What criteria does the FBI use to classify a group as domestic terrorism?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The FBI classifies a group or act as domestic terrorism by applying statutory language—18 U.S.C. § 2331—and agency operational definitions that focus on unlawful violence (or threats) committed to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence government policy, carried out by actors motivated principally by domestic ideological goals (political, religious, social, racial, environmental, or similar) [1] [2]. The bureau uses a layered methodology—legal standards, investigative classifications, and cross‑agency analytic criteria with DHS and ODNI—to decide when an investigation, incident, or subject is recorded as domestic terrorism [3] [4].
1. The legal core: what U.S. law requires
Federal treatment of domestic terrorism flows from the statutory definition embedded in federal law, which frames domestic terrorism as criminal acts dangerous to human life occurring in the U.S. that appear intended to coerce a civilian population or to influence or affect government conduct or policy; the FBI explicitly uses that statute and the related definition of “federal crimes of terrorism” to guide investigations [5] [6].
2. FBI operational definition and thresholds
Operationally, the FBI describes domestic terrorism as violent, criminal acts committed by individuals or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences — for example political, racial, social, religious, or environmental motivations — and distinguishes such acts from protected First Amendment activity unless those acts cross into criminal violence in furtherance of an ideological aim [2] [7].
3. Classification process: incident, investigation, subject
The bureau differentiates “DT incidents” (criminal acts or credible threats that have occurred), “investigations” (cases opened to determine whether a DT act or threat exists), and “disruptions” (plots the FBI assesses would have resulted in violence absent intervention); assigning the domestic terrorism label depends on whether the act or case meets the statutory intent and nexus to ideology, not simply the identity of perpetrators [7] [8].
4. Analytic criteria and cross‑agency guidance
FBI classifications are informed by joint FBI–DHS strategic intelligence products and methodological guidance developed in consultation with DOJ and ODNI/NCTC; these documents spell out criteria and methodology for identifying and assigning terrorism classifications, aiming to make FBI DT data consistent for analysis and policymaking [4] [3].
5. Motive, means, and target: the practical indicators
In practice, investigators look for three linked elements: an ideological motive rooted in domestic influence, criminal use or planned use of force/violence or weaponry, and an intent to coerce or intimidate a broader civilian audience or alter government behavior; absence of any of these weakens a domestic‑terrorism classification, while evidence of organized plotting, use of explosives or attacks on public infrastructure, or rhetoric calling for coercion strengthens it [7] [2].
6. Data, trends, and implications for classification
The FBI’s classifications also feed the agency’s data on threat trends—shifts in predominant DT investigative classifications (for example, from racially/ethnically motivated cases to anti‑government/anti‑authority cases after January 2021)—but the agency notes that classification can reflect operational choices and the broader investigative universe, not just raw incidence, and DHS and GAO have urged clarity on how case counts are generated [9] [6].
7. Limits, controversies, and alternate views
Observers and oversight reports stress limits: FBI definitions and counting methodologies differ slightly from DHS’s incident tracking, classification choices can change over time, and the agency excludes certain case types from DT counts depending on investigative posture; congressional and GAO reviews have recommended stronger harmonization and transparency so labels are not perceived as politically driven [5] [10]. Public advocates caution about the risk of conflating protected political expression with terrorism unless the violent‑intent element is demonstrable [2] [1].
Conclusion
The FBI’s decision to classify a person, group, or act as domestic terrorism is anchored in statute—unlawful use of force intended to coerce a population or influence government—and operationalized through joint FBI–DHS methodological guidance that looks for motive, violent means or plans, and coercive intent; practical classification remains an analytic judgment informed by evidence, interagency criteria, and shifting threat emphases, and it has drawn calls for greater transparency and consistency [5] [3] [7].