U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–744PDF 2016

COUNTERING THE VIRTUAL CALIPHATE:

THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S PERFORMANCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 13, 2016

Serial No. 114–205

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable Richard Stengel, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and 

Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State ........................................................... 4

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Richard Stengel: Prepared statement .......................................... 6

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 40

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 41

The Honorable Lois Frankel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida: Material submitted for the record .................................................... 43

(1)

COUNTERING THE VIRTUAL CALIPHATE:

THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S PERFORMANCE 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. Today we continue our oversight of the administration’s response to ISIS and to 

Islamist extremism. Specifically we will be looking at the State Department’s effort to counter ISIS’ message online. 

As the committee heard last month, the Internet is awash with 

terrorist propaganda and this includes horrific videos of beheadings, of firing squads, of torture of men, women, and children. ISIS 

operates a vast network of online recruiters; online propagandists. 

The mission of these individuals is to expand their ranks across 

multiple continents, including our continent, including right here 

at home. 

So this is on the Internet, what would be called their ‘‘virtual caliphate.’’ They use popular media sites, and through that process 

ISIS can reach a global audience—it does this within seconds. Once 

lured in, they communicate privately on platforms with sophisticated encryption encouraging tens of thousands—including many 

from Western countries—to travel to Syria, to travel to Iraq, to 

travel to Libya and join the fight. But more and more the virtual 

caliphate is calling on its followers not to take that trek to Syria 

or Iraq or Libya or other camps, terrorist camps that they have set 

up, but instead to attack where they are—to take up arms at home. 

That is the new messaging. And Orlando is a grim example of that. 

As we will hear today, ISIS’ online presence is just as critical to 

the organization as the large amounts of territory that it controls, 

whether that control be in Iraq or Syria or Libya. Defeating ISIS 

on both the physical and virtual battlefields requires very strong, 

very decisive action. 

Now in the past unfortunately the State Department effort to respond to extremist content online has struggled. Its Center for 

Strategic Counterterrorism Communications was designed to identify and to respond to extremist content online. Yet because its 

communications were ‘‘branded’’ with the official State Department 

seal, nobody listened. 

2

In March, the President issued an executive order to revamp this 

effort, renaming it the Global Engagement Center. And Richard 

Stengel, our new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public 

Affairs, is here with us to testify today. It was given the mission 

to lead the government-wide effort to ‘‘diminish the influence of 

international terrorist organizations.’’ We look forward to hearing 

from the Department on how the Global Engagement Center is taking on this fight. 

At a basic level key questions remain, including the type of message that would be most effective in the face of this virulent ideology. Some suggest that the voices of disaffected former jihadists 

are particularly potent in deterring future jihadists. These are individuals who quickly discovered that life under ISIS was not as advertised, is not the utopia that they were promised, and they have 

the skill to communicate just how disillusioned they were. 

But if this is the message, how should it be delivered? Should the 

Federal Government produce and disseminate content? Is the Federal bureaucracy equipped for such a fast moving fight? I suspect 

not. Does any association with the State Department mean this 

message is dead on arrival? As one witness told the committee last 

month: ‘‘Worst of all, Government is by definition risk averse which 

is the opposite of what you have to be online.’’

Previous witnesses suggested that a more effective approach 

could have the U.S. Government issuing grants to outside groups 

to carry out this mission. This would have the advantage of allowing the U.S. Government to set the policy, but put those with the 

technical expertise and credible voice in the driver’s seat. After all, 

such separation and distance from the U.S. Government has helped 

our democracy promotion programs through the National Endowment for Democracy, for those of us that remember their method 

of operation over the years. They work in areas of the globe where 

official U.S. support just isn’t feasible. 

And what role should technology companies play in all this? 

What about that sector? In recent weeks, some have announced 

promising new technologies that would automatically remove extremist content as soon as it goes online. We need everyone acting 

in sync, including the tech sector, including the entertainment industry, including the government. 

Time is of the essence. If we don’t come to grips with the virtual 

caliphate now, this struggle against Islamist terrorism will become 

more challenging by the day. 

So I will now turn to the ranking member, Mr. Elliot Engel of 

New York, for any opening comments that he may have. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this 

hearing. Under Secretary Stengel, welcome to the committee. I 

used to be a big fan of Casey Stengel. I don’t know if he is related. 

I know the director of the Global Engagement Center, Michael 

Lumpkin, has briefed us there a couple of times and it is great to 

have you with us today. Thank you. 

The development of information technology during our lives has 

dramatically changed the way people around the world communicate, share information, and conduct business. We are connected 

on a global scale like never before and so much good that can come 

of that. But we know it cuts both ways. This incredible tool can 

3

also be used for incredible harm and there is no better example of 

that than the way ISIS has harnessed technology to spread its 

hateful message and recruit more fighters into its ranks. With a 

click of a button ISIS can broadcast its shocking violence to virtually anyone with a laptop or a smart phone, and with social 

media ISIS works to radicalize people around the world urging socalled lone wolves to attack targets in their communities, urging 

terrorists to take full advantage of lax gun laws that make buying 

a weapon as easy as buying a secondhand baseball card. 

Though we cannot spot it on a map, our efforts to confront ISIS’ 

virtual violence is another major front in our Counterterror Campaign. In fact, this online battlefield may be ISIS’ last stand. It was 

reported today that even ISIS terrorists realize their days are numbered when it comes to controlling large swaths of territory. That 

is why the group has shifted tactics, lashing out around the world, 

so as the coalition continues to reverse ISIS gains in Iraq we also 

need to focus on taking away this recruitment and propaganda tool. 

The Obama administration began focusing on this problem years 

ago with the creation of the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism 

Communications, what we call the CSCC at the State Department. 

Diplomats and national security professionals were given the job of 

taking online space back from violent groups that had filled it with 

propaganda. The model followed our traditional approach to public 

diplomacy, speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government. 

But an evaluation of these efforts after a few years showed us 

some areas that needed improvement. First of all, we needed better 

coordination with outside partners. Secondly, we needed to provide 

information from sources that the target audience would consider 

credible. And lastly, we needed to find a better way to determine 

whether our efforts actually help prevent radicalization. 

These are real challenges, particularly the last one. It is virtually 

impossible to count the number of people who may have joined the 

terrorist group but then decided not to. To deal with these concerns, the administration created a new organization at the State 

Department called the Global Engagement Center which is designed to coordinate and integrate all of our counter messaging efforts. 

It has moved away from direct U.S. Government messaging to 

partner-driven approach tapping a global network of NGOs, foreign 

governments, and individuals who can better deliver our message 

to the right audience. It aims to encourage ordinary people in atrisk communities to launch grassroots messaging campaigns of 

their own and it places a premium on cutting edge technology and 

top talent from the private sector. 

So I firmly support this approach and I am glad my friends on 

the other side of the aisle do as well. The counter messaging provisions of the Speaker’s new national security action plan echo the 

administration’s strategy almost word for word. Both plans explicitly focus on empowering locally credible voices and employing new 

tools to effectively measure results. 

And we are starting to see some good outcomes. It was reported 

yesterday that ISIS’ Twitter traffic has dropped by nearly 50 percent in the last 2 years, so we are on the right track. The question 

now is how do we see this agenda through? How do we continue 

4

to refine our strategy, identify credible actors, improve our ability 

to measure results, and keep up with ISIS as its online campaign 

continues to evolve? 

I personally think we should be investing a lot more money into this effort. Since 2013, the budget has jumped from less than $5 

million to a 2017 request for $21.5 million. That is a good increase, 

but in my opinion we should go even farther. 

I am curious to hear from our witness about what other steps the 

administration is taking to implement the current plan and keep 

building on it. I look forward to your testimony. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. So today we are 

pleased to be joined by Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and 

Public Affairs Richard Stengel. And prior to serving in this position, as everyone knows Mr. Stengel was the managing editor of 

Time as well as the president and chief executive officer of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. 

We are going to, without objection, ask that the witness’ full prepared statement be made part of the record, and members here will 

have 5 calendar days to submit any additional statements or questions for the record that they might have and any materials. 

And we would ask, Mr. Stengel, if you could summarize your remarks and we will have 5 minutes and then go to questions. Thank 

you very much. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD STENGEL, UNDER 

SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. STENGEL. Chairman Royce, thank you for that kind introduction. I am delighted to be here. And I want to thank you personally 

for your interest and support of public diplomacy. The 21st century 

is the public diplomacy century and your support is vital. 

Ranking Member Engel, Chairman Royce, distinguished committee members, thank you for the opportunity to have me appear 

today to discuss the role of public diplomacy in countering violent 

extremism. This hearing comes at a critical time in our fight 

against ISIL and violent extremism. 

In just the last few weeks, from Istanbul to Baghdad to Dhaka, 

we have once again seen the terrorists’ wanton brutality and disregard for the lives of innocent people. Yet at the same time as we 

have seen these attacks the narrative is changing. There are signs 

of progress in our efforts to counter ISIL’s message. The amount 

of anti-ISIL content on social media platforms is increasing, while 

ISIL’s own content, as the ranking member mentioned, is decreasing. The virtual caliphate itself is shrinking. 

Across the U.S. Government our strategy for countering ISIL in 

the digital world has become more coordinated and more effective. 

The tech companies as well have stepped up their efforts at our behest. I would like to outline a few of the steps we are taking, some 

of which you have heard about already and note at the same time 

that much needs to be done. 

Now I think as folks know, this past fall we did an intensive review of what was CSCC, the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism 

Communications, which was formed in 2010 to fight a different 

5

enemy. That was al-Qaeda. But they saw that this new enemy ISIL 

was coming on board and we began to shift. 

So we evolved into the Global Engagement Center with an executive order signed by the President, and that Global Engagement 

Center has two missions. One is to coordinate anti-ISIL and antiextremist violent messaging within the government, and the second, again as both of you gentlemen have mentioned, is to enable 

third party voices—to optimize them, to amplify them—because 

their voices are more powerful against ISIL than ours. That is the 

core insight that made for this change—that our voice is not necessarily the best voice to be out there. 

And now we see this, the tide turning. Now I am just going to 

take exception and back to something the chairman said in the beginning of the hearing, this idea that the Internet is awash with 

ISIL or pro-ISIL content. There is a RAND study that came out recently, it is confirmed by our own GEC study that there is now six 

times as much anti-ISIL content on the Internet as pro-ISIL content. 

When I started in this job it was one to one. The tide is shifting. 

This idea that Twitter is awash with ISIL content, we did an analysis recently: 0.0124 percent of Twitter’s content is pro-ISIL content. So—and these beheading videos that people talk about, every 

week I have a briefing about ISIL’s top ten and I had a briefing 

yesterday and I asked to see any new videos. And the problem was 

is that the videos are being taken down so quickly that we don’t 

even get to monitor them. 

So I think this narrative that we are losing the information war 

with ISIL is wrong. In fact, mainstream Muslims are winning the 

information war with ISIL and that is why we have seen that great 

boost of content. So—but this issue faces public diplomacy all 

around the world. There is a digital iron curtain going up around 

the world. There is a gigantic increase in disinformation at the 

same time coupled with countries that are decreasing their free 

speech in their areas. This is a gigantic challenge for democracies 

and it is something I am happy to talk about as well. 

We believe the most effective tool against this is the free flow of 

information and independent press, which we support. So this is 

long term and important work. I am happy to talk about it all. We 

will face setbacks I know, but I believe that we have embarked in 

the right direction and we have the right strategy. And I want to 

thank you again for having me here. I know we have been trying 

to do this for a while and I look forward to taking and answering 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stengel follows:]

6


20744a-1.eps
7


20744a-2.eps
8


20744a-3.eps
9


20744a-4.eps
10


20744a-5.eps
11


20744a-6.eps
12


20744a-7.eps
13


20744a-8.eps
14

Chairman ROYCE. Well, I think you make a good point, Mr. 

Stengel. At the end of the day we have seen a quantum increase 

in the effort to push back. Part of the difficulty though is that 

when those messages get through from ISIS or ISIL, as we saw in 

Bangladesh, it apparently doesn’t take that much breach into the 

society in order to be able to find those disaffected people or those 

who can be easily radicalized. 

So even though we are mounting a more aggressive counter offensive, we still find the effectiveness of their ongoing drumbeat. 

And the reason for the hearing is to look at how we might better 

be able to counter in real time as I discussed the new programming 

that can be done on software that takes their sites down automatically. That is worth looking at. 

Some of the concepts that you and I have talked about, engaging 

the tech sector in this, we have both had these conversations out 

in Palo Alto with allies in this effort who would like to be part of 

the solution. With advertising firms or with Hollywood or with others who have experience with writing a narrative or a counter narrative in order to offset ideology which is extremist. 

So how can some of these come into play, I would ask? How do 

we reach out also to foreign media outlets? Are they receptive to 

running content on our behalf? 

Mr. STENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share your concerns 

about this and I want to talk first about what you said about that 

their messaging is getting out there and it is being effective. I 

think again there is a misnomer about what they are doing. That 

somehow ISIL’s messaging is so diabolically clever that they are 

taking nice young Muslim boys and girls and turning them into foreign terrorist fighters. 

That is not the case. They are tapping into an already existing 

market of grievance and unhappiness that is throughout the Arab 

and Muslim world. They are sometimes pushing on an open door. 

Not only that but they are targeting young men and young women 

who have mental illness and who are psychotic. That is what we 

have seen in these so-called lone wolf cases. 

So it is not so much that their messaging is so special and so 

good, it is that they are tapping into a market that already exists. 

I too share your belief, Mr. Chairman. That ultimately we win this 

information war through credible voices, through third parties, 

through Hollywood, through the kind of content that people who reject ISIL’s dark ideology and that is happening. 

I mean, as you know I went out to California recently. We had 

a meeting with the Sunnylands with content providers from the 

Middle East and from Hollywood. We came up with an idea of a 

virtual writer’s room where we helped them with their narratives, 

a film festival. I took the secretary out there. We met with the 

heads of all the major studios. As someone said we have never been 

in the same room before except at the Oscars. 

So we are trying to enable that. And I think using software as 

you mentioned, the tech companies have been actually very, very 

diligent, very, very aggressive in this area taking down content. 

Twitter itself said recently they have taken down more than 

125,000 handles. They are all out there taking content off their 

platforms. 

15

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. Yes. I have a question on a related issue 

and it has to do with an initiative, Under Secretary Stengel, that 

kind of caught me by surprise in terms of some of my colleagues 

on the Senate side. 

Now as you have lain out, the Global Engagement Center is focused on ISIL. It is focused on international terrorist organizations 

and that is what we have been working on and that is where your 

focus is. That is a difficult task enough. Some would like to see the 

GEC’s mission expanded to include all foreign propaganda, such as 

the disinformation coming out of Russia. 

I am somewhat hesitant here because we have a mission in front 

of us that you are engaged on. Where are the efforts and resources 

of this new office that you have set up best focused, and are the 

threats to U.S. national security from state-sponsored propaganda 

that might come out of Moscow or Beijing, and on the other hand 

violent extremism messaging from groups like ISIL or Hezbollah, 

are those similar enough that they can be addressed by the same 

organization or with the same set of tools? If not, which Federal 

agency should lead in responding to each of these challenges? To 

me they seem very different. 

But I would ask you, you know, between your office at the Department of State, the Global Engagement Center, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which organization has the lead in 

communicating with foreign audiences and how are policy messages communicated to each? This gets into my question about this 

suggested alternative that has been put out there. 

Mr. STENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question which 

is very broad and what I will try to do is go from the micro to the 

macro. You talked about the resources of GEC. We have tripled 

GEC’s budget. But most of their money and expertise goes to trying 

to amplify and help and give greater credibility to those voices out 

there in the region. 

They are helping to create content. They are helping to disseminate content. Not always in their own name. As you saw, as you 

mentioned early on, CSCC’s problem was partially that it was government branded content. We have seen the metastization of ISIL 

to their so-called provinces and we are creating content. We have 

two Hausa speakers at GEC who are creating content to fight 

against Boko Haram in Nigeria. So we see this growth of the digital caliphate to the provinces and we are combating that too. 

So you mentioned this idea of a larger disinformation center. I 

mentioned this rise in disinformation around the world as a problem. I think it is an interesting idea. I think sometimes people 

think because disinformation is on the same platform that all 

disinformation is equal. I don’t think that is the case. I think what 

Russia is doing is different than what ISIL is doing. I think it is 

an interesting idea to explore for the next administration, and 

where that would live I am not sure. 

But I do feel that in our public diplomacy realm between the 

GEC, between the BBG which you have been so supportive of, we 

have big battalions of people that can help. I have 700 public affairs officers around the world. Our posts help with all of these 

things too. So it is a very good question and one that I am happy 

to continue talking to you about. 

16

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. I just think in terms of trying to put it 

all in the GEC, I think under the proposal that I heard GEC’s mission would become far too broad for us to focus, really, on the issue 

at hand that they have been given right now which is to, you know, 

take down this virtual caliphate or the attempts by ISIS or ISIL 

to continue to recruit. 

So—but I appreciate your thoughts on it, and I should turn to 

Mr. Eliot Engel of New York. My time is expired. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The administration’s 

strategy for countering violent extremism and Executive Order 

13721, which created the Global Engagement Center, both call for 

empowering credible third parties to counter ISIS’ messaging online. I think that is good, the right approach and there seems to 

be broad support for it, but actually identifying and empowering 

these credible voices, I think is easier said than done. 

So let me ask you, what do you look for in a credible voice? What 

tools do you use or will you use to assess whether it is actually 

credible in the eyes of our target audience? 

Mr. STENGEL. It is a very good question, Ranking Member Engel. 

And one of the resources that we use, that I mentioned to the 

chairman, are our posts around the world who our locally employed 

staff there as well our Foreign Service officers who are dealing with 

local groups throughout the Gulf, throughout the Middle East, 

throughout the Horn of Africa. They help us determine who is a 

credible voice that we might want to work with. 

At the same there are people that we have worked with for a 

while. As you know we created the Sawab Center with the UAE 

in Abu Dhabi. They work with local voices. We work with them. We 

are creating a messaging hub as well in Kuala Lumpur with the 

Malaysians. They are looking for local people as well. And these 

are people who have knowledge of Islam, who have knowledge of 

ISIL on the ground, who have credibility too because in part they 

haven’t always been supporters of the United States. 

So we are looking for people who are effective in that information 

war with ISIL. We started a defector’s campaign which was the 

voices of young men and women who had been to the caliphate and 

came back and said it is not what it is cracked up to be. The engagement on that campaign eclipsed anything that we had done before. 

Mr. ENGEL. And we are still continuing to do it. 

Mr. STENGEL. We are. A group of partners is doing another one 

this fall. We have done campaigns about governance. We have done 

campaigns about ISIL’s brutal treatment of women. This campaign 

model, which was an evolution of what CSCC did which was more 

direct tit-for-tat messaging, that campaign model we have discovered is much, much more effective. 

Mr. ENGEL. And do you have the resources to do an adequate 

job? I know everybody can always use more money, but are your 

resources adequate? 

Mr. STENGEL. Well, as you know, Congressman, I ran a media 

company once upon a time and frankly I had a lot more resources 

running Time than I have running the GEC. I also want to mention that I am not running the GEC, coordinator Michael Lumpkin, 

who the chairman mentioned, is running GEC and he is doing a 

17

terrific job in terms of really changing its focus, giving it momentum which he has. 

So even though we have tripled the budget it is from a very small base. When I came in CSCC’s budget was only $5 million a 

year. So I actually think the GEC under Coordinator Lumpkin’s 

leadership could actually use more money and be more effective. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. At our hearing on this issue in June, we 

had a panel of nongovernmental experts who discussed two different approaches to identifying credible voices. Some experts have 

suggested a top-down approach using American media professionals to develop content and create messaging for third parties to 

disseminate. Others propose a bottom-up approach that would encourage Internet users from around the world to produce their own 

messaging through YouTube contests and other outreach. 

This bottom-up approach could generate a lot of content for very 

little cost. It wouldn’t all be effective, but some of it I believe would 

be exceptional and authentic. What do you see as the advantages 

and disadvantages of each approach, and in your view what is the 

most effective role of the U.S. Government in supporting these approaches? 

Mr. STENGEL. Thank you for that question. As with so many 

questions like that the answer really is all of the above and both, 

both top level and lower level. But as I mentioned in my opening 

statement, the fact that there is now six times as much content on 

social media that is anti-ISIL as pro-ISIL is really a tribute to 

those grassroots voices, the voices of mainstream Muslim men and 

women who are repulsed by ISIL’s vision. They are creating that 

content. 

We are helping some groups that are doing that. We are trying 

to give capability to both individuals and groups, and to me that 

is ultimately where that battle of narratives will be won when 

those regular voices dominate. At the same time, you know, we can 

help give them greater capability, help streamline their message. 

I have talked to the people at different Islamic universities in saying here is how you shorten a 68-page fatwa to three different 

tweets. That is more effective. 

Mr. ENGEL. I guess my time is up, Mr. Chairman, so—well, the 

one question I would ask is I would ask you about large social 

media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. They do play a prominent role in the radicalization process, so how do we work with 

these companies to combat radicalization? We have seen social 

media companies improve content removal, but what more should 

these companies do to support counter messaging efforts? 

Mr. STENGEL. Yes. I mean their platforms, they do not support 

radicalization obviously, their platforms hold content that does 

preach radicalization. But I think the story of the social media 

companies and the tech companies is an underwritten story. They 

are all aggressively out there getting content off their platforms. As 

one of them said to me, this is our ecosphere. We don’t want to 

have it polluted with this kind of noxious content. 

So 2 weeks ago I was out in Silicon Valley. I was with the Secretary of State. We met with Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook about 

what they are doing. They have dozens and dozens of people, Arabic speakers, 24/7, taking down content. As I mentioned, Twitter 

18

has publicly said that they have taken down more than 125,000 

handles. 

When I was out there last year I met with a YouTube executive. 

I see these videos are taken down now within minutes where it just 

has 25 or 50 views, whereas a year ago they were up for minutes 

or even hours. So I think the tech companies are really aggressive 

in this space in ways that people don’t always realize. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, that is good news and thank you for your efforts. 

Mr. STENGEL. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. And Mr. Under 

Secretary, it is very good to hear that we actually are making 

headway in something that is very vital to our security and the 

safety of ordinary people throughout the world against this radical 

Islamic philosophy that seems to have gained a certain amount of 

strength and power over these last few years which threatens normal people whether they are Muslims or Christians or Jews or 

whoever they are. So it is very good that you have been on top of 

this and had some positive things to report to us today. 

Let me ask you a couple questions about, not necessarily what 

we are against on the Internet, but what we are for and what we 

have promoted. The counterpart to this growth of a movement that 

is intolerant and preaches hatred and repression of other faiths, we 

have people who are heroic people in the Muslim world. General 

el-Sisi now having been elected being President el-Sisi of Egypt, for 

example, is a pivotal character in the Middle East and actually in 

the world. 

If Egypt would in some way, let’s say, turn into a country dominated by those who would have a caliphate and those who would 

have the same type of controls and monstrous policies that ISIL 

has been promoting we would see a—that would destabilize the entire region, and I doubt if any other of the smaller governments 

would survive if Egypt became a radicalized society. 

Are we doing something to promote those people for example in 

Egypt who, the clerics that have for example gotten behind President el-Sisi? President el-Sisi himself has reached out to Christians 

and other faiths. I might add one of the first leaders to do so. But 

have we done anything—I understand that actually there are more 

attacks on the administration in Egypt than there are as we say 

recognitions of the positive steps that he has made. 

Mr. STENGEL. Congressman, thank you for that question. And of 

course I share your belief and understanding of Egypt’s pivotal role 

in the Middle East and how so many countries in the Middle East 

look to Egypt for guidance. 

Another area where people look to Egypt is their expertise in Islamic studies. So we have worked with Al-Azhar University in 

Egypt to try to help get the message that ISIL is anti-Islamic, that 

it is a perversion of Islam out in a way on platforms that they traditionally don’t use. I mean, you know, having a book on paper is 

not going to get as much reach as being on social media. 

So we have also worked as I mentioned with other countries in 

the region. We started the Sawab Center with the Emirates and 

we—and the idea of the Sawab Center is that we will create a netVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:16 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\071316\20744 SHIRL
19

work of networks and they will loop in other countries who share 

the revulsion with ISIL. So the Sawab Center is already working 

with members of the coalition, including Egypt on counter ISIL 

messaging. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, that is—thank you very much for giving us some positive news. Let me ask you this about the methodology that we would use in approaching this. There is a big controversy as to whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood should be 

declared a terrorist organization. Are we in some way working with 

the Muslim Brotherhood in terms of the Internet and communications and the type of activities that you are talking about, or have 

we put that as to one of the groups we won’t work with? 

Mr. STENGEL. That is outside of my purview, Congressman, and 

I am happy to go back and talk to the Middle East Bureau or NEA 

about that question. But to my knowledge we are not doing any 

kind of joint messaging with the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let’s just note that there has been a lot of, 

how do you say, hesitancy if not outright opposition in the administration to efforts to try to come to grips with what the Muslim 

Brotherhood is all about. And after looking at the Muslim Brotherhood we know that it doesn’t advocate violence itself, but it seems 

to lay the intellectual foundation for ISIL and other radical, just 

radical Islamists which then leads the radicals who have been captured by that philosophy to believe that they can have a caliphate 

and they are going to wipe anybody else out who doesn’t agree with 

it. So it actually in the end causes there to be violence based on 

a philosophy that leads to that end. 

So I would hope that we, while we debate whether or not it 

should be, the Muslim Brotherhood should be declared a terrorist 

organization, at the very least we should be very weary of having 

Muslim Brotherhood advocates laying the intellectual foundation 

for the debate on ISIL and other movements in the Middle East. 

So I thank you very much and I appreciate the positive report that 

we got today. 

Mr. STENGEL. Thank you, Congressman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to thank you for your efforts. Our failure 

to deter terrorists is seen in San Bernardino and Orlando, and of 

course people will ask, well, why weren’t we 100 percent successful? But we will never know how many young men were turned 

away from terrorist acts perhaps here in the United States by your 

efforts. 

I am very pleased to hear you praise the media companies. It is 

good to know that they are helping. This was not the case a year 

and a half ago. In particular, you mentioned Twitter has taken 

down 125,000 handles, perhaps even more. This committee was 

very involved in pushing Twitter back a year and a half ago, and 

I hope I can add for the record our letter of March 6th signed by 

the ranking member, the chairman and some other members of 

this committee sent at a time when Twitter had a very different 

policy. 

And I have a question that I hope you will respond to just for 

the record and that is, can you identify some social media compaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:16 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\071316\20744 SHIRL
20

nies that are not exemplarily helpful or extraordinarily helpful in 

their efforts, including those that are based abroad? Not every social media company is in Northern California. 

I was pleased to talk to you before the hearing and learn that 

you have on your staff a gentleman who has done some graduate 

work at Al-Azhar. Many on the committee have heard me talk 

about the need for incredible expertise in Islamic theology and jurisprudence, but I hope that you will go further beyond someone 

who has done some graduate work at Al-Azhar to a graduate to a 

professor or someone qualified to be a professor at Al-Azhar and its 

Shiite counterparts. 

I know that such a person might not pass the Civil or Foreign 

Service examination, so please let us know whether you have the 

flexibility to hire such a person. And not just a Schedule C, which 

is a temporary job. You need to be able to offer people more than 

a temporary job. 

You point out that grievance opens the door. Everybody has a 

grievance. And there are those in the Muslim world who will say 

it is not enough, that it is outrageous that Israel exists where Muslims once ruled, but Al-Andalus also must be returned to Muslim 

rule that being Portugal and Spain. So there will always be a grievance as long as there are churches in Spain. 

But these are psychotic people. They get to kill and rape and engage in pedophilia, get applauded for it on earth and be told they 

are going to heaven for it. They need to be branded as people who 

use piety as an excuse for their psychopath. 

We have moved from broadcasting to narrow casting to chats, 

where you need thousands of people conversant in what potential 

terrorists are thinking. There are thousands of American Muslims 

who I think would help you if you called upon them to help you. 

But you have to do more than just ask them. You have to provide 

them some guidance. Not all of them are tech whizzes. Not everybody who wants to help you is under 30. 

But also, and this is something where you can, or somewhere in 

the U.S. Government perhaps your office can be extraordinarily 

helpful, and that is a way to register as a trusted blogger. Because 

I go to my friends and they have talked about this. They say, now 

let me get this straight, Sherman. I am supposed to spend—I have 

a Muslim name. I am a practicing Muslim. I am supposed to spend 

hundreds of hours in terrorist chat rooms. What happens when 

someone knocks on my door and looks at my hard drive? 

And I say, well, I will vouch for you. And they say, yeah, Sherman, clever. That is your way to make sure that you always have 

to reelected, because as soon as you can’t vouch for me how am I 

going to explain that hard drive? 

So I would hope that you would create a program where people 

can perhaps provide copies. I don’t know if you will get a chance 

to read them, but at least get copies of everything they are putting 

in. But can some way identify themselves as on the right side, because otherwise I can’t advise my friends to have these sites on 

their hard drive. 

And finally, I hope you work with and—well, why don’t I let you 

comment on that and——

21

Mr. STENGEL. Good. Thank you, Congressman Sherman, for that 

question and we touched on some of this in speaking before the 

hearing. All of the social media platforms have opportunities for individual users to flag content that violates the terms of service of 

those companies. The terms of service are their constitutions. 

And they also have so-called trusted flagger systems where if 

you, Congressman, are a trusted flagger that complaint goes 

straight to a higher authority. In fact next week we have a meeting 

of all the anti-ISIL coalition countries and we are doing a presentation on that flagging service for those countries. 

You asked about the tech companies that are not doing their fair 

share. In my experience everybody is alarmed about this. But one 

of the consequences of the effectiveness and aggressiveness of the 

tech companies on unencrypted platforms is that the bad guys are 

moving to encrypted platforms like Telegram, like WhatsApp, like 

Kik. And that is an area that the good news is that they are reaching a much smaller audience. The bad news is that we don’t know 

what they are saying. So that is an interesting area for you all to 

probe as well. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Mo Brooks of Alabama. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Under Secretary 

Stengel, I was listening to your opening statement and you made 

an interesting comment and I hope I was able to write it down verbatim, something to the effect of that ISIS or the Islamic State is 

already ‘‘tapping into an already existing Muslim market.’’ And 

then you mentioned I think grievance or anger or things like that. 

What did you mean by that already existing market? 

Mr. STENGEL. I don’t think it will come as a surprise to you, Congressman, or anyone on the committee, that in many of these 

places where they are searching out sympathizers there is high unemployment, there is lack of education, there are governments that 

don’t necessarily value free speech. So there is this market of unhappiness that exists already. 

I think now because the digital caliphate is shrinking they are 

looking for people who have mental health issues, who are psychotic, and they are trying to pinpoint those. But I think we are 

all aware that in terms of that, the Muslim world, there are places 

where there are unhappy youth although I am happy to say the 

Burson-Marsteller poll that came out a couple of months ago shows 

that 80 percent of the youth, 18 to 24, in the Middle East completely reject ISIL’s ideology even if they became nonviolent. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, there are lots of places around the planet that 

have high unemployment, some degree of lack of education, some 

degree of unhappiness. What is it about Islam in particular that 

causes you to assert that that is an already existing market for terrorism as opposed to all these other places around the planet that 

have those similar characteristics but are not adherence to Islam? 

Mr. STENGEL. Well, there is terrorism that goes by many different flags around the planet, not all terrorism is ISIL based. In 

fact one of the things that we have seen with the metastization of 

ISIL is that it has become a brand of convenience for people who 

have grievances that had not anything necessarily to do with ISIL’s 

ideology. 

22

And I should have said this in the answer to the first question. 

One of the other misconceptions is that ISIL’s content is all negative and filled with beheadings. We estimate that 80 percent of 

their content is positive about the beauties and the joys of the caliphate and the duty of every Muslim to go to the caliphate. So for 

many people it is actually an inspirational message. 

Mr. BROOKS. Where in the world is there the kind of terrorism 

that we have seen associated with Islam? Because you mentioned 

that there is terrorism around the planet, can you name anything 

that competes with or does as much damage as what was seen with 

the Islamic State in particular or say in America—Orlando, Boston, 

Chattanooga, San Bernardino and so forth? What other area of the 

world is so inspired to engage in these kind of organized terrorist 

barbaric acts of murder? 

Mr. STENGEL. No, I would, I certainly agree with you that ISIL’s 

terrorism and the effect that they are having is having the largest 

share of the market and the largest share of concern. 

Mr. BROOKS. Have you ever read the Quran? 

Mr. STENGEL. I have not read the entire Quran, but I have certainly read pieces of the Quran and have studied the Quran, yes. 

Mr. BROOKS. Let me share with you why there might be an already existing Muslim market for this kind of terrorism that you 

referenced early on, and these are quotes from the Quran: ‘‘When 

the Lord inspired the angels saying, I am with you, so make those 

who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those 

who disbelieve, then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. 

That is because they opposed Allah and his messenger. Who so opposes Allah and his messenger, for him, lo, Allah is severe in punishment.’’ And that is Quran 8-12. 

Then, ‘‘Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them and take them captive and besiege 

them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and 

establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave them their way 

free. Lo, Allah is forgiving and merciful.’’ That is Quran 9-5. 

And then, ‘‘The hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease 

and the agitators in the city do not desist, cursed. Wherever they 

are found they shall be seized and murdered, a horrible murdering.’’ That is in Quran 33-60 through 62. 

Is that what you mean by an already existing market for terrorism? 

Mr. STENGEL. One of the things that I have seen that Islamic 

scholars say about the perversion of ISIL’s ideology about Islam is 

they cherry pick passages from the Quran and from the hadiths, 

which as you know there are 200,000 hadiths, and it is pretty easy 

to find hadiths or parts of the Quran that may contradict each 

other and you have to look at it in context. I don’t know the larger 

context of the passages that you mentioned, but one of the issues 

that mainstream Islamic scholars say is that they, ISIL perverts 

Islam by cherry picking these passages that seem to support its 

ideology. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you for your insight. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ami Bera of California. 

23

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary 

Stengel. You know, in your opening comments you talked about 

two broad goals that you have in terms of coordinating anti-ISIL 

message and then amplifying the voices of the third parties that 

are trying to coordinate and counter the ISIL message. I would like 

to focus a little bit on that second broad goal. 

I do think broadly in the United States as well as across the 

Muslim world, the vast majority of folks reject ISIL’s message and 

want to counter that. That said, you know, their mechanisms of 

using social media and communicating in real time and building 

the message, you know, the imams may not be very adept at using 

social media, right. They may go on a blog and—in our prior hearing we talked about some of the difficulties that traditional antiISIL Islamic groups and third parties who want to counter may not 

be adept at, you know, countering in real time that message, building that relationship. 

And what are some strategies that we can use along with technology companies that understand how to use these newer technologies to make them more effective in countering the message? 

Mr. STENGEL. Yes, Congressman, thank you. It reminds me of 

the famous Mark Twain quote about the lie going around the world 

in the time that it takes the truth to tie its shoes. That the truth 

being these mainstream Muslim clerics who take the time to read 

the Quran, take the time to read the hadith and don’t necessarily 

have an expertise in social media the way some of the bad guys do. 

So one of the ideas that we have discussed and the chairman alluded to it earlier is, is there a private sector foundation or NGO 

of content creators, people who can help content creators, who can 

help the imam in Detroit to get on Twitter, who can help some of 

these voices get out there? Because what we have seen, and I have 

seen this in the Middle East, there is often a reticence among the 

good guys to be out there and we need to get them out there and 

we need to give them the skill set to be out there. 

Mr. BERA. And as someone who is not of the—you know, when 

I think about my daughter or think about our younger staff members, they will roll their eyes when I talk about how I communicate 

on social media because it evolves so quickly. And I think it is more 

than just training those scholars and third party individuals, but 

it is probably partnering with them to take those messages and in 

very real time continually communicate and counter ISIL messaging in real time, and using the same tools that ISIL probably 

is using better than we are. 

So that would be one point. You touched on something else 

though that certainly is of concern and came up in our prior hearing as well. As Twitter starts to take down a lot of these handles, 

as Facebook starts to take down these messages, we are, as you alluded to previously, starting to see folks go to apps like Telegram 

that are much more encrypted and much more difficult to monitor. 

That is of certainly some concern, because as we are trying to 

counter a message those apps become much more difficult. What 

are some strategies that we might be able to work on? 

Mr. STENGEL. It is an area that we are just beginning to explore, 

this migration onto encrypted platforms. And again as I mentioned, 

the good news about is they are reaching much, much smaller audiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:16 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\071316\20744 SHIRL
24

ences, but they are using it as tools of violence and violent acts not 

so much about persuading according to the ideology. 

And we also know, again not to be pessimistic about it that the 

ability to create encrypted platforms is something that is becoming 

more widespread itself so that people are going to be able to do 

that in the field. And I am happy to talk more about that in a different setting where it would be appropriate but I share your concerns. 

Mr. BERA. Great. And then in my brief remaining time, in our 

prior hearing, you know, we are certainly talking about countering 

the message online, but in our prior hearing we also had a discussion about using traditional media tools, right, using Hollywood, 

using movies to counter a narrative. Again, you know, in the Middle East as well as in certain ethnic communities they will consume television, they will consume movies. And what are our strategies to continue to put out an anti-ISIL message, an anti-radical 

ideology message? And that is one that I certainly think we ought 

to be doing a little bit more. 

Mr. STENGEL. Yes. I mean, as you know, Congressman, the most 

powerful and comprehensive platform in the Middle East is satellite TV. It is not social media. And just during this past Ramadan—which is like sweeps week for television—Middle East Broadcasting, which is led by a brilliant man named Ali Jaber, did a series called Selfie 2. Selfie 1 was a satirical, comedic exploration 

that satirized ISIL and made fun of ISIL. This Ramadan it was the 

most successful and the most watched program in the Middle East. 

This is the kind of thing that we applaud. We had Ali at a retreat 

at Sunnylands that I mentioned earlier for content makers from 

Hollywood and the Middle East, and that is the kind of thing that 

I think again will actually win this war of narratives. 

Mr. BERA. Great. And I am out of time, I will yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir, for your 

attendance. I just want to hearken back to your initial statements 

and some curiosity. You have given us some good information, I 

think, this morning that gives us some hope that we can turn the 

tide on these folks in the digital arena, but there are also some 

things that concern me and at least I am curious about. 

And maybe it is just that we pick up the narrative and we repeat 

the narrative without really thinking about it. When we say ‘‘lone 

wolf,’’ these folks that are engaged in this cause of theirs that attack Americans and attack all around the world, they are not lone 

wolves. They are not the Unabomber. They are not holed up in 

some cabin somewhere only to themselves. They are connected to 

a network where they were inspired and where they were urged on 

and commanded and supported. And I think we do potentially a 

disservice to seeing this for what it is if we consider them in the 

lone wolf context. And I would just urge you to maybe reconsider 

a different terminology for them. 

And then it also concerns me or at least I am curious about the 

assertion that they are mentally ill. Because people that kill a 

bunch of other people that have no connection to them personally 

or there is no grievance, they are not in a war or something like 

that where one side is against the other so to speak, in the tradiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:16 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\071316\20744 SHIRL
25

tional sense they are mentally ill and I think we can make that 

leap. 

But I would submit to you that—and I am going to give you a 

couple names. And there was also, you know, in regard to what Mr. 

Brooks said regarding unhappiness, unrest, economic unrest, social 

mobility, whatever you alluded to there that that is what drives 

these people. Al-Zarqawi, bin Laden, Zawahiri, Baghdadi, people of 

means, people of education, people of status in their communities, 

we are talking about billionaires, millionaires, doctors; these are 

people that lead this organization and this effort. 

And sir, when we say they are mentally ill, again I think we 

cloud, potentially cloud our view of—these are people who are committed to their religious cause. Now whether we feel it is a perversion of Islam or not is a wholly other discussion, but they feel that 

the people they are killing are perverting Islam. And they are not, 

you know, I would say that they are not what we classically consider mentally ill. They know exactly what they are doing. They 

have their faculties about them and they are committed to a cause. 

And I just worry that and I am concerned that that narrative, that 

position potentially clouds our judgment on how to address these 

folks. 

And I know I haven’t asked you a question yet, but let me ask 

you this. You know, ISIS cells in Raqqa are directing training and 

operations specifically at targeting Americans and people in the 

West, right. So if you are not aware, Assistant Secretary Atkin, he 

did defer to a classified setting and you may want to do the same. 

But when he said we also have to respect—we are talking about 

shutting down the network, the ability to gain access to the Internet in Raqqa, Syria. He said we have to respect the rights of citizens to have access to the Internet and balance that even in Raqqa. 

We don’t want to be at war with these people, but these people 

are at war with us. I would think that shutting down the Internet 

or the access to the Internet in Raqqa where the headquarters of 

ISIS is would be a tactical and strategic consideration that would 

diminish their capabilities. What is your opinion about that? 

Mr. STENGEL. Thank you, Congressman. I am going to begin by 

saying that I share your wariness and concern about the term ‘‘lone 

wolf.’’ I think it is a misnomer. I think it is a term that is in part 

created by the media because it is a cliche. One of the things that 

we have seen is that the idea that someone is self-radicalized by 

himself or herself almost doesn’t exist. I had a very smart person 

say to me it is much more of a epidemiological model for 

radicalization, i.e., frequent, intimate contact over and over. 

Everything we have seen with any of these so-called lone wolves 

is that it wasn’t about being radicalized about content. It was they 

were being touched repeatedly over and over by particularly recruiters who were trying to get them to go down that road. So I 

share your concern about that. 

One of the reasons in the—to go to your question in the diminution of content that is out there is our success on the military battlefield that early on a Brookings study estimated that there were 

as few as 500 of these ISIL fan boys, these hyperactive people on 

social media who were creating the lion’s share of the content out 

there. 

26

Basically with our success on the military battlefield of getting 

back almost 40 percent of the territory in Iraq that ISIL once held 

we are getting rid of a lot of those people who are creating that 

content. And we have plans which as you say might be better discussed in a different setting about how to, while not getting rid of 

regular people’s access to the Internet, getting rid of some of these 

hyperactive ISIL fan boys’ connection to the web. 

Mr. PERRY. My time is expired. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROYCE. Lois Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Stengel, for 

being here today. I want to just ask about maybe just a little, an 

adjoining subject I will say which is, you know, we have been told 

that one of the recruiting tools of ISIS or ISIL was making sex 

slaves available to them and we know there have been thousands 

at least physically and there has been the use of the Internet. 

We saw that—Mr. Chairman, we went to Tunisia. I think we saw 

some people, giving you some examples, if it is okay I am going to 

put this——

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection, we will submit it to the 

record. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Okay, put them in the record. But I will just—this 

was an example I will show you. This was a young girl, I think she 

was 12, 12 years old, being sold by ISIL over the Internet. So my 

question to you is, if you know, is there continuing to be a prevalence of this issue? What are we doing to try to shut it down? 

Mr. STENGEL. Yes, Congresswoman, I share your revulsion with 

ISIL’s treatment of women and girls. It is unimaginable and speaks 

to exactly what their values are rather than what they say. My understanding is that it continues. It is actually relevant to the discussion we had about unencrypted versus encrypted platforms. 

They are using encrypted platforms for this slave trade. They are 

using the so-called dark web. 

This is not something that happens on the social media platforms 

that we all know, it is something that happens behind that digital 

curtain that we talked about and it again is something that we are 

working on. Again happy to talk about it in a different setting. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Are some countries more successful at stopping 

the virtual terrorism than others and could you explain why? 

Mr. STENGEL. It is a very good question and I am more in the 

messaging business which obviously the ultimate goal is to stop the 

flow of terrorists and foreign fighters. There are certainly some 

countries that are more aggressive, more active, more willing in the 

messaging space which I think has a direct correlation in 

deradicalization. 

And I mean, I have mentioned before the Sawab Center which 

is in partnership with the UAE. I mean, the UAE has been very, 

very forward-leaning in getting into this space but yet we have had 

conversations and relationships with the Jordanians, with the 

Egyptians. As I mentioned there is another center that we are 

working on with the Malaysians. We have talked to the Indonesians. Everybody understands that they have to be in the space 

now. 

27

Ms. FRANKEL. Because there seems to be now, if the physical caliphate is being reduced, it sounds to me like the danger now is 

these inspired attacks. 

Mr. STENGEL. Again it is a very good question and it is a very 

big concern. We make a distinction between inspired attacks and 

directed attacks. And the unintended consequence of destroying the 

physical caliphate, which by the way was the raison d’etre of ISIL 

in the beginning; that they were creating a physical caliphate. The 

unintended consequences of that is that they are spreading into becoming more of an insurgency group and a non-state terrorist 

group and that is extremely dangerous, as we have seen from San 

Bernardino to Orlando to Paris, and there seems to be a correlation 

between the physical battlefield being shrunk and their expansion 

into this terrorist insurgency battlefield. 

Ms. FRANKEL. I want to make sure I have the correct terminology 

here. But directed and inspired, is the difference that one, the 

attacker comes to it on their own versus being recruited? I think 

you referred to attacks because somebody kept going after someone. 

Mr. STENGEL. Right. A number of months ago, Muhammad 

Adnani, who is the alleged spokesperson for the so-called Islamic 

State, said that while we are being reduced on the physical battlefield, the caliphate is physically shrinking, so you should take the 

battle—don’t come to Iraq and Syria. Take the battle to wherever 

you are and attack infidels wherever you are. And so those are not 

directed attacks but they are inspired by that kind of pernicious 

ideology. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. I will yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady. The chair will 

now go to Mr. DeSantis from Florida 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming, 

Mr. Stengel. How would you define this term that gets bandied 

about ‘‘violent extremism’’? 

Mr. STENGEL. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question? 

Mr. DESANTIS. How would you define this concept of violent extremism? 

Mr. STENGEL. I would define it as people who take a radical or 

extreme belief to the extreme of actually committing violence in its 

name. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And when we are talking about violent extremism, what type of beliefs have we seen that lead people to commit 

those acts of violence? 

Mr. STENGEL. What types of belief have caused them to commit 

the acts of violence? Again I would, and we have circled around 

this a little bit today. I would say that it is not so much a belief 

system or an ideology, but it is this recruitment by people who are 

trying to get people to commit violence in the name of an ideology 

or an idea that it doesn’t necessarily espouse violence by its very 

nature. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So I guess because I think it is important because 

some of the stuff you have outlined I think is good, but how you 

see the problem I think is important. So for example, when we hear 

about some violent extremists I get the sense from some people in 

the administration that somebody who is committing terrorism in 

the name of Islamic jihad let’s say that they are really not doing 

28

it because of any type of religion. What they are doing is they are 

trying to co-opt religion to justify, but really their main goal is to 

just kill. 

And so that is kind of one view. I would say it is a very narrow 

view. Or you could have another view which says these folks actually are motivated by an ideology and maybe it is not necessarily 

the same way that most Muslims in the world view the faith, but 

they honestly believe it and they think it is their religious duty to 

wage war against societies and individuals who don’t or aren’t willing to submit to that belief system. 

So when you are approaching this how is it? Are these people 

whose main goal is just to kill and they kind of use religion as a 

convenient excuse, or do you see groups like ISIS, groups like alQaeda, other terrorist groups as being people who really are committed to militant Islam and believe that they are commanded to 

do this based on that belief system? 

Mr. STENGEL. Congressman, I think it is both. I think we have 

seen both. I mean, one of the statistics that I didn’t mention earlier 

is that there has been an enormous decline in the flow of foreign 

terrorist fighters. The DoD estimates that it has declined by 80 to 

90 percent. One of the things that we saw with those for the most 

part young men who were becoming foreign terrorist fighters is 

that 80 percent of them had very little or almost no knowledge of 

Islam. Their attraction to being foreign terrorist fighters ranged everything from just wanting to kill to adventurism to publicity, and 

yet there were others who believed in this apocalyptic ideology. 

And so we see both. 

But I think for the most part, particularly as the actual physical 

caliphate is shrinking, they are looking for people who are willing 

to commit violence for any reason. But I do think——

Mr. DESANTIS. But they, the ‘‘they’’ are people you would acknowledge who really are committed to the ideology, correct? 

Mr. STENGEL. They are committed to that twisted ideology which 

embraces violence as a means to the end that they desire. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So as you approach this how do you view, because 

I have seen a lot of different surveys down in the Islamic world 

where you have very high numbers of people who support the imposition of Sharia Law and which obviously has some very harsh 

consequences for women, for people who don’t believe, who are nonMuslims, and what have you. The vast majority of those people I 

don’t think would ever join a terrorist group, but they do believe 

in that kind of concept of civil society. Now you have the terrorist 

groups who want a caliphate under Islamic law as well. 

So how do you deal with trying to reach people whose conception 

of civil society is radically different from ours but we don’t necessarily, we want to give them an option other than just going into 

the terrorist camp? Because some of these people, if they believe 

deeply in Sharia and they have Western folks, and you did make 

a good point in your testimony about us not always wanting to be 

the messenger, but if they have messages that are coming, even 

though ISIS may not be their ideal cup of tea that may seem a little bit more attractive than if we are selling something that they 

think is contrary to their faith. 

29

Mr. STENGEL. Congressman, it is a really difficult question and 

a really good one and philosophical one. And I am probably not 

supposed to mention people’s books here, but I recently read a book 

called ‘‘Islamic Exceptionalism’’ by Shadi Hamid. And the thesis 

was that this separation of church and state that we have in the 

West and with Christianity, which happened over hundreds and 

thousands of years, isn’t necessarily true of Islam. That Islamic law 

is intrinsic to being a good Muslim citizen, and this idea of a separation doesn’t exist in Islam the same way it exists in the West and 

Christianity. I think that is an interesting and provocative point 

that needs to influence our policy and understanding. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Great. I am out of time. I will just say I would 

like to submit a question about some of the clerics like Sheikh 

Qaradawi, very important with the Brotherhood, how we deal with 

the messages that they are sending. And I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And I thank the gentleman. The chair will now go 

down to the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony and for your extraordinary leadership 

and the progress that has been made under your leadership. I want 

to begin first with the level of financial support that Congress provides to your work. 

When you consider the level of information that is being produced by violent extremists online I think you have already hinted 

at the fact that you could obviously do more with more resources, 

but I am going to ask you directly. Is the government adequately 

resourcing the Global Engagement Center to fully support its mission? From your experience what level of funding do you need? 

And then the second part of the question is really what are other 

countries doing and what are the capabilities of other countries to 

engage in this fight and are there countries that should be doing 

more or do we have great partners? But the real first question is 

are we doing our part in terms of funding the work of your department? 

Mr. STENGEL. Mr. Congressman, thank you for your——

Mr. CICILLINE. I mean as a comparison, in the U.K. for example 

the agency that deals with online counter messaging and anti-terrorist activities is funded at $8 million. So that is just a relative 

comparison. It seems like we are seriously under funding this effort. 

Mr. STENGEL. Well, I thank you for that question and it is an 

issue that we discuss and think about every day. 

I just want to pull back for 1 second and say that the GEC, as 

effective as it is, it is only 4 months old. It is one part of a constellation of things that we are doing, you know, not only public diplomacy issues but working with partners. I mean, you mentioned 

the British. We have worked with the U.K. to stand up the coalition Web site which tracks, in English, the successes of the coalition against ISIL. That is something we literally didn’t have a year 

ago. So we leverage our partnerships and that has a dollar value 

as well. 

But I do think, Congressman, and even though we have tripled 

the very small budget of CSCC into GEC, we have asked for, I beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:16 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\071316\20744 SHIRL
30

lieve, $21 million for Fiscal Year 2017, I think $60 million for Fiscal Year 2018. So we think we could do more with more. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. Next I want to ask you about the 

work of sort of building the cadre of people who would be authentic, credible sources on social media to respond to Daesh and other 

terrorist organizations. I think we recognize that the United States 

Government is not the best provider of that content or to actually 

do it, and I am wondering what the other public diplomacy efforts 

that you are engaged in are doing to leverage that. For example, 

the exchange programs, the young leadership program, the Fulbright scholarships so that we can help build capacity and create 

those authentic voices who are then responding kind of organically 

to some of this in addition to funding, providing resources and 

building capacity of people who are already prepared to do it and 

are capable of doing it. 

Mr. STENGEL. I am glad you asked that question. In fact I sent 

out a tweet yesterday about the beginning of the TechGirls exchange, which is bringing young Muslim women in STEM subjects 

to study here on exchanges. I mean, the exchanges are golden and 

transformational and frankly, you know, every dollar we spend in 

them I think we get much, much, much in return. 

In that same vein we have IVLPs, international visitor leadership exchanges, in this area. We have increased the number of 

CDE IVLPs at my urging. And then we have also, we have something called TechCamps which was started in a previous administration but what I have beefed up and brought into public diplomacy. So we have doubled the number of TechCamps and I am 

doing it in this part of the world where we give people skills to 

combat that message in real time and they are often coupled with 

hackathons where they are actually creating contact. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Great. And the final question is the FBI recently 

announced the Shared Responsibility Committees program, which 

offers an alternative path to intervention besides arrest. As you 

know, Canada and many of our European allies have a history of 

utilizing this deradicalization and intervention approach. 

Have those been successful? Should we be, you know, developing 

similar deradicalization programs or should we be providing some 

additional emphasis on that approach? Has the history of that been 

effective? 

Mr. STENGEL. As you know, Congressman, my focus from a statutory standpoint is on foreign audiences rather than domestic audiences. That being said, in my travels throughout the region, and 

I was at a conference in Jakarta on deradicalization, particularly 

in the Muslim Asia, the belief in deradicalization is something that 

is very powerful and they see it as something that jibes with this 

mainstream view of Islam. 

And I do think it is something that we need to explore, that 

Americans need to know more about. And I don’t have any data 

about success rates in North America, but it is something that 

frankly I would encourage a closer look at. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The gentleman’s time is expired. Thank you so 

much. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. Thanks for being 

31

here. I would just ask the committee to remember Congressman 

Ted Poe in our thoughts and prayers. Announced today he has leukemia, and he is a valuable member of this committee, a valuable 

Member of Congress, and a great American. 

Mr. Under Secretary, I am on Homeland Security Committee as 

well and been in Congress almost 6 years, and the Homeland Security Committee and the Department was formed after the 9/11 

Commission really identified a lot of the walls that were put up between the sharing of information between agencies that led to some 

of the failures that allowed the 9/11 attacks on America to happen. 

But when I think about this as I am sitting here listening to the 

testimony today, the Department of State has a Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism area. Now we have 

the Global Engagement Center which was formerly the Center for 

Strategic Counterterrorism Communications. So that is at the Department of State. 

We also have the DoD which is using SOUTHCOM and 

AFRICOM and other elements to combat terrorism globally, whether it is in this hemisphere or whether it is in Africa or whether it 

is prosecuting the war against terrorism by dropping bombs and 

drone strikes against actual ISIL and al-Qaeda elements throughout the war on terror. 

We also in the country have the NCTC, National Counterterrorism Center. We have JTTFs, Joint Terrorism Task Forces, all 

over the country working with law enforcement in the states. We 

have the National Targeting Center which is looking at container 

shipping and understanding how potential threats may transit the 

globe. 

We have an agency known as the Department of Homeland Security which was created, what, in 2003, 2004 which combined 22 existing agencies into one huge bureaucracy of all homeland security 

elements whether that is, other than the FBI maybe that is a justice division, but NCTC, Secret Service, Border Patrol, Customs 

and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

USCIS, I could go through all 22 of them. There is a lot. 

The reason I point out that is we have all these elements out 

here within this huge bureaucratic United States Government that 

are all trying to do the same thing and that is ultimately to keep 

Americans safe and stop terrorism. Terrorism is a global effort 

against freedom. To establish a caliphate is the goal of ISIS, but 

there are other terrorist elements out there that are not involved 

with ISIS. That is Boko Haram. That is Abu Sayyaf. That is Iran’s 

Quds Force. They are responsible for so many attacks on Western 

elements. 

So the question I have is we continue to change names and set 

up different groups, how effective are we? And are we not creating 

or recreating the problems we solved prior to 9/11 with all these 

different groups? I guess what I am asking is there information 

sharing or are there walls? 

Mr. STENGEL. Congressman, thank you for that question. If you 

recall, I came into government from the private sector and I think 

I spent the first 6 months trying to memorize all the acronyms of 

all the groups that I needed to know to be able to communicate 

with. 

32

Mr. DUNCAN. I didn’t scratch the surface. I mean, as you know 

I didn’t scratch the surface on the acronyms and alphabet soup of 

government. 

Mr. STENGEL. That being said, I think one of the effects of 9/11 

is that people realize that there were these silos of information and 

we weren’t communicating. And the GEC by definition in the President’s executive order creates it as an interagency body and an information coordinating body. So there are detailees from NCTC, 

detailees from DoD, detailees from the intelligence community, two 

detailees from Homeland Security at GEC that make up the staff. 

And the idea is that by its very nature it is a coordinating entity 

to create coordination among messaging across the government, so 

I think to that extent it is doing a pretty good job of that. You 

know, it has been creating messaging coordination memos that go 

out to all of those folks. So I think we do both know more what 

everyone else is doing and we are beginning to do it together. 

Mr. DUNCAN. What I am concerned with, Mr. Under Secretary, 

is that we are not being effective. And the reason I say that there 

are groups like Kronos Advisory, which is a private enterprise looking at global terrorism and they are monitoring not only social 

media, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, you name it. They are also 

monitoring the dark web which I don’t know that that element of 

the dark web and encryption has been brought up today, but ISIS 

is becoming a lot smarter. Social media is an easy way to attract 

those recruits. The communication is happening beyond the normal 

person’s purview, not happening on Twitter. 

So when I see a group like the one I just mentioned, a private 

group who can inform me as a Member of Congress and elements 

within the U.S. Government’s intelligence service a lot faster about 

what they see on Twitter, what they pick up on social media than 

these alphabet agencies, I wonder how effective we are as a big 

government that is so seemingly disconnected. 

And I think about the Department of State. I am sorry, but that 

is foreign relations. That is policies between governments. I don’t 

really understand the Department of State’s role in counterterrorism activities that I see the Bureau of Counterterrorism and 

Countering Violent Extremism. I am sorry, but I don’t. I think that 

is a national security apparatus function with the Department of 

Homeland Security which I mentioned earlier, 22 agencies combined together to create this mega-bureaucracy as known as DHS. 

I wonder how effective that is being so large and cumbersome, but 

then I hear about the Department of State. I know what DoD is 

doing. 

And my gosh, America just wants to be safe and they want to 

make sure we are all communicating. I think the gist of what I am 

asking today, and you don’t have to answer this but the point I 

want to make is this. We don’t need walls. We need to make sure 

that we are communicating. And I am not sure that large government agencies and the number of agencies that I mentioned all 

doing similar things is the most effective way, because sometimes 

smaller is better. Joe Montana proved that as quarterback of the 

San Francisco 49ers. 

With that I will go down to Mr. Deutch for 5 minutes. 

33

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the 

chairman and ranking member for making countering violent extremism a priority of this committee and appreciate the opportunity to engage with Under Secretary Stengel today. I would also 

like to associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member 

and so many others who have commended the administration for 

pursuing a strategy to combat ISIS and other terror groups online. 

And I just wanted to follow up on a few points that have been 

raised here. One, with respect to social media, obviously, Mr. 

Stengel, it is not just that ISIS uses social media to recruit members and spread propaganda. After the shootings in Tel Aviv just 

weeks ago, Hamas took to Facebook to praise those attacks. Now 

the victims of Hamas’ terror have filed a lawsuit against Facebook. 

And I know as you point out that companies like Facebook have 

been aggressively getting content off of their platform and the peerto-peer challenge that they have been actively engaged in I think 

also deserves great credit. The question is just a broader one and 

I would just like to start the conversation. Should a designated foreign terrorist organization be allowed to use U.S. based social 

media platforms? 

Mr. STENGEL. Congressman, thank you for that question. And it 

is a large and philosophical question. And one of the things just to 

go down into the weeds for a second, in my conversations with the 

social media companies and in the trip that was publicized that 

was led by Denis McDonough to meet with the heads of the tech 

companies, one of things I hear over and over is we need help discerning one terrorist message from another. You know, is this a 

group that you might actually support as opposed to one that their 

content should be taken down? The intelligence community also 

creates messages that are sometimes confused for terrorist messaging. 

So I think the tech companies are eager to collaborate with government about finding the kind of message that they want to take 

off their platforms, the messages that is polluting their platform. 

And as I mentioned they have their own constitution in terms of 

service and it isn’t necessarily about designated terrorist organizations but the kind of content that is put up. And that is not something that we police, that is something that they police themselves. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Well, it is and it isn’t. I absolutely agree that they 

are policing content and they devote incredible resources to taking 

down content that violates their standards. But I really am getting 

at just the basic point of whether—and as I said it is a conversation I just think that needs to take place. 

Referring to this specifically, is there a place, should foreign terrorist organizations be allowed to have a platform and I guess part 

of that conversation is, is there content—should we be making decisions and distinctions about the content on pages and sites, social 

media sites of designated foreign terrorist organizations or should 

we simply take the position that there is no reason to distinguish 

between something that is offensive and violates the standards of 

the company and something that I suppose may not technically violate the standards but still represents the words, the urgings of a 

terrorist organization? 

34

Mr. STENGEL. If you are asking me, Congressman, no. I don’t 

think a foreign terrorist organization should have a platform on 

any of these social media sites. That being said, one of the issues 

that we face all of the time is how the First Amendment applies 

to these American companies which is different than any other 

countries around the world. 

As I mentioned earlier, so much of the ISIL content is actually 

positive. A few weeks ago I saw a tweet from an ISIL sympathizer 

and it showed a picture of a basket of apples and all it said was 

the caliphate is bounteous. Is that protected by the First Amendment or not? Is that content that Twitter should take off? I mean, 

I think these are very difficult questions and our environment on 

that continuum between freedom and security puts all of these 

things——

Mr. DEUTCH. I completely agree. I am sorry, because I am about 

out of time. But I think that is, and I don’t know the answer but 

that is exactly the question. The question is are we doing less than 

we can if we allow terrorist organizations to post what would not 

be deemed, which would only be viewed as a positive post by anyone else? But to suggest that the caliphate is bounteous, it actually 

plays into a narrative that they are using to try to radicalize individuals around the world. I just think it is something we really 

need to struggle with and I appreciate the opportunity to start 

these exchanges with you here today. I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman. Especially when conservative content is deleted or denied and they allow radicalized content to remain up. I will now recognize Mr. Donovan from New 

York 5 minutes. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I have to 

be some place at 11:30. It is 11:40 already, so I am just going to 

ask quickly, Mr. Secretary, and I came to the hearing late so a lot 

of the questions were already answered. 

I was very interested when you were saying how there is so 

much more anti-ISIS content online than there is—that surprises 

me—than there is pro-ISIS. Is that information, counter ISIS information things that our Government is putting online? Is that individuals putting online the anti-ISIS information and content? 

Mr. STENGEL. Congressman, the lion’s share of it is individuals 

and organizations and clerics and imams. It is not government 

messaging. Some of it is government messaging, some of it is government messaging of our partners. But as I say most of it is the 

voices of mainstream Muslims. 

Mr. DONOVAN. And I know it is difficult to measure a negative, 

but is there a way? Can we tell how effective this anti-ISIS messaging is, the effect of it? 

Mr. STENGEL. It is a very good question and it is hard to say. 

I mean, we do want to drown out their message with positive messages and positive narratives and that is something not just countering their message but providing alternatives. And I think one of 

the positives of that is that there are a lot of alternatives that are 

now being proposed and are out there. 

Mr. DONOVAN. And I, like the chairman, am on Homeland Security as well and there was a debate, discussion on whether or not 

we should use folks who are radicalized who then have seen that 

35

the life they were promised was filled with falsehoods and whether 

or not we should use those individuals who want to explain to others that what you are being promised is not true, and I think that 

debate continues. 

Let me just ask you quickly about the size of the recruits. I know 

you had also said that they are recruiting from a community of existing potential sympathizers and not expanding. I know some people are thinking that community of people of potential recruits 

might be as large as 20,000 people. Do you have any idea about 

how big that community of potential sympathizers might be? 

Mr. STENGEL. Well, the numbers that I have seen of the number 

of foreign terrorist fighters who have gone to Iraq and Syria from 

the very beginning is something on the number of 40,000, many of 

whom are killed, many of whom are gone. What I have also seen 

is a statistic from DoD that their flow every month used to be 

1,500 to 2,000 and now it is 200 to 400. So it has been radically 

reduced, although that was a period quite a while ago in time so 

we don’t know exactly what is happening today. 

Mr. DONOVAN. And you answered my final question. I was going 

to ask you if you think that community is growing or shrinking and 

apparently it seems to be shrinking. Thank you so much for your 

time. 

Mr. STENGEL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The chair will now go to the former chairwoman of 

the committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Chairman Duncan, and 

I had several conflicting events so I apologize if some of these questions have been asked before. I have several questions and pick 

which one you would like to answer within my time, sir. 

As radical Islamist groups become more and more sophisticated 

we have seen them become more adept at manipulating social 

media platforms as tools to spread their propaganda, recruit vulnerable individuals to their cause, and extremist groups have found 

a way to adapt much quicker than we have been able to and they 

take advantage and exploit the rules we have in place in free societies that obviously protect privacy and speech. And that really 

seems to me to be the crux of the issue for Western societies. 

How do we battle an ideology and a methodology that are not 

constrained by the same rules under which we operate? Individuals 

do not radicalize in a vacuum and I worry that our efforts to 

counter message the existing narrative may already be lost before 

they begin. How effective can counter messaging work when it is 

likely that by the time we identify at-risk individuals they are already well on the path toward radicalization? 

And here in the U.S. we have invested a lot in countering violent 

extremism programs like this and how do our programs compare 

to the efforts of our allies in the Middle East? Are they more effective than our own capabilities? 

And also, a few weeks ago a team from my alma mater, the University of Miami, led by Professor Neil Johnson, published a study 

in the academic journal Science entitled, ‘‘New Online Ecology of 

Adversarial Aggregates: ISIS and Beyond.’’ And among its findings 

it found that pro-ISIS narratives develop through smaller, self-organized online groups and they have the ability to adapt, to extend 

36

their longevity, and even increase their numbers despite constant 

pressure from law enforcement groups and other anti-ISIS entities. 

The study suggested that if these groups are not broken up at 

a fast enough pace then pro-ISIS support and material can expand 

exponentially faster through its networks. But it also suggested 

that anti-ISIS entities can use data mining and analysis to focus 

on taking down these hundreds of smaller groups before they get 

too strong. Are you familiar with this research, sir, and are you 

employing similar tactics at the Global Engagement Center? 

And lastly, how effective is this Big Data mining and analysis 

when ISIS continues to adapt to employ techniques to avoid detection by the same people who are sifting through the information 

looking for them? Thank you so much. 

Mr. STENGEL. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. 

And indeed you have touched on some of the things that we have 

talked about here today, but they are all very good questions. That 

is why it is so difficult in this space. The actual particular research 

that you mentioned I am not familiar with. I would very much like 

to——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I will send it to you. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. STENGEL. Thank you very much. I have seen research that 

is similar about the distributed networks that ISIL has that they 

don’t have a strong center. That these provinces and these other 

communication entities are distributed and they don’t get a central 

message and that is one reason that it is difficult to compete with 

them. 

Your point about the platforms is it is a difficult one. These are 

the greatest platforms for information in human history and they 

can also be abused by disinformation and this negative content. 

That is why we work so closely with those companies to help them 

get that content off their platforms. Those companies as much as 

we, maybe more, want to have that content off their platform because it ruins it for everybody else. 

And the idea of Big Data is something that we want to explore. 

I didn’t mention this earlier, but the GEC, the Global Engagement 

Center, is creating a Big Data hub, a data analytics hub, and it is 

using some tools from the interagency. There is a DARPA tool that 

they are using, Congressman Duncan that is worth mentioning. 

And so these are all issues that we are wrestling with and this is 

why it is a tough fight. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I fight that we must win. Thank you so 

much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. I will take 

the opportunity to tell you, Mr. Stengel, we appreciate your time 

today. You have been a great witness. And this issue is critical. 

That was pointed out by all the committee. You assert that the 

counter-ISIL message is gaining steam and look, I hope you are 

right. I think we all hope you are right. And as I noted, at the end 

of the day we are dealing with a huge bureaucracy, Federal bureaucracy that has its challenges. 

So the committee looks forward to continuing the work on this 

effort and I look forward to continuing the work as a member of 

the Homeland Security Committee as well, and I look forward to 

us continuing to discuss this critical topic. 

37

With no further business, we will stand adjourned. 

Mr. STENGEL. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

40

f


20744n.eps
41


20744m-1.eps
42

f


20744m-2.eps
43

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE LOIS FRANKEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


20744b.eps
44

Æ


20744c.eps