Can FBI domestic terrorism statistics be broken down by region or state?

1. How the federal government organizes and publishes domestic‑terrorism data

The FBI leads domestic terrorism investigations and, since the 2020–2022 reforms required by statute, has worked with DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center to establish standard definitions and uniform methodologies for tracking domestic terrorism incidents and investigations — a prerequisite for any geographic breakdown ^{[2] [3] [4]}. The FBI and DHS produced a joint Strategic Intelligence Assessment that includes “certain data” on domestic terrorism matters and documents how incidents and investigative classifications are defined and counted ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Evidence that state‑level and regional breakdowns exist in official products

Independent GAO reporting and DHS products show that domestic‑terrorism incidents have been tallied by state: GAO cites a DHS I&A dataset titled “Domestic Terrorism Incidents by State, Calendar Years 2010 through 2021,” and notes I&A tracked 231 incidents from 2010–2021 — demonstrating that a state‑level incident series exists within federal analytic products ^[6]. The unclassified DHS/FBI annexes and methodology documents made public in 2022 likewise include criteria and methodological notes that enable assigning incidents to states ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Why public FBI statistics may appear patchy at the state level

Even though the federal analytic architecture supports geographic breakdowns, the FBI’s public reporting focuses on numbers of investigations, investigative classifications, and national trends rather than an annually refreshed, comprehensive per‑state public dashboard; GAO found the agencies did not always leverage or harmonize DHS incident data for FBI reporting and that reporting to Congress had gaps, which contributes to inconsistent public state reporting ^{[7] [6]}. Congressional and academic observers have also emphasized that domestic terrorism incidents are low in frequency but high in impact and that different data streams (incidents, investigations, arrests, prosecutions) are not identical and therefore complicate straightforward state comparisons ^[8].

4. Practical implications and caveats for users wanting state breakdowns

State‑level incident tallies exist in DHS I&A and in joint FBI–DHS analytic products, but users should be clear which measure they want: incidents (violent acts), FBI open investigations, arrests or federal cases, or prosecutions — each comes from different systems and may not map one‑to‑one across states or time ^{[6] [8]}. GAO’s review makes explicit that the number of FBI domestic‑terrorism investigations grew dramatically (from 1,981 open cases in FY2013 to 9,049 in FY2021), signaling that investigation counts can be driven by operational posture and major events (e.g., January 6) rather than steady geographic risk differences ^{[7] [6] [4]}.

5. How to obtain the clearest state/regional view and what to watch for

For the most direct state or regional breakdowns, consult the DHS I&A incident products and the joint FBI–DHS strategic reports and appendices, which include state‑level incident tables and methodological notes; GAO’s published materials point readers to those state tables and flag conceptual issues to watch when comparing jurisdictions ^{[6] [1] [4]}. Analysts should also account for differences in definitions, the distinction between “incident” and “investigation,” and changes in data collection practices after 2020–2022 reforms, since those shifts affect trend interpretation and interstate comparisons ^{[3] [2]}.

6. Bottom line — yes, with important limitations

Federal agencies do break domestic terrorism data down by state and region in analytic products and DHS‑tracked incident tables, but public FBI outputs are not always presented as a neat, continuously updated state dashboard and require careful attention to definitions, data sources, and the operational drivers behind investigative counts before drawing geographic conclusions ^{[6] [1] [8]}.