Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Domestic terrorism remains a profoundly misunderstood and inconsistently classified threat in the United States. Despite mass shootings becoming alarmingly frequent, the criteria used to define them as acts of domestic terrorism are often applied unevenly.

The FBI’s 2020 updated definition of domestic terrorism emphasizes both the act and the intent: it must involve violence dangerous to human life and appear intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence government policy, or affect government conduct through mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

However, the classification process reveals significant discrepancies. For instance, out of several mass shootings analyzed from 2022, many incidents met the FBI’s definitional criteria based on motives—racial hatred, anti-government sentiments, and bias against sexual orientation—yet were not charged as domestic terrorism. This inconsistency undermines public trust and obscures the true scope of the domestic terrorism threat.

The critical issue lies in how motives are interpreted and whether charges align with the FBI’s comprehensive framework. The lack of uniform application suggests potential biases or systemic gaps, making it difficult to track domestic terrorism trends accurately. This inconsistency can impede preventative measures, as understanding patterns in domestic terrorism is key to developing effective counterterrorism strategies.

In 2022, there was a mass shooting attack at LGBTQ+ club in Colorado Springs named Club Q, resulting in 5 fatalities and at least 17 more injuries. The shooter faced multiple murder charges and charges of a bias-motivated crime but no domestic terrorism charges. However, since the targets were members of the LGBTQ+ this attack’s motive falls under sexual orientation, which then in turn falls under the “All Other Domestic Terrorism Threats” in the FBI terminology section. This means that, despite the lack of domestic terrorism charges, the attack should have been classified as domestic terrorism according to the FBI’s definition and terminology.

In 2022, a mass shooting occurred at a Taiwanese church in Southern California, resulting in 1 fatality and 5 injuries. The shooter, who held deep-seated political hatred toward Taiwan, deliberately targeted the congregation, which was predominantly Taiwanese American. He faced multiple federal hate crime charges but was not charged with domestic terrorism. However, because the attack was motivated by ethnic hate, it falls under the category of “Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violence” within the FBI’s domestic terrorism terminology. Similarly, to the Club Q shooting even though the shooter was not legally held guilty of domestic terrorism, the FBI definition and terminology suggests he should have been, as the attack should be classified as domestic terrorism.

The recent 2024 New Year’s attacks in New Orleans and Las Vegas accentuates this issue. In New Orleans, a man drove a pickup truck into a crowded Bourbon Street celebration, resulting in 14 fatalities and numerous injuries. Initially, the FBI was hesitant to classify the attack as domestic terrorism due to the lack of an apparent motive. This hesitation drew significant criticism because of the act’s extreme violence. However, once it was revealed that the driver had an ISIS flag on the back of his truck, that is when the FBI knew it was domestic terrorism. Similarly, in Las Vegas, a Tesla Cybertruck explosion occurred hours later, further amplifying concerns about coordinated threats. Both incidents highlight the evolving nature of domestic terrorism and the persistent hesitation to uniformly apply the domestic terrorism label.

To enhance national security, we must demand a more rigorous and consistent approach to classifying domestic terrorism. This involves not only adhering strictly to the FBI’s definitions but also ensuring that legal charges reflect these classifications. Recognizing and labeling these acts appropriately is not just a question of terminology, it’s essential for resource allocation, public awareness, and, ultimately, the prevention of future attacks.