Dr. Dorle Hellmuth

Associate Professor of Politics
The Catholic University of America

Dorle Hellmuth is Associate Professor of Politics at the Catholic University of America (CUA) where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on counterterrorism & countering violent extremism, homeland security, transatlantic security/NATO, nuclear weapons, foreign policy decision-making, and comparative politics. She has published a number of scholarly articles, policy papers, and won conference awards related to these topics. Her book, Counterterrorism and the State (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), analyses post-911 counterterrorism decision-making and responses in the United States, Germany, Great Britain, and France. Dr. Hellmuth has received fellowships and grants from, e.g. the Center for the Study of Statesmanship, the Earhart Foundation, the Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy, the Embassy of France, and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Before joining CUA in 2011, Dr. Hellmuth held appointments as Assistant Professor at American University's School of International Service, and as a Research Fellow at the U.S. National War College, National Defense University. She has briefed law enforcement and government representatives as well as members of parliament on transatlantic defense, national security, and counterterrorism issues. Professor Hellmuth is a fellow at the American German Institute (AGI) in Washington, D.C., and the German Institute on Radicalization and Deradicalization Studies (GIRDS).

Interviewer: Mikkel Dack, RCHGHR/History

Can you begin by telling me a bit about yourself – professional background,  institutional affiliations, research interests?

I’ve spent most of my academic career in Washington DC, with occasional research stints in Europe (mostly Germany, the UK, and France). In DC, I will forever cherish the six years I served as a research fellow at the National War College (NWC) at Fort McNair, designing courses on national security decision-making and terrorism & insurgency analysis. My time at NWC was followed by teaching appointments at American University’s School of International Service (U.S. Foreign Policy Program, 2009-2011) and The Catholic University of America (Politics Department, 2011-now). In terms of research affiliations, two institutions stand out in particular: I have greatly benefited from research collaborations via GIRDS (German Institute on Radicalization and Deradicalization Studies) and AGI (American German Institute) and always appreciate being able to tap into their vast networks. My research interests evolve around “security” topics – counter-/terrorism and countering violent extremism (CVE), NATO, and nuclear weapons. Having spent much time in Europe and the United States I often approach these topics from a comparative, transatlantic perspective, which is also why I consider myself a transatlanticist at heart.  

What is the current research project you’re working on? What inspired you to pursue this particular topic?

I am working on a monograph that 1) assesses CVE measures in the United States and 2) offers a roadmap for how these efforts can be further strengthened in the future. The CVE landscape in the US has actually come a long way and developed considerably in the past 15 years – which definitely comes as a surprise! After all, the US was slow to adopt CVE measures and the federal-led approach favored by the Obama administration was highly contested and quickly failed. But CVE programs continued at the state level and federal grants for CVE efforts never went away (at least not until earlier this year); in fact, federal support intensified after the January 6 insurrection attempt as political extremism has been on the rise and demand for CVE services remains high.

As it is still pretty new to most things CVE, the US can save time and resources by leveraging existing, proven solutions and experiences rather than reinventing the wheel. While the UK has been spearheading CVE in many ways, and there is a certain reflexive tendency in the US to always look at what Britain is doing, the British CVE set up, one that is very centralized and comes with reporting requirements for civil servants, does not lend itself well for a comparative analysis.

As I have argued elsewhere, Germany is better suited when it comes to identifying solutions and lessons that can also work in the U.S. context, mainly because the two countries have similar political hurdles and cultures. It helps to remember that the constitutional make-up of modern-day Germany was an American creation: After WWII, the US was instrumental in shaping Germany’s political structures that are designed to restrain executive power. Even though Germany has a parliamentary system, it is one replete with checks and balances; more importantly, German-style federalism has meant that Germany’s 16 states are mostly sovereign when it comes to all things security and education. Similarly, US states have a large say in law enforcement and education – which happen to be two arenas that have tremendous significance for preventive and protective CVE measures. Like Britain, Germany comes with a long history and list of diverse CVE initiatives and programs. What makes the German approach both unique and especially attractive for the U.S. however is that it represents not only a whole-of-government approach – going beyond police and intelligence services and including schools, social-, health- and counseling services, etc.  – but a whole-of-society undertaking where civil society organizations have a substantial stake in CVE, in tandem with government agencies.

How do you believe your research on counterterrorism contributes to the existing scholarship and to our broader understanding of de-radicalization?

I think my research perspective provides a crucial angle, and one that is especially useful for making CVE more mainstream and acceptable in the US – after all, the US is a country that has traditionally relied on more heavy-handed counterterrorism measures. As CVE is still an evolving field, criticism abounds. CVE critics in the U.S. can be grouped into at least three main camps: Counterterrorism professionals who argue that it relies on unproven, soft measures (ineffective methods and resources are wasted on undeserving criminals), minority rights advocates who argue that CVE programs are too racist (CVE measures stigmatize already vulnerable minorities, and Muslim communities in particular), and free speech advocates who consider it too discriminatory (CVE violates and censors free speech).

I have spent much of my academic life in counterterrorism-related research and analysis (on a more personal note, I’m also an army brat!), which means I bring more of a “hard security measures” perspective to all things CVE, commonly referred to as “soft security measures.” And yet, I now consider myself a “CVE-convert.” I am convinced, more than ever, that it’s imperative we have CVE programs and that there is way to balance civil liberty concerns. In many ways, CVE offers benefits that counterterrorism cannot fulfill, and vice versa.

How so? Once radicalization advances to the violence level, security services can only repress and contain; CVE means we have additional options. Bear in mind that radicalization processes are incredibly complex and multi-faceted, which is why we need approaches and programs for countering radicalization that are equally versatile. Let’s also consider the fact that radicalization proceeds in stages. We generally distinguish between preventing and combating violent extremism (P/CVE); the latter can involve interventions and all sorts of support programs for at-risk or radicalizing individuals as well as hardened extremists.

More than half of the battle is won in the preventive CVE realm; that also means that security services don’t play as much of a role in this area. Prevention evolves around general educational, psychological, or social campaigns dealing with norms, values, and awareness designed to sustain a society’s universal resilience against violent extremism.

How else could counterterrorism services benefit from CVE measures? Apart from weakening extremist circles in a variety of ways, it’s an excellent early warning and detection tool! Security services might be alerted to high-risk cases or can better distinguish them from individuals looking to exit extremism. In 60% of all cases involving a possible security risk that were called into Germany’s family helpline for radicalization between 2012 and 2016, counterterrorism services did not have any prior knowledge of the (potentially) radicalizing individuals. This kind of early-warning system must be considered a major asset! It therefore should not come as a surprise that counterterrorism officials not only pioneered P/CVE programs in Germany but also have been leading reforms. This shows that counterterrorism and CVE do not have to be at odds; they can work hand in hand. In many ways, CVE is thus similar to counterinsurgency work, which, in addition to military force, requires an interdisciplinary, whole-of-government effort that, if done with the right kind of commitment, can start addressing the roots of the problem.

Can you tell us about your source base(s) (material, human, etc.)? Where are they located? Have they been accessed by scholars in the past? How are you interpreting them?

As a political scientist, I rely on the usual primary and secondary sources and quite a bit of grey literature (government documents, think tank reports, etc.). Additionally, I find that personal interviews with policymakers and e.g. members of the law enforcement or intelligence community greatly enhance the quality of my research and findings. They can provide real-world examples and draw attention to any practical needs and challenges we might not know about – thereby bridging the divide between theory and practice.

For example, until recently DHS gave out grants via its Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention program. Now, we can sit here and discuss the difference between targeted violence and terrorism for days – even though there are numerous different definitions out there, terrorism is commonly associated with political motives. Targeted violence, on the other hand, lacks a political angle and DHS defined it as school shootings, mass shootings, sabotage, and hate crimes -- but how much does this distinction actually matter for local law enforcement, the resource center staff, or behavioral health network providers involved with running a 211-helpline? Do they differentiate between types of violence, and how does this factor into behavioral threat assessments and the behavioral indicators they use? Interviews are invaluable resources for filling in gaps and understanding real world practices, concerns, and limitations.

What have you learned about your topic?

I stepped away from CVE-related research for a bit, mostly because I became a mom. Now that I’m back, I am so impressed by how much the field has evolved in just a few years! This includes, for example, scholarship on radicalization/deradicalization trajectories, or the growing evidence-based evaluation culture. Sure, experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations of CVE measures are still lacking and must remain the ultimate objective, but process evaluations have become the norm and triangulation, the use of both qualitative and quantitative data is becoming ever more common in the evaluation field, which certainly wasn’t the case ten years ago. This means that, at a bare minimum, programs are critically assessed as to whether they are carried out in a systematic manner and meet intended objectives, so we can identify shortcomings and further improve measures and processes. All this is representative of what is known as evidence-based research.

Can you briefly share the content of a single document (or other research material) that you feel is particularly meaningful to your project?

It’s difficult to pinpoint a single document, but I find myself drawn to CVE contributions that are written not so much from a political science but a psychology, sociology (criminology), or history perspective (in this context, the works of some of my most prolific and trailblazing colleagues, e.g. Cynthia Miller-Idriss, John Horgan, or Daniel Koehler, come to mind). I think that branching out and maintaining a multidisciplinary approach helps us match the multilayered reality of political extremism. In terms of monographs, Clark McCauley’s and Sophia Moskalenko’s Friction framework makes for a fascinating read (Oxford University Press, 2011), and Daniel Koehler’s Understanding Deradicalization (Routledge, 2018) remains an invaluable resource for all things CVE.

What do you hope to achieve with your research, both within the academic community and in terms of its impact on society as a whole?

Violent extremism of all shades and colors poses an urgent and unresolved challenge for ever more polarized Western societies on both sides of the Atlantic. Jihadi violent extremism has been an ongoing domestic challenge since 9/11 and the rise in far-right violent extremism in particular has become a growing concern in recent years. What both have in common, inter alia, is that they hate our pluralist ways and reject core democratic values. Western-style, liberal democracy is under attack, unlike any other time before.  I’ve come to the conclusion that it is time to position myself, and I see my work on CVE as my contribution to the ongoing battle in defense of democracy.

Related to this, I think I have a responsibility and owe it to my students, a lot of them teenagers or young adults in their early 20s, to provide them with the skills needed to process information or “breaking news,” and put current events into context. In the age of social media bubbles, echo chambers, and personalized algorithms, and now increasing reliance on AI and LLMs, critical analysis skills are more important than ever. Nonpartisan, factual news sources are under attack and disinformation and lies threaten to become the new norm. I keep reminding my students that there are no easy answers or solutions. As much as extremists want us to believe that black-and-white answers exist, politics will always be grey and political solutions almost always require compromises.

In more general terms, I have always sought to contribute to transatlantic relations, by e.g. trying to explain to different audiences - and going beyond the soundbites and stereotypes that persist on both sides of the Atlantic - where the US or European allies are coming from. I’ve been fortunate in that I’ve had opportunities to brief both politicians and counterterrorism officials and have constructive discussion with them. I remain convinced that both sides of the Atlantic have so much to offer and learn from each other and are complementary in many ways.

How do you think future generations of scholars and activists can build on the work you’re doing? What advice do you have for those entering this field?

CVE is a young field, so the sky is the limit! There is a lot of room for creative research on many different topics. I hope my work can help strengthen CVE in the US, thus encouraging future generations of scholars and activists to keep advancing the professional and quality standards of CVE both here in the US and in Europe.