Fbi listing non violent organizations as terrorists
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Justice Department ordered the FBI to compile a list of “groups or entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism,” with particular focus on antifa-aligned groups, and instructed Joint Terrorism Task Forces to prioritize such investigations [1]. The FBI itself says it investigates violent domestic extremists under statutory definitions and AG guidelines, but U.S. agencies do not have an administrative process to “designate” domestic organizations as terrorist groups the way the State Department designates Foreign Terrorist Organizations [2] [3] [4].
1. What officials actually ordered: a list, not a legal designation
An internal memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi directed federal law enforcement to “step up investigations” of antifa and similar “extremist groups” and asked the FBI to compile a list of entities possibly engaged in domestic terrorism; Reuters reviewed the memo [1]. Legal experts and practitioners note that this instruction is operational — to catalog and prioritize — and does not create a statutory or automatic “terrorist organization” label like a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under State Department rules [4].
2. FBI investigative framework: crime, violence and statutory definitions
The FBI conducts domestic terrorism investigations under attorney-general guidelines and the statutory definition in 18 U.S.C. § 2331; the agency says it obtains authorization and analyzes facts to prevent violent acts and to prosecute lawbreakers [2] [3]. The bureau’s public materials stress that the focus is on violent or criminal acts that cross from protected speech into crime — not on nonviolent political advocacy per se [5] [2].
3. Why critics say a list risks conflating dissent with terror
Multiple news reports and commentary raise concerns that compiling lists focused on movements such as antifa could broaden law‑enforcement scrutiny of loosely organized political actors and even nonviolent activists [1] [6]. Critics point to the lack of centralized leadership in movements like antifa and warn that intelligence products or “intelligence bulletins” could be misused or create chilling effects without clear standards [1] [4].
4. DOJ’s explicit priorities and the political context
Bondi’s memo described a wide set of behaviors and ideologies — from anti-government to “radical gender ideology” — as animating some domestic terrorists and directed JTTFs to prioritize such conduct [1]. Coverage from the Los Angeles Times and other outlets framed the memo as part of a broader shift in DOJ priorities after the administration change, noting prior resource changes at the FBI relating to domestic extremism units [6].
5. What the list can — and cannot — do in practice
Legal practitioners who analyzed the DOJ guidance said the list can guide intelligence sharing and operations, and that the AG ordered an “intelligence bulletin” on antifa-aligned violent extremist groups within 60 days; however, the directive does not create a statutory designation equivalent to FTO or SDGT listings [4]. The list’s operational impact will depend on how the FBI applies attorney-general guidelines and court-authorized investigative tools [2] [3].
6. Recent enforcement examples and the line between investigation and designation
Federal law enforcement recently disrupted an alleged bombing plot tied to a group called the Turtle Island Liberation Front, with DOJ and FBI arrests presented as counterterrorism work — an example of the agencies pursuing alleged violent plots rather than “designating” entire movements [7] [8] [9]. Reporting highlights that the FBI’s public materials and press releases emphasize neutral investigative priorities while DOJ memos instruct expanded focus [5] [7].
7. Competing viewpoints and the reporting record
Reuters and the Los Angeles Times reported the memo and its contents [1] [6]. Conservative legal analysts and some DOJ commentators characterize the steps as necessary to disrupt violent networks; civil liberties advocates and some journalists warn of overreach and politicized targeting of ideological movements [1] [6] [4]. Available sources do not mention a formal, legal mechanism by which the FBI itself would “label” a U.S. organization as a terrorist group in the way the State Department designates foreign groups [4] [2].
8. Bottom line and unanswered questions
The DOJ ordered the FBI to compile and prioritize a list of potentially violent domestic actors and to issue intelligence products on antifa-aligned groups [1] [4]. Whether that operational list will lead to sustained surveillance, prosecutions, or misuse of intelligence remains an open question in reporting; available sources do not specify detailed safeguards or metrics the FBI will use when treating loosely organized, non-hierarchical movements [1] [4] [2].