.png)
Sunday, April 13, 2025 | 2 a.m.
Editor’s note: The Sun is launching a new feature called “Behind the News” that will take significant events and provide readers with Sun staff research as well as a digest of existing news stories— with full source links for readers to explore more. “Behind the News” is the product of Sun staff assisted by the Sun’s AI lab, which includes a variety of tools such as Anthropic’s Claude, Perplexity AI, Google Gemini and ChatGPT.
The 2014 Bundy standoff represents a watershed moment in modern American antigovernment extremism, establishing a precedent where armed resistance against federal authority resulted in few legal consequences for participants.
This confrontation between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his armed supporters and federal agents not only emboldened militia movements but created a template for future confrontations, including the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
The dismissal of charges against Bundy and his supporters due to prosecutorial misconduct reinforced narratives within extremist circles about government illegitimacy, while elevating figures like Stewart Rhodes whose organizations would later threaten democratic institutions.
Origins of the confrontation
The Bundy dispute originated in 1993 when Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher, refused to renew his permit for cattle grazing on Bureau of Land Management-administered lands near Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. While Bundy continued grazing his cattle on public lands, he stopped paying the required fees, arguing that the federal government lacked constitutional authority to own vast tracts of land — a position repeatedly rejected by federal courts[1].
By 2014, Bundy had accumulated over $1 million in unpaid grazing fees and court-ordered fines, making him an outlier among the thousands of ranchers who complied with federal regulations[1].
The legal battle intensified after the government’s 1989 designation of the desert tortoise as an endangered species, which affected land use in the area. Between 1998 and 2012, Bundy lost multiple court cases as judges consistently ruled him a trespasser with no right to graze his cattle on federal lands[1].
Bundy’s worldview reflected sovereign citizen ideology — he denied federal jurisdiction over Nevada land, claiming it belonged to the “sovereign state of Nevada”[1]. He argued that he possessed “pre-emptive grazing rights” because some of his grandmother’s ancestors had kept cattle in the Virgin Valley since 1877, though courts found no legal basis for such claims[1].
In March 2014, the BLM prepared to enforce court orders by closing 145,604 acres of federal land for the “capture, impound, and removal of trespass cattle”[1]. When BLM officials began rounding up Bundy’s cattle on April 5, the stage was set for a confrontation that would embolden antigovernment extremists for years to come[1].
The Standoff: Armed resistance meets federal authority
The April 2014 standoff evolved rapidly from a simple enforcement action into a defining moment for the modern militia movement. On April 12, hundreds of armed supporters from across the country converged on Bunkerville in response to Bundy’s call to “get on our boots and make our stand”[2].
The standoff reached its peak when protesters, many heavily armed, approached the area where federal agents had gathered nearly 400 head of Bundy’s cattle[3]. Some militia members tactically positioned themselves as snipers on a highway overpass, aiming weapons at federal officers[1].
Las Vegas Assistant Sheriff Joe Lombardo later recounted that “they were in my face yelling profanities and pointing weapons,” adding that “we were outgunned, outmanned, and there would not have been a good result”[1].
A Reuters photojournalist reported that armed supporters had “taken up tactical positions on government officers,” with one man pointing a rifle toward BLM employees stating, “I’ve got a clear shot at four of them”[1].
Facing this armed opposition and fearing bloodshed, the BLM decided to release the cattle it had gathered and withdraw from the area[1].
This tactical retreat was immediately hailed as a victory by Bundy and his supporters, with his son Ryan declaring to enthusiastic cheers, “The West has now been won!”[2].
Legal aftermath: Prosecutorial failures lead to dismissal
The legal proceedings following the Bundy standoff revealed significant challenges in prosecuting armed resistance against government authority. Federal prosecutors spent nearly two years building a case against Bundy, his sons and other participants, but these efforts ultimately collapsed due to the government’s own misconduct[4].
In December 2017, Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial in the Nevada case against Cliven Bundy, his sons and militia leader Ryan Payne. Navarro cited a “willful failure to disclose information” by prosecutors, specifically regarding evidence about government surveillance cameras surrounding the Bundy ranch and the presence of snipers near the family’s home during the 2014 confrontation[4].
This mistrial was followed by an even more significant ruling on Jan. 8, 2018, when Navarro dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the defendants could not be tried again on the same charges[4]. In her ruling, she chastised the federal government for what she characterized as a “reckless disregard to fulfill its constitutional duties”[4].
The dismissal effectively ended the federal government’s attempt to hold Bundy accountable for the standoff. As of 2015, Cliven Bundy continued to graze his cattle on federal land without paying required fees[2].
The legal outcome reinforced a narrative within extremist circles that the federal government’s authority was illegitimate and could be successfully challenged through armed resistance[3]. This perception would have profound implications for future anti-government activities, including the 2016 Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation in Oregon, where Bundy’s sons led another armed standoff that also ended with acquittals for the main participants[4].
Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers: From Bunkerville to the Capitol
The Bundy standoff played a critical role in the rise of Stewart Rhodes and his Oath Keepers organization, establishing connections and tactics that would later be deployed during the January 6 Capitol attack. Rhodes, a former Army paratrooper and Yale Law School graduate, founded the Oath Keepers in 2009 as an organization of current and former military, police and first responders who pledge to defend the Constitution against perceived enemies[5][6].
During the Bundy standoff, Rhodes and the Oath Keepers positioned themselves as a crucial militia presence. The Department of Justice later described in court filings how Rhodes had “instructed his followers to bring firearms to the Bundy Ranch standoff,” demonstrating his early willingness to confront federal authorities with armed resistance[7].
According to a Southern Poverty Law Center report, this emboldening effect became starkly evident in the years following the Bundy standoff[8]. As detailed in Department of Justice court filings, after Joe Biden’s projected victory in the 2020 presidential election, Rhodes appeared on right-wing media warning of an “impending bloody fight” necessary to “save the republic”[9]. These sentiments culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, in which Rhodes and other Oath Keepers played significant roles[9][8].
In November 2022, Rhodes was convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in the Capitol riot. According to Department of Justice statements, prosecutors successfully demonstrated that Rhodes had “plotted to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power”[9]. In May 2023, Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison for his leadership role in the Capitol attack[10].
The impact of these convictions has been substantial for the Oath Keepers organization. The SPLC documented a steep decline in Oath Keepers activity following these legal consequences, with the organization falling from 79 active chapters in 2021 to just 10 in 2023 following Rhodes’ conviction[8].
In January 2025, President Donald Trump commuted Rhodes’ sentence, allowing him to be released from prison after serving less than two years of his 18-year sentence[11]. This commutation, along with pardons for many Jan. 6 defendants, may further reinforce the perception within extremist movements that armed resistance against government authority carries limited long-term consequences.
Sovereign citizen movement: Ideology and continuing threat
The sovereign citizen movement represents a strand of antigovernment extremism that provided ideological underpinnings for the Bundy standoff and continues to pose significant threats to public safety. Adherents believe they are not subject to federal, state or local laws, regulations or taxes, claiming that the contemporary U.S. government is illegitimate[12].
Sovereign citizens advance pseudo-legal theories claiming that at some point in American history — usually during the Civil War or in 1933 when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard — the legitimate republic was secretly replaced by a corporate entity[12].
The FBI considers sovereign citizen extremism a domestic terrorism threat due to the movement’s history of violence against law enforcement[13]. According to FBI documents, sovereign citizens comprise “a domestic terrorist movement,” although one without a centralized leadership structure[13].
The connection between sovereign citizen ideology and the Bundy standoff is clear in Cliven Bundy’s statements. He claimed he did not recognize federal police power over land that he believed belonged to the “sovereign state of Nevada” and denied the jurisdiction of federal courts[1]. These views align with sovereign citizen beliefs that the county sheriff is the highest legitimate law enforcement authority, superior to any federal agent[1].
In recent years, sovereign citizen ideology has shown remarkable adaptability, attracting new adherents by appealing to COVID-19 antivaccination groups, QAnon followers and MAGA supporters[14].
Legacy: A Decade of emboldened extremism
The Bundy standoff’s most significant legacy may be the precedent it established: that armed resistance against federal authorities could succeed without serious legal consequences for participants. This outcome has had a profound impact on antigovernment extremist movements, creating what experts describe as “a straight line” connecting Bunkerville to the Capitol riot.
The standoff demonstrated the tactical effectiveness of what experts call “armed civil disobedience.” When faced with heavily armed civilians, federal authorities chose to back down rather than risk bloodshed[1]. This tactical retreat created a perception of government weakness that has been exploited in subsequent confrontations.
The dismissal of charges against Bundy and his supporters reinforced narratives within extremist circles about government illegitimacy and corruption[4]. The legal outcome was interpreted not as a matter of procedural fairness but as validation of underlying claims about federal overreach.
The standoff also served as a networking event for various extremist factions, allowing them to form connections and alliances that would facilitate future coordination[2]. Militia members, sovereign citizens and other antigovernment activists who met at Bunkerville maintained relationships that strengthened these movements’ organizational capacity.
The line connecting Bunkerville to Jan. 6 represents what experts describe as an escalation of tactics and growing boldness among antigovernment extremists[8]. Each perceived “victory” against federal authority appears to have emboldened these movements to take more aggressive actions.
While the number of active militia groups has declined since Jan. 6, 2021 — with the Southern Poverty Law Center identifying 52 active militia groups in 2023, down from 61 in 2022 — the underlying ideologies remain potent[8].
The continuing challenge of antigovernment extremism
Ten years after armed militiamen faced down federal agents in the Nevada desert, the Bundy standoff’s impact continues to reverberate through American politics and extremist movements. What began as a dispute over grazing fees evolved into a watershed moment that emboldened anti-government extremists and established a dangerous precedent for armed resistance against federal authority[2].
The Bundy standoff revealed critical vulnerabilities in how the federal government responds to armed challenges to its authority. Federal agencies have struggled to balance public safety considerations with the need to enforce laws and court orders, often resulting in compromises that can be interpreted as victories by extremist groups[1].
The sovereign citizen movement, with its rejection of federal authority and pseudo-legal justifications for defying the law, continues to evolve and attract new adherents[14][5]. Its ideological framework provided justification for the Bundy standoff and continues to inspire various forms of resistance against government authority.
As America approaches the next presidential election cycle, understanding the lessons of the Bundy standoff remains crucial. The event demonstrates how failure to hold participants in armed confrontations accountable can embolden further resistance, how extremist ideologies can spread when they appear to achieve tangible victories, and how dangerous the combination of anti-government sentiment and armed organization can be to democratic governance.
The line connecting Bunkerville to Jan. 6 represents not just a historical trajectory but a warning about the potential consequences of allowing armed resistance against government authority to succeed without appropriate legal consequences.
Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
[2] https://www.hcn.org/issues/56-10/what-the-bundy-bunkerville-standoff-foreshadowed/
[3] https://www.hcn.org/articles/cliven-bundy-why-the-bundy-crowd-keeps-winning-in-court/
[4] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hate-watch/bundy-trial/
[5] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/sovereign-citizens-movement/
[6] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/back-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-wild-rumors-fly/
[7] https://abcnews.go.com/US/standoff-nevada-years-ago-set-militia-movement-crash/story?id=82051940
[8] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/militias-adapt/
[9] https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-oath-keepers-member-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-other
[10] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/oath-keepers-leader-sentenced-18-years-prison-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges-related
[11] https://apnews.com/article/trump-pardons-oath-keepers-january-6-capitol-rhodes-e5f39465ae16b9a2d2195f83b4f8bab5
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
[13] https://www.masc.sc/uptown/04-2019/understanding-sovereign-citizens-tactics-and-threats
[14] https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/sovereign-citizen-movement-united-states
English (US) ·