A Note About Our Research Approach
Some legislators have shown allegiance to far-right groups by publicly taking up far-right causes or speaking at far-right rallies. A labor-intensive effort to track all legislative appearances at far-right events would illuminate one side of the relationship between far-right groups and legislators, but only the side they most want to share.
It is also true that some legislators use other social media platforms, such as Twitter, Instagram, Telegram, Gab, Parler, MeWe, WimKin, GETTR, and Truth Social, to interact with far-right groups. This relationship on those platforms deserves additional scrutiny. However, Facebook remains the dominant platform for state legislator interaction with far-right groups.
At the same time, far-right groups are not exactly forthcoming with their membership rosters. A few lists have turned up through leaks or legal cases. Yet, particularly with the names of connected legislators, far-right groups have historically kept members’ names tightly guarded secrets. This changed when many far-right groups turned management of those membership rosters over to social media companies like Facebook.
The IREHR research team searched thousands of far-right Facebook groups for the identifiable personal, campaign, and official Facebook profile URLs of all 7,383 state legislators in the U.S. during the 2021-2022 period.[7] As a result, the team identified 875 legislators as members of one or more far-right groups. Of course, not every legislator identified in this report can be characterized as expressing “far-right” ideology. However, all of them have become members of far-right Facebook groups.
Not every legislator who was in office in 2021 finished their term. Of the 875 legislators documented in this report, 19 were no longer serving as of April 2022. Three had been expelled, 10 left the legislature, three died, and two were not re-elected. To present a complete record of the problem during this period, information on those 19 legislators remains in this report.
Unless otherwise noted, all of the people and data in this report are specific to the group of 875 state legislators who were in office during the 2021-22 legislative period and who joined far-right Facebook groups.
Partisan Breakdown
In a review of 7,383 seats in state legislatures in the 2021-2022 legislative session, our research found:
- Republicans held 4,011 total seats.[8] Of these, IREHR found that 872 had joined far-right Facebook groups—21.74% of all Republican state legislators.
- Democrats held 3,277 total seats (2,413 house, 864 senate seats), three of whom had joined far-right Facebook groups, or 0.09% of all Democratic state legislators.
No Libertarian or independent legislators were found in far-right Facebook groups.
Gender Breakdown
Men are dominant among the legislators who joined far-right groups. Notably, the percentage of women serving in state legislatures that have joined far-right groups is lower than the overall percentage of women serving in state legislatures.
Of the legislators who joined one or more far-right Facebook groups, 661 appear to identify as male (75.54%) and 214 as female (24.45%).[9] By comparison, 31.2% of all legislative seats are currently held by women.[10]
Of the legislators that are members of far-right groups, the percentage of women among them is also lower than some of the far-right movements they joined. Historically, women have not made up a significant population in far-right organizations, but the gender gap is closing. At the height of the Tea Party movement, men made up 66%, and women made up 33% of the supporter base. COVID Denial groups are more evenly split, and women outnumber men in many anti-mask/anti-vaxx groups. None of the legislators are known to have identified as trans or non-binary.
Most of the State Legislators that Joined Far-Right Groups were Men
Geographic Breakdown
The IREHR research team found that legislators representing each of the 50 states joined far-right Facebook groups, and only slightly larger numbers from the South and Midwest had joined than from other regions.
That said, the representation of state legislators in the groups was highest in New Hampshire (62), followed by Pennsylvania (40), Minnesota (39), Missouri (36), Arkansas (34), Montana (34), Maine (34), Georgia (32), Washington (30), and Maryland (27). Table 2.1 is a complete breakdown of state totals.
By comparison, the total number of legislators in far-right Facebook groups as a percentage of specific state legislatures found Alaska the highest, with 35%. Following close behind were Arkansas (25.19%), Idaho (22.86%), Montana (22.67%), Washington (20.41%), Minnesota (19.4%), Maine (18.28%), and Missouri (18.27%). Table 2.2 ranks states by overall composition of the state legislature.
Table 2.1: State Totals
| State | Legislators in Far-Right Groups | Percentage of legislature |
|---|
| Alabama | 6 | 4.29 |
| Alaska | 21 | 35 |
| Arizona | 12 | 13.33 |
| Arkansas | 34 | 25.19 |
| California | 9 | 7.5 |
| Colorado | 14 | 14 |
| Connecticut | 16 | 8.56 |
| Delaware | 1 | 1.61 |
| Florida | 10 | 6.25 |
| Georgia | 32 | 13.65 |
| Hawaii | 1 | 1.32 |
| Idaho | 24 | 22.86 |
| Illinois | 14 | 7.91 |
| Indiana | 10 | 6.67 |
| Iowa | 15 | 10 |
| Kansas | 20 | 12.12 |
| Kentucky | 12 | 8.7 |
| Louisiana | 7 | 4.86 |
| Maine | 34 | 18.28 |
| Maryland | 27 | 14.36 |
| Massachusetts | 8 | 4 |
| Michigan | 27 | 18.24 |
| Minnesota | 39 | 19.4 |
| Mississippi | 9 | 5.17 |
| Missouri | 36 | 18.27 |
| Montana | 34 | 22.67 |
| Nebraska | 5 | 10.2 |
| Nevada | 8 | 12.7 |
| New Hampshire | 62 | 14.62 |
| New Jersey | 15 | 12.5 |
| New Mexico | 12 | 10.71 |
| New York | 8 | 3.76 |
| North Carolina | 26 | 15.29 |
| North Dakota | 14 | 9.93 |
| Ohio | 19 | 14.39 |
| Oklahoma | 11 | 7.38 |
| Oregon | 13 | 14.44 |
| Pennsylvania | 40 | 15.81 |
| Rhode Island | 7 | 6.19 |
| South Carolina | 24 | 2.05 |
| South Dakota | 7 | 6.67 |
| Tennessee | 20 | 15.15 |
| Texas | 20 | 11.05 |
| Utah | 18 | 17.31 |
| Vermont | 1 | 0.56 |
| Virginia | 12 | 8.57 |
| Washington | 30 | 20.41 |
| West Virginia | 13 | 9.7 |
| Wisconsin | 15 | 11.36 |
| Wyoming | 4 | 4.44 |
People often think of the problem of far-right encroachment into the mainstream as isolated by region, perhaps with higher concentrations in the Deep South or the Pacific Northwest. On the contrary, we found representation spread relatively uniformly across all regions, with the largest numbers in the South (264), followed by the Midwest (221), the West (200), and the Northeast (191).
Table 2.2: Legislators in Far-Right Facebook Groups by Region
| REGION | LEGISLATORS |
|---|
| Midwest | 221 |
| Northeast | 191 |
| South | 264 |
| West | 200 |
By Chamber
Of the 875 legislators identified in this report, 654 had seats in lower chambers and 221 in upper chambers.
Among lower chambers, the New Hampshire House of Representatives led the country in the number of legislators in far-right Facebook groups, with 58 of 400. The Missouri House of Representatives followed with 34 of 163 legislators.
The Alaska House of Representatives dominated the list as a percentage of a chamber’s membership, with 15 of the 40 legislators (37.5%) having joined far-right Facebook groups.
Table 2.3 is a complete list of the number of members in each chamber in every state.[11]
MAP 2.1 – Lower Chambers
MAP 2.2 – Upper Chambers
The most significant representation in an upper chamber was in the Minnesota State Senate, with 13 of 67 members (19.4%). In the upper chambers of state legislative bodies, in Arkansas’s Senate, 11 of 35 members (31.43%) showed up in far-right groups. Across the country, six of 20 (30%) in the Alaska Senate joined far-right Facebook groups. Idaho came in third, with 18 of 70 state house members (25.71%).
Table 2.3: Members of Far-Right Facebook Groups by Chamber
| STATE | CHAMBER | GROUP MEMBERS | % OF LEGISLATURE |
|---|
| Alabama | House | 4 | 3.81% |
| Alabama | Senate | 2 | 5.71% |
| Alaska | House | 15 | 37.50% |
| Alaska | Senate | 6 | 30.00% |
| Arizona | House | 7 | 11.67% |
| Arizona | Senate | 5 | 16.67% |
| Arkansas | House | 23 | 23.00% |
| Arkansas | Senate | 11 | 31.43% |
| California | Assembly | 7 | 8.75% |
| California | Senate | 2 | 5.00% |
| Colorado | House | 9 | 13.85% |
| Colorado | Senate | 5 | 14.29% |
| Connecticut | House | 14 | 9.27% |
| Connecticut | Senate | 2 | 5.56% |
| Delaware | Assembly | 0 | 0.00% |
| Delaware | Senate | 1 | 4.76% |
| Florida | House | 8 | 6.67% |
| Florida | Senate | 2 | 5.00% |
| Georgia | House | 24 | 13.33% |
| Georgia | Senate | 8 | 14.29% |
| Hawaii | House | 1 | 1.96% |
| Hawaii | Senate | 0 | 0.00% |
| Idaho | House | 18 | 25.71% |
| Idaho | Senate | 6 | 17.14% |
| Illinois | House | 9 | 7.63% |
| Illinois | Senate | 5 | 8.47% |
| Indiana | House | 8 | 8.00% |
| Indiana | Senate | 2 | 4.00% |
| Iowa | House | 10 | 10.00% |
| Iowa | Senate | 5 | 10.00% |
| Kansas | House | 16 | 12.80% |
| Kansas | Senate | 4 | 10.00% |
| Kentucky | House | 8 | 8.00% |
| Kentucky | Senate | 4 | 10.53% |
| Louisiana | House | 7 | 6.67% |
| Louisiana | Senate | 0 | 0.00% |
| Maine | House | 29 | 19.21% |
| Maine | Senate | 5 | 14.29% |
| Maryland | House | 20 | 14.18% |
| Maryland | Senate | 7 | 14.89% |
| Massachusetts | House | 8 | 5.00% |
| Massachusetts | Senate | 0 | 0.00% |
| Michigan | House | 18 | 16.36% |
| Michigan | Senate | 9 | 23.68% |
| Minnesota | House | 26 | 19.40% |
| Minnesota | Senate | 13 | 19.40% |
| Mississippi | House | 5 | 4.10% |
| Mississippi | Senate | 4 | 7.69% |
| Missouri | House | 34 | 20.86% |
| Missouri | Senate | 2 | 5.88% |
| Montana | House | 24 | 24.00% |
| Montana | Senate | 10 | 20.00% |
| Nebraska | Senate | 5 | 10.20% |
| Nevada | Assembly | 7 | 16.67% |
| Nevada | Senate | 1 | 4.76% |
| New Hampshire | House | 58 | 14.50% |
| New Hampshire | Senate | 4 | 16.67% |
| New Jersey | Assembly | 10 | 12.50% |
| New Jersey | Senate | 5 | 12.50% |
| New Mexico | House | 8 | 11.43% |
| New Mexico | Senate | 4 | 9.52% |
| New York | Assembly | 7 | 4.67% |
| New York | Senate | 1 | 1.59% |
| North Carolina | House | 18 | 15.00% |
| North Carolina | Senate | 8 | 16.00% |
| North Dakota | House | 9 | 9.57% |
| North Dakota | Senate | 5 | 10.64% |
| Ohio | House | 15 | 15.15% |
| Ohio | Senate | 4 | 12.12% |
| Oklahoma | House | 7 | 6.93% |
| Oklahoma | Senate | 4 | 8.33% |
| Oregon | House | 8 | 13.33% |
| Oregon | Senate | 5 | 16.67% |
| Pennsylvania | House | 33 | 16.26% |
| Pennsylvania | Senate | 7 | 14.00% |
| Rhode Island | House | 6 | 8.00% |
| Rhode Island | Senate | 1 | 2.63% |
| South Carolina | House | 18 | 14.52% |
| South Carolina | Senate | 6 | 13.04% |
| South Dakota | House | 5 | 7.14% |
| South Dakota | Senate | 2 | 5.71% |
| Tennessee | House | 13 | 13.13% |
| Tennessee | Senate | 7 | 21.21% |
| Texas | House | 16 | 10.67% |
| Texas | Senate | 4 | 12.90% |
| Utah | House | 12 | 16.00% |
| Utah | Senate | 6 | 20.69% |
| Vermont | House | 1 | 0.67% |
| Vermont | Senate | 0 | 0.00% |
| Virginia | House | 9 | 9.00% |
| Virginia | Senate | 3 | 7.50% |
| Washington | House | 21 | 21.43% |
| Washington | Senate | 9 | 18.37% |
| West Virginia | House | 8 | 8.00% |
| West Virginia | Senate | 5 | 14.71% |
| Wisconsin | Assembly | 12 | 12.12% |
| Wisconsin | Senate | 3 | 9.09% |
| Wyoming | House | 2 | 3.33% |
| Wyoming | Senate | 2 | 6.67% |
Networks
Legislators with far-right ties are often portrayed as individually idiosyncratic, particularly by hometown media, lone outliers rather than part of a more significant movement. However, membership in the far-right Facebook groups we examined appears to facilitate the emergence of new legislative connections.
Figure 2.1 represents a social network diagram of the legislators and these far-right groups. As shown in Figure 2.1, the outer edges depict solitary legislators that have connections to single groups or small clusters of legislators and/or groups. While towards the center of the diagram, where most are located, there are substantially more connections.
Figure 2.1 Legislator Social Networking Diagram
The data suggest the potential emergence of a nascent social network of legislators that have joined far-right Facebook groups. At a minimum, it is clear that a budding network of shared far-right misinformation has been joined by many of these legislators. Moreover, it has created a space for future mobilizations and spread attacks on democracy and human rights across the country.
Comparisons
How does the Facebook data compare to other far-right efforts to pierce the mainstream? Some have pointed to state legislator membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a network known for advancing boilerplate far-right legislation, as a key source.
The far-right Facebook group members and ALEC membership rolls do not overlap significantly. Of the 875 legislators we found in Facebook groups, only 199 also were ALEC members, just 22.74%. Of state legislators who have sponsored anti-human rights bills, 607 of the 875 represented in the Facebook data set, just 190 have been identified as ALEC members, an overlap of 31.30%. [12] The data suggests these are relatively distinct constellations of legislators, with both needing additional attention.
By comparison, of those ten active legislators who were members of the far-right paramilitary group, the Oath Keepers, six are members of other far-right Facebook groups identified in this report.[13]
When legislators join far-right groups like those featured in this report, it is problematic in many ways. The legislator lends the imprimatur of their office to the far-right group. Seeing the legislator’s name in a far-right group gives the seal of approval to the group and potentially increases the far-right group’s legitimacy and standing. In turn, legislators find a hardened support base, often outside their core constituency. By gaining office, they also build the capacity to impose an anti-human and civil rights agenda on members of our communities.