Did the FBI push this soldier into radicalization?

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice announced the sentencing of U.S. Army soldier Pfc. Cole Bridges. He pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in 2023 and received a 14-year federal prison sentence for attempting to assist ISIS.

To the lay reader, the Justice Department’s statement appears to be another example of the FBI’s steadfast commitment to combat terrorism. But a deeper look into the bureau’s history of counterterrorism investigations reveals patterns of entrapment, presenting this case as another instance in which the federal government’s actions could be seen as questionable under the guise of national security.

Rather than simple outreach, the FBI encouraged Bridges’ radicalization as part of its six-year ISIS investigation.

The FBI “playbook” for its counterterrorism investigations is straightforward and rarely contravened.

First, identify a vulnerable person. The individual may be emotionally disturbed, financially indigent, lonely, low-intelligence, or (increasingly) juvenile. The FBI uses confidential human sources to identify these targets. CHSs serve as paid informants for the bureau and are only compensated for contributing to successful counterterrorism cases and arrests.

Second, foster a relationship with the newly acquired terrorism subject. Confidential human sources learn the subject’s vulnerabilities and groom him to embrace his worst ideas — regardless of his ability to act on them.

Third, introduce the subject to an FBI undercover employee or online covert employee and encourage him to engage in a violent act he is neither predisposed toward nor capable of achieving.

Fourth, arrest the subject for providing material support to terrorism or another federal crime that could be construed as violent.

The public’s view of the FBI as a bastion of objectivity in America’s domestic anti-terrorism efforts is increasingly at odds with reality. Notably, a May 2014 study by Project SALAM highlighted that between 2001 and 2010, an overwhelming 94.2% of all Department of Justice terrorism-related convictions were categorized as “pre-emptive prosecutions.” These cases often centered on the defendants’ perceived ideologies rather than any concrete criminal activity, suggesting a troubling reliance on unconstitutional “pre-crime” investigations by the FBI. This raises significant concerns, to say the least, about the validity and fairness of the bureau’s counterterrorism tactics.

Perverse incentives

The FBI playbook sometimes backfires. But by the time these schemes are exposed, the FBI has already benefited from promoting its “successful” operations. Its employees advance their careers, and the wrongly accused endure long, unjustified prison sentences.

Let’s reconsider Cole Bridges’ story. In 2019, Bridges expressed support for ISIS on social media. At 19 years old, he was too young to recall more prominent terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda or Boko Haram. Instead, he latched onto the latest ideology promoted in popular culture.

By 2019, ISIS no longer posed a significant threat to the American homeland. Bridges’ actions point to his immaturity, low intelligence, and possible emotional instability. His online behavior made him a prime target for recruitment by an FBI informant.

Bridges’ enlistment in the military raises additional concerns. The U.S. Army performs background checks on new recruits, looking at social media activity and criminal records. Yet no red flags appeared that would have disqualified Bridges from joining. Did the Army overlook crucial details during its vetting process? Did the FBI and Department of Justice fail to disclose an ongoing counterterrorism investigation? Or worse, did the FBI and the Army collaborate to ensure Bridges’ successful enlistment to build a case against him?

If the answer to either of the latter two questions is yes, it raises another question: Did an FBI informant encourage Bridges to enlist?

The FBI stuck with its standard playbook when Bridges was assigned to the Third Infantry Division. An undercover FBI agent posing as an ISIS supporter began communicating with him online. Bridges fell for the trap. Despite being from Ohio, living in Georgia, and having no clear knowledge of New York City’s vulnerabilities, he provided the agent with guidance for a potential attack on the city.

Later, he offered the undercover agent advice on military maneuvers, fortifying encampments, and ambush techniques against U.S. Special Forces. Bridges, a cavalry scout, had no expertise related to U.S. Special Forces operations.

When re-examining Bridges’ story through the lens of the FBI’s approach, the narrative shifts significantly from the one presented in the Department of Justice press release. Bridges is undoubtedly troubled. He is possibly emotionally disturbed, with delusions of grandeur. He even may have sympathized with violent jihadist ideology. But his susceptibility to a basic government entrapment strategy casts serious doubt on whether he was ever a legitimate or capable national security threat.

A troubling trend

The FBI, constrained by the U.S. Constitution and committed to upholding civil liberties, cannot focus on First Amendment-protected speech, association, ideology, or religion. The critical factors are individuals’ capabilities, intentions, and legitimate opportunities to commit illegal acts.

The bureau identified Cole Bridges as vulnerable and conditioned him to engage in activities with undercover assets that would never result in real harm. Instead, the bureau manufactured a plot that led to his inevitable arrest. Worse, the FBI jeopardized the safety of U.S. Army personnel by allowing Bridges to work and train with live firearms and ammunition for over a year, putting innocent service members at risk.

Rather than simple outreach, the FBI encouraged Bridges’ radicalization as part of its six-year ISIS investigation. Upon discovering his online activities in 2019, the reasonable response would have been for an FBI special agent to warn Bridges about his path toward radicalization.

Unfortunately, today’s FBI shows little thoughtful consideration. Instead, the agency focuses on identifying vulnerable targets for easy arrests, regardless of the collateral damage.

This isn’t a defense of Bridges’ online statements, associations, or ideology. The fact is that America guarantees citizens the right to hold and express even abhorrent beliefs. A nation dedicated to these liberties cannot abide government-manufactured terrorism schemes. Sadly, as long as the FBI sticks with the playbook, it will continue the troubling trend of entrapping vulnerable Americans. And we all suffer the consequences.