National Guard Armory Breaches Raise Alarm Over Extremist Threats
Thefts of sensitive military equipment show signs of inside help.
A string of quiet but deeply troubling thefts from National Guard armories has drawn in the FBI, the Pentagon, and multiple state and federal intelligence agencies. The concern isn’t just the stolen equipment — it’s the possibility that organized domestic extremist groups, including militia networks, are probing America’s defenses.
Between fall 2024 and early 2025, four break-ins targeted Tennessee National Guard facilities over a seven-week stretch. The thieves didn’t take rifles or grenades, but the haul was far from harmless. Missing are night vision goggles, thermal weapon sights, and laser target locators — tools that can give any armed group a serious tactical edge.
Investigators say the nature of the crimes points to inside help. In some cases, alarms were disabled, secure rooms were left unlocked, and thieves appeared to know exactly where keys were kept. These aren’t signs of random smash-and-grab operations; they’re evidence of planning, familiarity, and precision.
A Broader Pattern
The Tennessee thefts are part of a wider trend. In the past year, similar incidents have been reported across the country:
Three Humvees and other military gear stolen from a California facility.
Storage containers raided in Colorado.
An attempted theft of body armor and communications gear at a Ranger unit in Washington, where suspects reportedly posed as veterans to bypass scrutiny.
These cases add weight to what intelligence officials have been warning for years: domestic violent extremists (DVEs) have discussed, and in some cases attempted, raids on military facilities. A confidential Tennessee Fusion Center memo reviewed by reporters shows that from 2020 to 2024, at least four individuals openly discussed stealing heavy weapons from armories, including .50-caliber machine guns and mortars. Three of them had served in the military. One named specific armories and explained how to exploit their vulnerabilities.
Some of these discussions have surfaced in extremist chat rooms. In 2024, one participant proposed scouting armories with help from sympathetic firefighters and police recruits. An active-duty tank commander claimed he could convince an armorer to hand over weapons. A former Air Force contractor fantasized about seizing a National Guard site to grab heavy arms and take territory.
The Investigative Response
The FBI is leading the investigation into the Tennessee break-ins, with the Pentagon’s Office of the Provost Marshal General, the Army’s top law enforcement authority, also involved. The Department of Defense has referred questions to the National Guard, which has so far declined to comment.
According to the Fusion Center memo, federal agents and defense officials are now strengthening liaison programs with armory and base operators, aiming to close reporting gaps and flag theft threats earlier. But this is largely a reactive move, prompted by recent events rather than long-term prevention.
Critics say the pattern shows a systemic security failure. “Violent neo-Nazis and far-right militia groups continue to pose a serious and ongoing threat—and state governments are failing in their duty to secure dangerous military hardware,” says Ryan Shapiro, executive director of a government transparency watchdog.
The response from the Trump administration has been to downplay the threat of far-right and neo-Nazi groups.
Why This Matters
The theft of surveillance and targeting gear may not grab headlines like missing rifles or explosives. But in the wrong hands, such equipment can transform small, armed groups into far more capable threats. Coupled with insider access, the risk escalates. For extremists, a successful raid on an armory isn’t just about the gear — it’s a symbolic strike against government control, one that fuels propaganda and recruitment.
The stakes are clear: insider complicity plus extremist ideology is a dangerous combination. And as political and cultural divisions deepen, there’s no telling what kinds of groups may be “testing the waters” now, gauging how far they can go before the system reacts.
The question isn’t whether they’ll try again. It’s whether the next attempt will be a rehearsal or the main event.