How has the FBI responded to domestic terrorism threats post-2020?

Checked on December 14, 2025
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.

Executive summary

Since spring 2020 the FBI sharply increased its domestic terrorism (DT) work: the bureau says DT investigations more than doubled from roughly 1,000 in 2020 to about 2,700 by 2021 and has reported that overall DT caseloads and open investigations rose by multiples through 2021 [1] [2]. The FBI responded by reallocating personnel, creating programmatic units and strategic reports, and urging broad partner vigilance — but watchdogs and recent reporting show persistent gaps in interagency coordination, tracking, and, by 2025, signs of organizational shift or scaling back [3] [4] [2] [5].

1. Surge in investigations: numbers and priorities

The FBI publicly framed a sharp post‑2020 surge in DT activity as the pivot for its response. Director Christopher Wray told Congress the DT caseload rose from about 1,000 to roughly 2,700 investigations in the 16–18 months after early 2020, and multiple FBI publications and GAO summaries reiterate the bureau’s assessment that its number of open DT cases grew substantially since 2020 [1] [2] [6]. The bureau and DOJ emphasized that the greatest present threat comes from lone actors or small cells radicalized online who attack soft targets, and that domestic violent extremists include racially motivated, anti‑government militia, and anarchist actors [7] [8] [3].

2. Organizational response: new units, resources and strategy

To meet that growth the FBI expanded staffing and created or renamed units focused on domestic threats. The 2021 strategic intelligence assessment and related DOJ/FBI materials document new data collection and analytic efforts demanded by the National Defense Authorization Act, and the FBI sought additional funding and positions for its DT program and related capacities [4] [9]. The FBI also amplified public messaging urging federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners to remain vigilant against domestic violent extremists [3] [10].

3. Interagency products and the 2021 National Strategy

Congress and the NDAA required standardized definitions, reporting and a joint FBI–DHS intelligence product. The FBI and DHS produced the Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic Terrorism (May 2021) and subsequent updates to comply with statute and to provide a common baseline for tracking and analysis [4] [11]. The White House’s 2021 National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism set a “whole‑of‑government” framework that tasked FBI, DOJ and DHS with implementing a range of prevention, intervention, information‑sharing and analytic activities [12] [13].

4. Watchdog findings: data, coordination and unfinished work

Government accountability reviews found the FBI increased investigations but still needed to strengthen collaboration, data sharing, and program implementation. GAO reported DT investigations more than doubled since 2020 and concluded that DHS and the FBI had not fully implemented all leading collaboration practices, and that some statutory reporting and coordination obligations remained incomplete as of early 2025 [2] [13] [12]. The GAO also highlighted challenges aligning partner resources and clarifying agency responsibilities under the 2021 Strategy [12].

5. Critiques and changing priorities by 2024–2025

Reporting in 2025 said the bureau had scaled back staffing in a DT‑focused office and scrapped a tracking tool, a development Reuters linked to leadership changes and possible deprioritization of DT work; Reuters cited sources who warned those moves could weaken counter‑extremism capabilities [5]. At the same time, DOJ memoranda and reporting in late 2025 indicate renewed directives to the FBI to compile lists of groups engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism and to coordinate closely with JTTFs and DOJ components — signaling continued emphasis on identifying and documenting threats even as operational emphases shift [14].

6. Enduring tools: investigations, JTTFs, and public outreach

Despite organizational churn, the FBI’s primary instruments remain active investigations, Joint Terrorism Task Forces that embed federal and local partners, and public‑facing reporting and speechmaking by bureau leaders. The FBI repeatedly stresses that JTTFs and its Counterterrorism Division coordinate DT cases nationwide and that public tips and partnerships are critical to detect lone actors and rapidly evolving online radicalization [15] [7] [3].

7. Limitations, caveats and competing perspectives

Available sources document both the bureau’s surge in DT cases and subsequent programmatic changes, but do not provide a complete internal account of staffing levels or the operational impact of specific tool retirements; Reuters reported scaling‑back claims based on sources while GAO documented persistent coordination gaps and statutory shortfalls [5] [12]. The FBI maintains that it has expanded DT work and continues to integrate intelligence and investigations, while watchdogs and press reporting raise questions about implementation fidelity and recent shifts in emphasis [1] [12] [5].

8. Bottom line

Post‑2020 the FBI significantly expanded domestic terrorism investigations, produced statutory joint assessments and the 2021 Strategy implementation workstreams, and mobilized JTTFs and analytic units to address lone‑actor and racially or politically motivated violence [1] [4] [12]. Oversight reviews and press reports, however, document ongoing coordination weaknesses and — by 2025 — indications of changes in staffing and tracking practices that warrant scrutiny if they erode capabilities the FBI had built up since 2020 [13] [5].

Want to dive deeper?
How has the FBI reorganized its domestic terrorism units since 2020?
What major domestic terrorism cases has the FBI investigated after January 6, 2021?
How does the FBI coordinate with local law enforcement and DHS on domestic extremist threats?
What legal and civil‑liberties concerns have arisen from FBI domestic terrorism tactics post‑2020?
How has FBI intelligence gathering on online extremist networks evolved since 2020?