The recent killings of two individuals by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis have ignited a contentious debate regarding the use of the term “domestic terrorism.” On January 2026, federal agents killed Renée Good and Alex Pretti, incidents that prompted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to label both as acts of domestic terrorism. This classification, however, has raised questions about its appropriateness and the implications of such labels in the context of ongoing investigations.
The term “domestic terrorism” is defined within U.S. law as acts that are dangerous to human life, intended to intimidate civilians or influence government policy through extreme measures. A critical element of this definition is intent. Drawing from my experience at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Counterterrorism Center, I understand that the terrorism designation is not one to be made hastily. It requires careful analysis of intent and context, both of which often remain unclear in the immediate aftermath of violent incidents.
In the early stages of an investigation, authorities may ascertain the basic facts—such as who was involved and the sequence of events. However, determining motive and the presence of coercive intent, which distinguishes terrorism from other violent crimes, requires deeper analysis and time. The Congressional Research Service notes that even though “domestic terrorism” is defined in statute, it is not treated as a standalone federal offense, complicating its application in real-world scenarios.
Public declarations from senior officials can create undue pressure on investigative bodies to conform to a predetermined narrative. When Secretary Noem categorically labeled the incidents as terrorism, it set a tone that may influence how evidence is interpreted and presented. Instead of fostering a fact-driven inquiry, this can lead analysts and investigators to defend a narrative rather than pursue objective truths.
Another significant concern is the impact on public perception. Research indicates that the label “terrorism” shapes how audiences interpret threats and evaluate responses, often overshadowing the underlying facts. When the public perceives the term as a political tool, it risks diminishing the term’s credibility. This can lead to a troubling dynamic where the designation becomes less effective in cases where genuine coercive intent exists.
The discourse around these incidents highlights a broader issue regarding the misuse of terminology in high-stakes situations. Most people associate terrorism with high-profile attacks, such as the September 11, 2001 attacks or the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. In contrast, routine violence—often perceived as homicide or targeted violence—does not typically elicit the same classification until motive is established.
Federal standards for defining and tracking domestic terrorism exist, yet statements from officials can sometimes contradict these established guidelines. The cases in Minneapolis serve as a cautionary tale of how quickly narratives can diverge from factual accounts. Initial reports can lead to public outcry and political debate, overshadowing the investigative process and creating a cycle of misinformation.
Although officials later distanced themselves from the initial characterizations of domestic terrorism, corrections often fail to reach the same audience as the original claims. The label tends to persist, leading to public discourse focused on political implications rather than the evidence at hand. This phenomenon raises concerns about the long-term ramifications of misclassifying violent incidents.
While violence against public officials is serious and should be addressed rigorously, the application of the terrorism label should be grounded in evidence of coercive intent. If authorities possess such evidence, it is crucial for them to present it transparently. If not, they should describe the events using familiar investigative terminology, allowing for a more accurate understanding to develop over time.
A premature application of the term “domestic terrorism” does not merely risk mischaracterizing specific incidents; it also teaches the public to view the label with skepticism. This erosion of trust in the terminology can be detrimental, particularly in a climate where clarity and precision are essential for effective public discourse and policy-making.
