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.
Fact check: There is an active Rebellion/Insurrection and Attack on US Federal Property by a Domestic Terrorists Organization!!; true or false or unverified
Executive Summary
There is no evidence of an ongoing, nationwide rebellion or insurrection actively attacking U.S. federal property as of the latest documents and reporting provided; instead, the available records describe isolated incidents of domestic terrorism, legal definitions and tools like the Insurrection Act, and assessments of rising domestic threats that fall short of a coordinated, active rebellion [1] [2] [3]. Recent prosecutions and reports show violent acts have occurred and continue to concern authorities, but they do not constitute proof of a sustained, organized insurrection against the federal government [4] [5].
1. A Violent Attack, Not a Nationwide Rebellion: What the Sentencing Shows
The most concrete incident in the materials is the sentencing of Casey Robert Goonan to more than 19 years for firebombing a university police car and attempting to bomb a federal building in Oakland, demonstrating a serious domestic-terrorism crime prosecuted by federal authorities [1] [4]. This case, dated September 23–24, 2025, reflects an individual actor whose actions were labeled by prosecutors as inspired by foreign militant groups and intended to intimidate government functions; it establishes that violent attacks on federal property have occurred but does not itself indicate coordination across groups or jurisdictions that would meet a common understanding of an insurrection [4] [6].
2. Legal Tools and Their Historical Context: Why the Insurrection Act Gets Mentioned
Discussion of the Insurrection Act in recent coverage highlights why claims of rebellion quickly escalate public debate: the statute allows presidents to deploy federal military forces domestically under specific conditions, and it has been invoked roughly 30 times historically, most recently decades ago, primarily in extreme civil unrest scenarios such as the 1992 Los Angeles riots [2]. Analysts emphasize that the Act’s broad, poorly defined language and political controversy make its invocation rare and consequential; current commentary notes it has not been used in over three decades and that its application today would require circumstances far beyond isolated violent incidents [7].
3. Government Definitions and Gaps: What the Reports Reveal About “Domestic Terrorism”
Congressional and GAO reports compiled in 2023 and onward show the federal government treats domestic terrorism as a growing, diffuse threat that has produced hundreds of incidents over recent decades and has prompted calls for better interagency cooperation; however, those reports stop short of describing an active, organized rebellion or sustained attack on federal institutions nationwide [3] [5]. The CRS notes the absence of a standalone federal domestic-terrorism statute, underlining legal and prosecutorial complexities that mean violent actors are often charged under a mix of federal offenses rather than an “insurrection” label [3].
4. Law Enforcement Messaging: Public Safety Versus Political Rhetoric
Statements from the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s offices in the Goonan case stress that peaceful protest remains protected while violent acts will be prosecuted, a framing intended to reassure the public and deter copycat violence while distinguishing criminal terrorism prosecutions from political uprisings [6]. The government’s emphasis on prosecuting isolated violent acts rather than asserting a current domestic rebellion suggests law enforcement is treating these as criminal-terror events, not as components of a broader, coordinated insurrection against federal authority [6].
5. The Evidence Gap Between Terror Acts and “Insurrection” Claims
The materials show a gap between documented acts of domestic terrorism and the threshold for invoking insurrection language: prosecutions like Goonan’s prove violent intent against federal targets but do not demonstrate the organized, sustained seizure or systematic campaign of federal property that would define an insurrection under historical and legal usage [1] [2]. Contemporary reporting and government analyses caution against conflating isolated violent incidents with rebellion, because doing so risks overstating the scale and could normalize extraordinary responses such as military deployment under the Insurrection Act [7] [3].
6. Trends and Warnings: Rising Threats Without a Single Coordinated Movement
Government assessments from 2023 and 2025 indicate domestic terrorism incidents have increased and that federal agencies are prioritizing coordination and strategic response, reflecting a heightened but heterogeneous threat landscape composed of varied actors and motivations rather than a single, unified domestic terrorist organization carrying out a nationwide assault on federal property [5] [8]. The decentralized nature of recent incidents supports the conclusion that while dangers are real and merit law enforcement attention, they do not amount to an active national insurrection.
7. Bottom Line: Claim Assessment and Reporting Context
Based on the provided sources, the claim that there is an active rebellion or insurrection and ongoing attack on U.S. federal property by a domestic terrorist organization is false as a description of current national conditions, though it is rooted in real, prosecutable violent incidents and growing domestic-terrorism concerns [1] [5]. Officials and analysts repeatedly differentiate isolated terrorist acts from the legal and historical criteria for insurrection, and the available materials recommend measured, evidence-based responses rather than alarmist conclusions [6] [7].