documents show a broad approach where activists, parents, and ordinary citizens skeptical of pandemic mandates were swept into the extremist category. Critics argue this blurred the line between lawful dissent and terrorism, leading to suppression of free speech. Supporters claim the measures were necessary to reduce threats during a national emergency.

These revelations have reignited debates about government overreach, federal surveillance limits, and civil liberties, with calls for more transparency and oversight. The discussion continues on how dissent should be treated in the U.S., with many insisting that labeling lockdown opponents as extremists should not happen again.

Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.