Fact check: How does the FBI define and track domestic terrorism and hate crimes?

1. Why the FBI says it needs a new label — the rise of Nihilistic Violent Extremism

The FBI has begun describing a new domestic threat category, Nihilistic Violent Extremism (NVE), which it characterizes as violence driven by a generalized hostility toward societal institutions and a desire to inflict chaos rather than advance a conventional political or religious agenda. Reporting in mid-September 2025 frames NVE as an effort to capture attacks that don’t fit traditional ideological categories, reflecting the Bureau’s internal reassessment of threat typologies amid an uptick in cases. This recalibration follows public statements and internal briefs aiming to bolster investigative frameworks for non-traditional motives ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the FBI’s formal definition of domestic terrorism actually says

The agency’s working definition reiterates that domestic terrorism involves violent, criminal acts intended to further ideological goals derived from domestic influences such as political, religious, social, racial, or environmental beliefs. The FBI positions itself as the lead federal agency for investigating such acts and preventing attacks that originate within the United States. The definition is procedural: it informs investigative jurisdiction, intelligence collection, and interagency coordination rather than creating new criminal charges, and it frames how cases are opened, categorized, and resourced ^[2].

3. Claims about categorizing transgender people as an NVE subgroup — what the sources report

Some reporting in September 2025 asserted that the FBI is considering classifying transgender people as a subset within the NVE category, claiming that the Bureau views certain identities as linked to nihilistic motives. These claims are featured in articles that cite internal proposals and reactionary commentary, raising significant civil liberties and bias concerns. The reporting sparked broad pushback and demands for clarification about whether the FBI intends to target identities rather than behaviors, but the public record cited is limited and contested ^[5].

4. How many domestic terrorism cases is the FBI investigating now? The numbers and pace

FBI Director statements in mid-September 2025 reported over 1,700 domestic terrorism investigations, with a notable share described as related to NVE, and the Bureau indicated a roughly 300% increase in cases opened year-over-year. Those figures signify an operational surge and explain internal shifts toward new threat categories and increased resource allocation. The raw case count reflects investigative openings rather than charges or convictions and therefore captures broader preventive and intelligence activities rather than proven criminality ^[6].

5. How the FBI defines and collects hate crime data — strengths and limits

The FBI’s hate crime definition targets crimes motivated by bias against protected characteristics, and the UCR Program aggregates incidents reported by participating law enforcement agencies. The 2024 data released shows 11,679 reported hate crime incidents, with demographic breakdowns of known offenders, but the system relies on voluntary reporting and varied local training. That voluntary model generates gaps: many agencies underreport due to resource, training, or classification differences, meaning the UCR totals understate the likely prevalence of bias-motivated crimes ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Independent investigations and critiques: is the data reliable?

Independent outlets and investigations, such as a KIYC probe in September 2025, conclude that FBI hate crime statistics may undercount incidents and call into question supposed year-to-year declines. These critiques point to inconsistent reporting, missing local submissions, and uneven capacity to identify bias as motive. They argue that reliance on voluntary submissions and uneven training introduces a systemic downward bias in national totals and complicates cross-jurisdictional comparisons, prompting calls for mandatory reporting or enhanced federal support to improve data fidelity ^[7].

7. Competing narratives, political pressures, and missing documentation

The rollout of NVE and the media reports about target categories like transgender people intersect with political and civil liberties debates. Some sources emphasize operational necessity to capture new threat patterns; others warn of overbroad labeling that could stigmatize communities. Separate reporting noted the DOJ removed a study from a public site, which critics interpret as opaque or politically influenced; the removal underscores how classification changes occur amid contested narratives about ideology, methodological transparency, and prosecutorial priorities ^[8].

8. What’s missing and what to watch next for clarity and accountability

Official public documentation on NVE thresholds, data schemas for counting NVE-related investigations, and formal guidance on identity-based categorization remain sparse in the public record. Observers should watch for FBI policy memos, updated UCR coding guidance, Inspector General reviews, and Congressional oversight briefings to clarify whether the Bureau’s tracking targets behaviors or identities and how hate crime underreporting will be addressed. The trajectory of interagency guidance and external audits will determine whether these changes improve threat detection without eroding civil rights ^{[1] [4] [8]}.