The American Dilemma: Radicalisation, Media Bias, and the Dual Faces of Extremism
On 1 January 2025, two attacks shook the United States: a Tesla Cybertruck explosion outside the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas and a deadly vehicle rampage on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Both incidents involved veterans with ties to Fort Bragg and Afghanistan, yet their narratives diverged sharply in media and political discourse. The Las Vegas attacker, Matthew Livelsberger, a decorated Green Beret, was framed as a troubled individual suffering from PTSD, while the New Orleans assailant, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, was swiftly linked to Islamist extremism. This disparity in framing reflects not only the complexities of radicalisation but also the biases inherent in American media and political dialogue. These events are not isolated; they are symptoms of a broader American dilemma—a society grappling with the consequences of its own contradictions, from mental health crises to systemic failures in addressing extremism.
Matthew Livelsberger, a 37-year-old Green Beret, detonated a rented Tesla Cybertruck outside a Trump hotel, injuring seven but causing minimal structural damage. His act was initially investigated as a potential terrorist attack, but the narrative quickly shifted to emphasise his mental health struggles, PTSD, and personal grievances. Livelsberger left behind letters describing his actions as a “wake-up call” for a “terminally ill” America, criticising income inequality, diversity efforts, and the government’s failures. Despite his military background and access to explosives, his attack was framed as a personal tragedy rather than an act of terrorism. In stark contrast, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a former Army veteran, drove a rented truck into a crowd on Bourbon Street, killing 14 and injuring dozens. His vehicle displayed an ISIS flag, and he had posted videos expressing support for the terrorist group. Authorities quickly labelled the attack as terrorism, emphasising Jabbar’s ideological motivations. While both men were veterans with similar military backgrounds, their actions were interpreted through vastly different lenses—one as a mental health crisis, the other as ideological extremism.
The divergent narratives surrounding these attacks reveal deeper systemic issues. Livelsberger’s case highlights the mental health crisis among veterans, particularly those in elite units like the Green Berets. His untreated PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, and personal struggles were exacerbated by the stigma surrounding mental health treatment in the military. His manifesto and letters suggest a man grappling with the moral weight of his service, yet his actions were dismissed as personal rather than political. Jabbar’s case, on the other hand, underscores the persistent threat of Islamist extremism and the challenges of addressing radicalisation within the military. His descent into extremism was fuelled by personal crises—divorce, financial ruin, and a sense of alienation—but his actions were immediately politicised as part of a global ideological struggle. This dichotomy reflects a broader failure to address the root causes of radicalisation, whether ideological or psychological, within American society.
The media’s treatment of these attacks reveals a troubling double standard. Livelsberger’s actions were downplayed as a mental health issue, with little scrutiny of his political grievances or the symbolic choice of a Trump hotel and a Tesla vehicle. In contrast, Jabbar’s attack was immediately framed as terrorism, with extensive coverage of his ISIS affiliations and ideological motivations. This disparity reflects a broader trend in U.S. media, where right-wing extremism is often treated with caution, while Islamist extremism is sensationalised. Political discourse further exacerbates this bias. The Biden administration’s focus on domestic terrorism has disproportionately targeted right-wing groups while downplaying the threat of Islamist extremism. This selective framing not only distorts public understanding of extremism but also undermines efforts to address its root causes.
The attacks in Las Vegas and New Orleans are not merely acts of individual extremism; they are symptoms of a broader American dilemma. From the mental health crisis among veterans to the systemic failures in addressing radicalisation, these events reveal the contradictions and complexities of American society. The media’s biased framing and the politicisation of extremism further obscure these issues, perpetuating a cycle of misunderstanding and inaction. To truly address the threat of extremism, we must move beyond simplistic narratives and confront the underlying causes—whether psychological, ideological, or systemic. The root causes of radicalisation are, in many ways, “made in America”: the trauma of endless wars, the alienation of marginalised communities, and the failure to provide adequate mental health care and social support. These are not foreign problems; they are homegrown, reflecting the fractures within our society.
A more nuanced understanding of radicalisation must acknowledge the diverse motivations and experiences of those who turn to violence. It must also confront the uncomfortable truth that extremism, in all its forms, is often a product of the very systems and structures we uphold. Only by addressing these root causes—rooted in American soil—can we hope to prevent future tragedies and build a more resilient society.
