How does the FBI define and investigate domestic terrorism compared to 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The FBI defines domestic terrorism as violent, criminal acts committed to further ideological goals rooted in domestic influences and treats such threats through investigative policy, task forces, and data-tracking efforts [1] [2]. By contrast, 18 U.S.C. § 2331 provides the statutory definition used across federal law—framing domestic terrorism as activities occurring primarily within U.S. jurisdiction that are dangerous to human life and intended to intimidate/coerce civilians or influence government policy—but the statute itself does not create a standalone criminal offense; it informs charging choices and enhancements [3] [4] [5].
1. How the FBI’s working definition aligns with the statute
The FBI’s public definition—“violent, criminal acts … to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences”—parallels the language and intent of 18 U.S.C. § 2331, and the bureau explicitly references the statute in its guidance and joint FBI–DHS definition documents required by Congress [1] [2] [6]. FBI/DHS technical reports and methodology documents were created after congressional direction in the FY2020 NDAA to produce uniform definitions and tracking approaches, showing institutional alignment between agency practice and the statutory frame [2] [7].
2. What the statute actually says—and what it does not do
Section 2331 defines domestic terrorism for purposes of Chapter 113B and related provisions: acts that occur primarily in the U.S., are dangerous to human life, violate criminal law, and are intended to intimidate a civilian population or influence government policy through coercion [3] [4]. The statute is a definitional tool: it informs which offenses can be treated as “terrorism” for sentencing enhancements, jurisdictional rules, and certain terrorism-specific statutes, but it does not itself create a unique standalone “domestic terrorism” criminal offense with a separate penalty [5] [4].
3. How the FBI investigates domestic terrorism in practice
The FBI treats domestic terrorism as an operational priority and responds through Joint Terrorism Task Forces, a dedicated Domestic Terrorism Unit, and coordination with DHS and the NCTC; it tracks cases (investigations and disruptions) and works with partners to identify threats such as lone offenders or extremist cells [1] [8] [9]. The bureau’s investigative posture is governed by policy limits—most notably that it cannot collect or maintain information on U.S. persons solely for First Amendment-protected activity—and it classifies and prioritizes cases consistent with investigative authority and statutory definitions [10] [6].
4. Charging, prosecution and the patchwork of applicable statutes
Because 18 U.S.C. § 2331 is definitional rather than penal, prosecutors use a range of federal statutes to charge conduct that meets the domestic-terrorism definition—offenses including material support, weapons or explosives crimes, and other federal statutes can carry terrorism enhancements or be invoked when conduct fits the statutory definition [4] [11]. Scholars and practitioners note this leads to varied prosecutorial choices and no single uniform “domestic terrorism” charge, a gap that fuels debate over whether new statutes are needed or existing tools should be used more consistently [5] [12].
5. Data, tracking and interagency differences that matter
FBI “cases” (investigations/disruptions) are not identical to DHS “incidents” (attacks/plots); GAO and joint FBI–DHS reports document that each agency has different tracking products and emphases, which can produce variation in how many events are counted and how threats are prioritized [13] [10]. The post‑2020 joint FBI–DHS methodology and strategic intelligence reports were intended to harmonize definitions and tracking, but GAO found further actions were needed to strengthen collaboration and consistency [2] [13].
6. Competing perspectives and policy debates
One camp argues existing federal statutes and prosecutorial discretion already permit robust domestic‑terrorism response and that new laws are unnecessary if DOJ and FBI use current tools (Brennan Center summary) [14]. Another camp—academics and some reform advocates—argues the definitional/statutory gap creates inconsistency, urges a specific domestic-terror statute for clarity and civil‑liberties safeguards, and warns against overbroad enforcement [12] [5]. Available sources document both positions and note Congress and agencies have taken steps (NDAA directive, FBI/DHS definitions) to reduce ambiguity [2] [5].
7. Limits of the record and what reporting does not say
Available sources do not mention a single, uniform federal charging statute named “domestic terrorism” that creates a standalone crime; instead they show reliance on Chapter 113B definitions plus other criminal statutes and prosecutorial discretion [4] [5]. Sources do not resolve all contested points—for example, they do not provide a definitive list of every statute a prosecutor might use in every circumstance—so the practical application can vary by case and jurisdiction [4] [11].
In short: the FBI’s operational definition and investigative posture reflect and rely on 18 U.S.C. § 2331 as a definitional anchor, but criminal accountability for domestic-terror conduct is achieved through a mosaic of existing federal statutes and prosecutorial choices rather than a single domestic‑terrorism charge [1] [3] [4].