The Growing Surveillance State of Agriculture: When Activism Meets “National Security”

A college student in California faces over five years in prison, not for violence, but for rescuing chickens. Zoe Rosenberg’s case, and the documents recently released by Property of the People, reveal a disturbing trend: the increasing collaboration between law enforcement, agricultural industry groups, and a willingness to equate animal rights activism with terrorism. This isn’t a new tactic, but the scale and sophistication of the surveillance – and the justification used – are escalating, raising critical questions about free speech, food security, and the future of activism.

From “Green Scare” to Bird Flu: A History of Targeting Activists

The roots of this conflict stretch back to the early 2000s, dubbed the “Green Scare,” when environmental and animal rights activists faced aggressive prosecution for acts of property damage and disruption. But the recent revelations demonstrate a more insidious pattern. Following the COVID-19 pandemic’s onset and subsequent outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), or bird flu, industry groups began actively lobbying law enforcement to view activists as a threat – not just to property, but to the entire food supply.

Emails and FBI memos obtained through public records requests show a concerted effort to frame activists as potential vectors for disease spread, alleging they lacked proper biosecurity protocols. Stephen Goldsmith, a veterinarian with the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, even claimed in 2015 that animal rights groups posed a greater domestic threat than Al Qaeda. This rhetoric, amplified through meetings with groups like the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA), directly influenced official FBI communications, culminating in a 2019 intelligence note alleging activists were accelerating the spread of Virulent Newcastle disease.

The Industry-Law Enforcement Feedback Loop

The released documents paint a clear picture of a two-way information flow. The AAA, a lobbying group dedicated to defending the agricultural industry, regularly provided the FBI with monitoring reports on activist groups, including Direct Action Everywhere. In turn, the FBI shared information with the AAA, effectively deputizing industry representatives as intelligence gatherers. This collaboration extended to tracking and reporting “animal rights activity,” with the AAA even providing members with a direct FBI email address for reporting “ARVE” – animal rights violent extremists. The March 2020 letter to Governor Newsom, framing activists as potential terrorists, further solidified this alliance.

Debunked Claims and a Rebuttal from Within

Crucially, the FBI’s claims about activists spreading disease were challenged by another law enforcement agency. The Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, a Bay Area-based fusion center, issued a note just four months after the FBI’s assessment, stating that activists posed a “diminishing threat” and were “probably not responsible” for any outbreaks. This rebuttal, citing activists’ use of protective gear and USDA research, highlights the questionable basis of the FBI’s initial conclusions. Despite this internal contradiction, the narrative of activists as a biosecurity risk persisted, influencing legal proceedings like Rosenberg’s case.

The Future of Food System Activism: Increased Surveillance and Legal Risks

The implications of this trend are far-reaching. The criminalization of peaceful protest, the blurring of lines between legitimate activism and “terrorism,” and the increasing surveillance of individuals exercising their First Amendment rights represent a significant threat to democratic principles. As climate change intensifies and concerns about industrial agriculture grow, we can expect to see increased activism focused on food systems. This will likely be met with even more sophisticated surveillance tactics and aggressive legal responses from industry and law enforcement.

Furthermore, the focus on biosecurity as a justification for suppressing dissent sets a dangerous precedent. It allows for the expansion of surveillance powers under the guise of protecting public health, potentially targeting any group challenging the status quo. The rise of agtech and data-driven farming practices will likely exacerbate this trend, providing even more tools for monitoring and controlling activist movements. Expect to see increased use of facial recognition technology, social media monitoring, and data analytics to identify and track individuals involved in animal rights or environmental activism.

The case of Zoe Rosenberg isn’t an isolated incident; it’s a warning sign. The convergence of industry lobbying, law enforcement overreach, and the criminalization of dissent poses a serious threat to the future of food system activism and, ultimately, to our ability to hold powerful corporations accountable. What steps can be taken to protect these rights? Increased transparency, robust legal defense funds for activists, and a critical examination of the relationship between industry and law enforcement are crucial first steps.

What are your thoughts on the increasing surveillance of activists? Share your perspective in the comments below!