Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the definition of domestic terrorism according to US law?
Executive summary
U.S. law provides a statutory definition of “domestic terrorism” in 18 U.S.C. § 2331[1] (often quoted in government sources) as violent acts dangerous to human life that occur primarily in the U.S. and are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy; that definition authorizes investigation but is not itself a standalone federal crime (federal prosecutors charge underlying crimes instead) [2] [3]. Federal agencies such as the FBI and DHS use that statutory language alongside regulatory definitions—e.g., the Code of Federal Regulations’ phrasing about “unlawful use of force and violence” to intimidate or coerce—to guide investigations and reporting [4] [5].
1. What the statute actually says — the operative elements
The statutory formulation commonly cited by federal agencies and analysts states three core elements: (A) an act dangerous to human life that violates U.S. or state criminal law; (B) intent to (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) that the act occurs primarily within U.S. territorial jurisdiction (this wording is the basis of federal definitions described in DOJ/FBI-oriented reporting) [2] [4].
2. Definition vs. criminal offense — an important legal gap
Congress and agency documents emphasize a crucial legal distinction: while U.S. law contains a statutory definition used for investigation and classification, there is no single federal criminal statute labelled “domestic terrorism” that creates a distinct offense and penalty; instead, perpetrators are charged under pre-existing federal or state criminal statutes (for example, homicide, explosives offenses, or killing federal agents) [3] [6].
3. How agencies operationalize the definition
The FBI and DHS do not rely on one source alone. The FBI typically cites both the statutory language in Title 18 and regulatory/agency definitions—such as the Code of Federal Regulations’ language about “unlawful use of force and violence … to intimidate or coerce” a government or civilian population—to decide what incidents qualify for counterterrorism resources and reporting [4] [5]. DHS similarly tracks incidents that fit the statutory criteria for purposes of threat assessment and information sharing [7] [8].
4. Scholarly and think‑tank framing — emphasis on intent and psychological effect
Research organizations like RAND and CSIS frame domestic terrorism as violence by nonstate actors intended to intimidate, coerce, or influence policy and to create broad psychological impact or fear—language that complements the statutory focus on intent to coerce a population or affect government conduct [9] [10]. These analyses underline that motive and intended audience (beyond the immediate victims) matter in labeling an act terrorism rather than ordinary violent crime [10].
5. Data, reporting, and practical consequences
Federal reports and GAO work use the statutory definition to count incidents and assess trends: GAO and DHS have reported increases in incidents meeting the statutory criteria and have noted differences in how agencies collect and report data, which affects comparisons and policy decisions [7] [11] [3]. Because “domestic terrorism” is a definitional tool rather than a single charge, investigators apply counterterrorism resources to incidents that meet the criteria, but prosecutions proceed under the specific criminal statutes that fit the conduct [3] [6].
6. Competing viewpoints and policy debates
Some policymakers and commentators argue for creating a discrete federal crime of “domestic terrorism” to allow uniform sentencing and clearer tools for prosecutors; others warn that a broad statutory crime risks civil‑liberties problems or could be applied unevenly. The sources provided document the definitional role of 18 U.S.C. § 2331[1] and the operational reliance of agencies but do not resolve whether Congress should criminalize the term itself—available sources do not mention a definitive congressional action creating a standalone domestic‑terrorism offense as of the cited reports [4] [3].
7. Bottom line for readers
If you ask “what is domestic terrorism under U.S. law?” the answer is: a statutory definition in federal law describing violent acts dangerous to human life committed primarily in the U.S. with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government—used to guide investigations and reporting—but it is not by itself a separate federal criminal charge; prosecutors use other statutes to bring criminal cases [2] [3].