Federal immigration agents in Minneapolis fatally shot two individuals, Renée Good and Alex Pretti, in January 2026. Shortly after the incidents, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem characterized both actions as acts of “domestic terrorism.” This labeling raises significant questions about the interpretation and application of the term, particularly regarding its legal and contextual implications.
Understanding the term “domestic terrorism” is critical. U.S. law defines it as acts that threaten human life, intended to intimidate civilians or influence government policy through extreme methods. Central to this definition is the concept of intent, which demands thorough investigation before any conclusions are drawn. Drawing from my experience managing counterterrorism analysts at the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center, I emphasize that labeling an act as terrorism must follow a careful analysis of intent and context, not be made hastily.
Investigative Standards and Public Trust
In the immediate aftermath of violent incidents, investigators often have access to basic details, such as who was involved and the circumstances of the event. However, they typically lack a clear understanding of the motives behind those actions. The Congressional Research Service notes that while “domestic terrorism” is defined in legal terms, it is not an independent federal offense. This distinction highlights the risk of public discourse outpacing legal realities, particularly when officials publicly declare acts as terrorism without sufficient evidence.
The urgency to establish a narrative before adequate evidence is available can lead to two significant issues. First, once a senior official makes a definitive statement, it can create institutional pressure to align investigative efforts with that narrative, potentially stifling thorough inquiry. Investigators may find themselves defending a predetermined storyline rather than exploring the facts objectively.
Second, the public’s perception of the term “terrorism” can become skewed. Research indicates that the label shapes how audiences interpret threats and evaluate responses, often detached from the underlying facts. When the public begins to see the term as a tool for political messaging, it risks diminishing the term’s significance in future incidents where coercive intent is indeed present.
Long-Term Consequences of Misuse
The implications of mislabeling violence as terrorism extend beyond semantics. Many individuals associate “terrorism” with high-profile attacks, such as the September 11 attacks or the Oklahoma City bombing, where intent was clear. In contrast, everyday violence in the U.S., such as shootings and confrontations with law enforcement, is often classified as homicide or targeted violence until motives are established. This public tendency to first assess the facts before categorizing events reflects a fundamental understanding of violence.
U.S. federal agencies have established definitions and tracking mechanisms for domestic terrorism. However, statements from senior officials can sometimes precede the evidence gathered during investigations. The cases in Minneapolis serve as a poignant example of how narratives can diverge from the facts. Initial reports and documentation quickly contradicted official accounts, leading to accusations of premature conclusions being drawn.
Despite subsequent clarifications from officials distancing themselves from initial claims of domestic terrorism, corrections rarely gain the same traction as the original statements. Consequently, the label tends to remain in public discourse, diverting focus from evidence-based discussions to political debates.
While acknowledging the seriousness of violence against officials, it is essential to exercise caution when applying the terrorism label. Authorities should present evidence of coercive intent if it exists, but if not, it may be prudent to describe events using standard investigative language and allow time for facts to emerge. When the term “domestic terrorism” is assigned prematurely, it risks becoming a politicized label rather than a precise categorization. This misapplication can lead to confusion, especially during times when clarity is most needed.
