In January 2026, federal immigration agents in Minneapolis fatally shot two individuals, Renée Good and Alex Pretti. Following these incidents, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem characterized both actions as acts of “domestic terrorism.” This classification has sparked a significant debate regarding the appropriate use of the term, which carries specific legal implications that may not align with the incidents in question.
The term “domestic terrorism” is defined under U.S. law as actions that are dangerous to human life and appear intended to intimidate civilians or influence government policy through extreme means. Assessing intent is crucial. Drawing from my experience managing counterterrorism analysts at the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center, I understand that labeling an act as terrorism requires a thorough examination of intent and context, not just a rapid response based on preliminary information.
Understanding the Complexities of Terrorism Definitions
In the immediate aftermath of violent events, investigators typically gather basic details such as who was involved and what transpired. However, they often lack sufficient information regarding motives to definitively label an act as terrorism. The Congressional Research Service has highlighted that while “domestic terrorism” is defined in statute, it is not recognized as a standalone federal offense. This distinction explains why public discourse can sometimes move faster than legal realities, leading to premature conclusions.
The rush to label an incident as terrorism can lead to significant institutional challenges. When a senior official makes a definitive statement, there can be pressure within agencies to support that narrative, potentially at the expense of thorough investigation. This pressure can stifle the initial questions that should guide investigations, such as “What do we know?” and “What evidence would change our minds?” Instead, investigators may find themselves defending a narrative rather than pursuing the truth.
The Risks of Premature Labels
Public trust is another critical concern. Research indicates that the label “terrorist” shapes public perception of threats and influences responses, often irrespective of the actual facts. If the public begins to view the term as a political tool, it may dismiss future legitimate uses of the term in circumstances where coercive intent is present.
Once officials publicly commit to a narrative without a complete assessment of intent and context, confirmation bias may influence both decision-making and public perception. This issue is not merely a semantic debate; it has real-world implications. Most individuals associate the term “terrorism” with major acts of violence, such as the September 11 attacks or the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, where intent was evident. In contrast, many violent incidents in the U.S. are processed as homicide or targeted violence until motives are established.
The situation in Minneapolis underscores the potential harm of hastily applied labels. Initial reports diverged from official accounts, leading to allegations that conclusions were drawn before the facts were fully understood. Although officials from the Trump administration later distanced themselves from the original claims of domestic terrorism, corrections often receive less attention than the initial statements, leaving a lasting impression.
While the seriousness of violence against officials is undeniable, the importance of disciplined communication cannot be overstated. If authorities possess evidence of coercive intent, they should present it transparently. If such evidence is lacking, they should refrain from using the term “domestic terrorism” and instead describe events in standard investigative language.
Mislabeling an incident not only risks inaccuracies but also diminishes the value of the term “terrorism” over time. When the public perceives the label as propaganda rather than a diagnostic tool, it loses its effectiveness precisely when clarity is most needed. As these discussions continue, it is essential to prioritize thorough investigation and accurate communication to maintain public trust and uphold the integrity of the term.
