ODM Daily Inspirational Devotional Messages Bible Verse and Prayers ODM
Biden CIA Memo Tied ‘Motherhood and Homemaking’ to White Supremacy: How Ideological Bias Corrupted American Intelligence
By ODMDaily Editorial Team Politics · Culture · Free Speech
A Biden-era CIA memo linking motherhood and homemaking to violent extremism has been exposed and retracted, revealing how ideological bias corrupted America’s intelligence apparatus — and wasted taxpayer resources in the process.
When a CIA memo begins with a trigger warning, there is a good chance the contents “fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned.” Those are the words of CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who summarily dismissed a Biden-era memo titled “Women Advancing White Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist Radicalization and Recruitment.” The CIA published the memo (with redactions) on October 6, 2021, and quietly retracted it on February 20, 2026 — after the damage had already been done.
The memo warned that women were joining a movement it called “white racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist,” or “REMVE.” Or, more accurately, it warned of women becoming “white REMVE-sympathetic,” which it defined as people who do “not openly advocate violence but amplify white REMVE narratives.”
From there, the memo proceeded to warn about “the white REMVE view of traditional motherhood” and that one group of concern, whose identity was redacted in the final report, “has lauded motherhood and homemaking as women’s most important responsibility.”
Let that sink in. A document produced by the Central Intelligence Agency — the same agency responsible for tracking genuine terrorist threats like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other violent organizations — warned that people who praise motherhood and homemaking might be sympathetic to violent extremism.
If any analyst had ever bothered to read this paper aloud before circulating it, he or she would likely have tossed the whole thing in derision. Seriously, who in their right mind puts “motherhood,” “homemaking,” and “violent extremism” together in the same sentence? Who ever feared that the frazzle-haired woman patiently towing three tots through the taco aisle on a Tuesday morning is planning to lob a Molotov cocktail at the nearest federal courthouse?
“REMVE-Sympathetic”: When Jargon Becomes a Weapon
The whole project was built on the “REMVE-sympathetic” category — an absurdly self-defeating term. The essential feature of “REMVEs” is violence. Without violence, “REMEs” (without the V) would merely be racists. Racism, however repugnant, is not a crime in the United States. The First Amendment protects hateful speech, no matter how offensive. Violence is a crime. There is a massive difference.
But this CIA memo created the “REMVE-sympathetic” category to classify those it would like to label as “REMVEs,” but who have, by the memo’s own admission, not even advocated violence. They have not committed violence. They have not planned violence. They have not encouraged violence. They have simply expressed opinions that the memo’s authors found distasteful — including, apparently, the opinion that motherhood and homemaking are valuable.
The only reason given for connecting the two categories is that they make some similar points. The memo announced, in effect: “Guys, we noticed that some violent people and some non-violent people hold the same racist opinions. And, what’s more, the non-violent ones endorse motherhood. Voilà! A vast conspiracy!”
Real groundbreaking stuff there.
Keep in mind that this memo was circulated by and in the Central Intelligence Agency, which means national security intelligence analysts wasted their time writing and reading this twaddle. Additionally, since the CIA has an international focus, they wasted their time informing Americans about foreign, non-violent racists — but only the white ones.
The Real Purpose: Weaponizing Language Against Political Opponents
The ideological motive behind the document’s quack terminology was hardly concealed. The memo stated: “We define ‘white REMVE-sympathetic’ actors as individuals or groups who may not openly advocate violence but amplify white REMVE narratives regarding their perceptions of racial and ethnic hierarchy, as well as perceived threats from those they see as advocating multiculturalism and globalisation.”
Aha. Now they tip their hand.
The real purpose of this exercise was to try and legitimise the “white REMVE-sympathetic” category as a label that would pollute any opponent of “multiculturalism and globalisation” with the stench of violent extremism — even if they never dreamed of advocating for or committing violence. In other words, this was weaponised language that the far-Left tried to use to cast one-half of the American political spectrum as “beyond the pale.”
If you oppose mass immigration, you are a “REMVE-sympathetic.” If you believe that Western culture is worth preserving, you are “REMVE-sympathetic.” If you think that motherhood and homemaking are valuable contributions to society, you are “REMVE-sympathetic.” If you question the benefits of globalisation, you are “REMVE-sympathetic.”
Notice how the label requires no actual violence, no actual planning of violence, no actual advocacy of violence. It only requires holding opinions that deviate from progressive orthodoxy. That is not intelligence analysis. That is political warfare.
The Timing: Same Week as the NSBA Letter to the Biden Administration
The memo was released on October 6, 2021 — the same week as the National School Boards Association (NSBA) wrote a letter to the Biden administration, later revealed to have been orchestrated with the White House, complaining that parents protesting progressive school board policies constituted a domestic terror threat.
The NSBA letter, which the association later retracted after losing half its membership, pretended to give a dozen examples of threats against school board members. Not one of those examples involved actual violence by parents. Not one. Parents had shown up to meetings, spoken passionately, and sometimes shouted. That was the extent of the “terror threat.”
The CIA memo sang from the same songbook. After opening with the trigger warning, “This product contains references to racial, sexual, and gendered violence,” it contained nearly nothing of the kind. Aside from a few redacted paragraphs that cannot be analysed, the 15-page document contained only one account of actual violence — a 2018 white supremacist terror attack in Germany. Nevertheless, terms like “violent extremism” or the acronym “REMVEs” ran throughout the memo.
Cooking Videos and Makeup Tutorials as Evidence of Extremism
Instead of documenting actual violence, the memo compiled a handful of examples where female influencers expressed allegedly racist views through popular social media trends.
“Some white REMVE-sympathetic women have produced blogs, videos, or other online content under the guise of cooking tutorials, which feature discussions about the importance of organic food alongside subtle narratives about racial purity and the defence of white European heritage,” according to research the memo cited from a German nonprofit.
In another instance, the memo recorded, Canadian media personality Lauren Southern “posted a makeup tutorial interwoven with anti-Muslim sentiment to her US-based video streaming platform channel.”
Cooking videos and makeup tutorials? Where will the violence end?
Several points are worth noting about the inclusion of Southern on this list. First, the inclusion of a Canadian commentator with an American show was the closest the memo came to commenting on domestic American politics — close enough to suggest the authors knew how their report might have a domestic influence.
Second, a woman’s “anti-Muslim sentiment” may be as legitimate as a black American’s anti-segregation sentiment: “I sure am glad I live in a country where the makeup I work so hard to apply will actually be seen, not like those places governed by Sharia law.” Whether Southern’s sentiments were of this nature or something more offensive, the memo neglected to specify. But those who pretend to obsess over the rights of oppressed groups should at least remember which groups are actually oppressed. In many Muslim-majority nations, women are denied basic rights — education, employment, freedom of movement, even the right to show their faces in public. Criticising that is not “extremism.”
Third, strictly speaking, “anti-Muslim sentiment” falls outside the “REMVE” category because “Muslim” is not a race or ethnicity but a religion. The authors likely meant “anti-Arab sentiment,” a term that usually overlaps but not always. The oversight is of small importance, but the fact that the authors committed such an oversight shows that this memo was not written — or edited — with a careful eye for accuracy.
In fairness to the authors, they did take care, on the whole, to cite actual racists or members of white supremacist groups, even if the narrative they crafted cast a much wider net. “White REMVEs and their sympathisers have claimed in online posts that it is essential for white families to have as many biological children as possible to counter the rising birthrates among non-white populations,” the document continued. “White REMVEs allege that this rise is a conspiracy, which they have termed the ‘great replacement’.”
Natalism Is Not a Terror Threat
It is true that the white supremacist fringe has imbibed the “great replacement” conspiracy theory and views the West’s racially diversifying population as a threat. It is also true that imputing belief in this conspiracy theory to any and every natalist — someone who thinks having more babies is a good thing — is itself a conspiracy theory.
Indeed, of the many good reasons why people want to see more babies born, racist fears do not even make the list.
-
There are sociological reasons: a national birthrate below population replacement (approximately 2.1 babies per woman) results in population decline, causing empty cities, abandoned schools, and a crisis of elder care as fewer young people support a growing elderly population.
-
There are economic reasons: a declining population means a shrinking workforce, reduced productivity, lower tax revenues, and increased burden on social services.
-
There are historical reasons: healthy and successful nations and civilisations have cherished their young instead of eliminating them. Every major civilisation that has collapsed has done so, in part, because it failed to reproduce itself.
-
There are biblical reasons: God instituted childbirth as a blessing (Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply”) and imbued every person with the dignity of His image (Genesis 1:27). Children are not a burden to be managed. They are a gift to be welcomed.
Note that none of these reasons distinguishes by race. Those who adopt these reasons want to see families of all races and ethnicities have children, simply because children are good. Natalism is not white supremacy. Wanting babies is not extremism. Believing that children are a blessing is not a threat to national security.
Beyond all these, there are a host of more personal reasons why people embrace having lots of children, or why women, in particular, embrace motherhood. There are instinctive reasons: responding to deep-seated desires in our very nature. There are familial reasons: understanding oneself as part of a multi-generational legacy. There are even prudential reasons: seeing offspring as a natural defence against solitude and isolation in old age.
To view any of this as a problem, we must first leave behind the perspective of a neutral security analyst and adopt the perspective of a leftist operative — someone who wants to determine the country’s future population every bit as much as the racists do, but in the opposite direction. Someone who is committed, in fact, to stamping out traditional beliefs by any means necessary.
White racists committing to having babies would be a problem for such a person. But for a neutral security analyst, it would be a relief. Congratulations, the long-dreaded wave of violence has been postponed by at least a generation! Given that people with racist beliefs do exist, what course of action would you have them take? If they are having babies instead of planting bombs, that is a win.
The Real Story: Women Faced Misogyny Even in Racist Groups
The whole document could be summarised this way: a handful of women have joined European or Canadian white supremacist groups and sought to craft a role for themselves in online recruitment. But, the document added, these women ultimately faced barriers to participation and advancement because it turns out the racist group leaders are also misogynists — to no one’s surprise.
We hardly needed an intelligence memo to tell us these facts. A junior researcher could have compiled this information in an afternoon. Yet the Biden administration poured resources into this harmless burrow in an attempt, amid the culture wars of late 2021, to spin these simple but uninteresting facts into a broader narrative about a vast, right-wing threat that echoed throughout any proponent of conservative or national values.
CIA Director Ratcliffe Corrects the Record
“There is absolutely no room for bias in our work,” CIA Director Ratcliffe insisted. “And when we identify instances where analytic rigour has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record.”
Ratcliffe’s repudiation of the Biden-era memo is welcome, but it raises a larger question: how did such a document ever get produced in the first place? How did career intelligence analysts come to believe that motherhood, homemaking, cooking tutorials, and makeup videos constituted evidence of violent extremism?
The answer is ideological capture. Under the Biden administration, the intelligence community was increasingly dominated by progressive activists who viewed their mission not as objective analysis of threats to national security, but as advancing a political agenda. If you believe that traditional values are inherently suspect, that natalism is a dog whistle for racism, and that any criticism of multiculturalism or globalisation is a gateway to extremism, then a memo like this makes perfect sense.
But it does not make sense to anyone who has not drunk the Kool-Aid.
Why This Matters Far Beyond the United States
This story is not just an American embarrassment. It matters for Australia, for the United Kingdom, for Canada, and for every Western nation that looks to the United States as a leader in intelligence and national security.
If the CIA — the premier intelligence agency in the world — can produce garbage like this, what does that say about the quality of intelligence our own agencies are producing? If American analysts have been corrupted by ideological bias, how long before the same rot spreads to Australian agencies?
Moreover, the weaponisation of language seen in this memo — the attempt to label ordinary beliefs as “extremist” — has direct parallels in Australia. Our own conversion therapy bans criminalise counsellors for telling children biological truth. Our own hate speech laws are used to silence Christians who speak their beliefs. Our own intelligence agencies have been captured by progressive orthodoxy.
We ignore this at our peril.
A Call for Reform
The CIA memo is a symptom of a larger disease. The cure is not just firing a few analysts or retracting a few documents. The cure is a fundamental reorientation of how intelligence agencies approach their work.
1. Return to Core Mission: Intelligence agencies exist to track genuine threats — terrorism, espionage, weapons proliferation, cyber attacks. They do not exist to police political opinions or to wage culture wars.
2. Fire Ideologues: Anyone who believes that motherhood and homemaking are indicators of violent extremism has no place in an intelligence agency. They are not analysts. They are activists.
3. Protect Whistleblowers: The fact that this memo was produced, circulated, and acted upon suggests that internal dissent was not welcomed. Whistleblowers who expose ideological bias should be protected, not punished.
4. Demand Accountability: CIA Director Ratcliffe deserves credit for repudiating this memo. But he should also investigate how it happened and hold those responsible accountable.
5. Learn the Lesson: The same ideological bias that produced this memo is at work in our own institutions. We must be vigilant.
A Prayer for Wisdom and Discernment
Lord, we thank You that You have created order, truth, and reason. We pray for intelligence agencies around the world — that they would be freed from ideological bias and returned to their core mission of protecting the innocent from genuine threats. We pray for analysts who are pressured to conform to progressive orthodoxy — give them courage to speak the truth. We pray for leaders like CIA Director Ratcliffe — give them wisdom to root out corruption. And we pray for our own nation — protect us from the weaponisation of language and the criminalisation of ordinary beliefs. Let truth prevail. Let reason reign. Let justice roll down. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
Final Word: Motherhood Is Not Extremism
The Biden-era CIA memo linking motherhood and homemaking to white supremacy was a disgrace. It wasted taxpayer resources. It corrupted intelligence analysis. It slandered millions of ordinary women who simply love their children and their homes.
Motherhood is not extremism. Homemaking is not violence. Cooking tutorials and makeup videos are not terrorist recruitment tools.
The people who produced this memo should be ashamed. The people who circulated it should be fired. And the people who defended it should be asked one simple question: What on earth were you thinking?
About the Author:
This article is based on reporting from The Washington Stand and The Daily Declaration and is published by ODMDaily.com. Our mission is to declare biblical truth for the public square with clarity, courage, and hope.
Share this article:
If this post encouraged you, share it on social media and leave a comment below.
Suggested Discussion Questions for Small Groups:
-
Before reading this article, were you aware that the CIA produced a memo linking motherhood to white supremacy? What was your initial reaction?
-
The memo created a category called “REMVE-sympathetic” for people who do not advocate violence but amplify certain narratives. Do you see any danger in such categories? Why or why not?
-
How should Christians think about the relationship between natalism (encouraging large families) and political ideology?
-
The article argues that intelligence agencies have been captured by ideological bias. Do you agree? What evidence would you point to?
-
What parallels do you see between this CIA memo and Australian laws or policies?
-
How can Christians advocate for truth and reason in our public institutions without being dismissed as “extremist” themselves?
This article is ready for publication on ODMDaily.com. Let me know if you need any adjustments or additional sections.
