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.
What are examples of groups labeled as domestic terrorist organizations by the FBI?
Executive Summary
The FBI does not maintain a single, formal public list that labels domestic organizations as “domestic terrorist organizations”; instead, it investigates categories of domestic violent extremists—including racially motivated, anti‑government, animal‑rights/environmental, and abortion‑related violent actors—and has historically identified specific groups in documents and investigations [1] [2] [3]. Contemporary public FBI materials emphasize threat categories (for example, white‑supremacist violent extremists as the top domestic threat) and name certain past groups in historical reports, but they stop short of a static, formal designation process for labeling groups as domestic terrorist organizations [4] [2].
1. How the FBI describes the problem — labels versus categories that matter
The FBI defines domestic terrorism by actions and intent: violent or criminal acts intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy, carried out by U.S. actors or entities influenced by domestic ideologies. Public FBI guidance and testimony emphasize investigative categories—racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, anti‑government/anti‑authority violent extremists, animal‑rights/environmental violent extremists, and abortion‑related violent extremists—rather than a single list of designated organizations. This framework shapes public statements and threat assessments and explains why official FBI materials often discuss types of groups and individuals instead of issuing blanket organizational designations [1] [2] [5].
2. Examples the FBI has cited historically — named groups in older documents
Older FBI and Justice Department materials and historical analyses name specific organizations that were treated as domestic terrorist threats in their eras. Examples include Aryan Nations, The Covenant, The Sword, and The Arm of the Lord, Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus, and Puerto Rican independence‑seeking groups; these names appear in FBI perspectives and Office of Justice Programs reports as illustrative of the kinds of home‑grown groups previously investigated as domestic terrorism [3]. These historical citations show the FBI’s practice of identifying particular movements or cells in context, but they do not imply the existence of a contemporaneous, department‑wide list of designated domestic terrorist organizations.
3. Contemporary emphasis — categories, not organizational labels
Recent FBI public materials and congressional testimony emphasize threat trends rather than formal organizational designations. For example, contemporary FBI reporting and oversight testimony identify white‑supremacist violent extremists as a primary domestic terrorism threat and discuss militia‑type anti‑government actors and anarchist violent extremists as investigative priorities. The agency also maintains specialized investigative structures, such as the Domestic Terrorism–Hate Crimes Fusion Cell, to coordinate work on these categories. This approach produces lists of individuals wanted for domestic terrorism and public warnings about categories of groups without issuing one‑off formal “domestic terrorist organization” labels in the way the State Department designates foreign terrorist organizations [6] [5] [7].
4. Disagreements and controversies — when labeling becomes political
The absence of a formal labeling process has produced disputes about whether the FBI has effectively or improperly identified groups. Congressional Republicans have questioned specific FBI characterizations in internal guides and reports, citing cases such as an FBI note about American Contingency—a veteran‑led disaster‑preparation organization—that whistleblowers and committee Republicans argue was described as a domestic violent extremism concern despite an investigation that did not sustain criminal intent to overthrow government. These controversies highlight how classification practices and internal guidance can become focal points for political scrutiny even when the FBI frames work around categories and threats rather than fixed organizational lists [8].
5. Practical examples used by the FBI in public communications
Although the FBI will not typically publish a roster of designated domestic terrorist organizations, public communications and wanted lists do name individuals and refer to historical or operational examples. The FBI’s public site lists wanted individuals charged or sought in domestic terrorism-related investigations and provides examples of environmental or animal‑rights extremist acts (e.g., Earth Liberation Front in past FBI references) and far‑left militant groups (e.g., Weather Underground) in analytical contexts. These references serve investigative and public‑safety purposes while reaffirming that the FBI’s primary operational tool is case‑by‑case investigation under statutory authorities rather than a public organizational designation regime [2] [7].
6. Bottom line — what a plain answer looks like
A plain reading of FBI materials and oversight records shows that the most accurate answer is: the FBI names threat categories and has historically cited specific groups in reports and investigations (Aryan Nations, Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord, Weather Underground, Earth Liberation Front, Ku Klux Klan–aligned actors, militia and sovereign‑citizen networks), but it does not maintain a formal, publicly posted roster called “domestic terrorist organizations.” This categorical investigative approach explains why public sources discuss actors and incidents more than a definitive, permanent list of designated domestic terrorist organizations [3] [2] [4].