What is the legal definition of a domestic terrorist organization in the US?
Executive summary
The U.S. Code defines "domestic terrorism" as activities that involve acts dangerous to human life, violate criminal law, appear intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy, and occur primarily within U.S. territory (18 U.S.C. §2331) [1]. There is no parallel statutory mechanism that formally designates domestic groups as "domestic terrorist organizations" in the way the State Department designates Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and there is no standalone federal crime titled "domestic terrorism"—the definition is largely definitional and used to guide investigations, prosecutions for existing crimes, and policy, not to create a unique criminal offense [2] [3] [4].
1. What the statute actually says: the textual legal definition
Federal law—specifically 18 U.S.C. §2331—sets out a three-part definition: acts dangerous to human life that violate U.S. or state criminal law; acts that appear intended to intimidate or coerce civilians, influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and acts that occur primarily within U.S. jurisdiction (this statutory text is reproduced and explained by legal reference sources) [1] [3].
2. How agencies use that definition in practice
Federal agencies such as the FBI and DHS apply that statutory definition as a framework for investigating and classifying incidents and threats, and the FBI describes domestic terrorism as violence driven by domestic ideological influences without foreign direction [2] [5]. The Treasury and other agencies likewise treat "domestic terrorism" or "domestic violent extremism" as activities dangerous to life intended to intimidate or coerce and factor that into financial and law‑enforcement priorities [6].
3. Legal consequences and prosecutorial tools: not a single new crime
Congressional and legal analyses note that despite the statutory definition, there is no discrete federal "domestic terrorism" criminal charge; instead, prosecutors charge underlying offenses—murder, explosives, firearms, conspiracy, material support, and similar statutes—and may use terrorism‑related statutes like material support provisions where appropriate (18 U.S.C. §§2339A/B and Chapter 113B) [3] [2]. The practical result is that "domestic terrorism" informs investigative priorities and can justify certain interagency actions, but it does not itself create an automatic labeling or separate criminal sentence [3] [4].
4. Designation authority: foreign vs. domestic differences
The federal government maintains formal administrative designations for foreign groups (Foreign Terrorist Organizations) and financial sanctions authorities (e.g., SDGT lists), but there is no comparable, longstanding statutory administrative designation process for domestic groups; proposals and executive actions have sought to create or use such labels, but legal commentators warn these labels lack the formal statutory apparatus of foreign designations and raise due‑process and First Amendment concerns [4] [7] [8].
5. Recent policy moves and controversy
Recent presidential and White House actions have attempted to characterize or designate domestic entities—most prominently a 2025 order declaring "Antifa" a domestic terrorist organization and an NSPM directing DOJ to identify groups meeting the statutory definition—while civil liberties groups and commentators argue such moves are rhetorically powerful but legally fraught because the statute provides a definition but not a built‑in designation process for domestic organizations [9] [10] [7] [8].
6. Practical implications and open questions
Because the statutory definition depends on intent and dangerous conduct, enforcement rests on proving criminal acts and intent under existing statutes, which preserves prosecutorial pathways but leaves open questions about how broadly agencies will apply the label, what investigative tools will follow, and how constitutional protections will be balanced—areas where reporting and advocacy groups explicitly warn of possible overreach or chilling effects [6] [7] [8]. The sources consulted do not resolve how future legislation or judicial rulings might change the formal status of "domestic terrorist organization" or create new statutory designations [3] [4].