The terrorism label that comes before the facts can turn “domestic terrorism” into a useless label

In separate encounters, federal immigration agents were killed in Minneapolis Rene is good and Alex Pretty In January 2026.

Shortly after Prete’s killing, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said he committed a “crime.”An act of internal terrorismNoem did the same Good accusation.

But the “domestic terrorism” label is not generally synonymous with the kind of politically charged violence Noem alleged they both committed. US law describes this term as a specific concept: acts that are dangerous to human life and appear to be intended to intimidate civilians or pressure government policy or Influencing government behavior through extreme means. Intention is the key.

From my experience Department of Counterterrorism Analysts at the CIA and National Counter-Terrorism CenterI know that the designation of terrorism – domestic or international – is a judgment that is applied only after assessing intent and context. It may not be used before the investigation begins. Defining terrorism requires analytical discipline, not speed.

Evidence before conclusions

In the first news cycle, investigators may know the rudimentary details of what happened: who shot, who died, and roughly what happened. They usually do not know the motive confidently enough to declare it Coercive intent The element that separates terrorism from other serious crimes exists.

The Congressional Research Service, which provides policy analysis to Congress, Makes a relevant point: Although the term “domestic terrorism” is defined in law, it in and of itself is not a stand-alone federal crime. This is part of the reason why the general use of this term outweighs the legal and investigative reality.

This dynamic—the temptation to shut down a narrative before the evidence justifies it—which has emerged recently in the Secretary of Homeland Security’s assertions reflects long-standing insights in intelligence studies and official policy. Analytical standards.

Intelligence studies offer a simple observation: analysts and institutions confront Inherent uncertainty Because information is often incomplete, ambiguous and susceptible to deception.

In response, the American intelligence services Standardized analysis standards Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The standards emphasize objectivity, independence from political influence, and accurate expression of uncertainty. The goal was not to eliminate uncertainty; Connect it with disciplined methods And transparent assumptions.

When the narrative trumps the evidence

The designation of terrorism becomes risky when leaders call an incident public.”Domestic terrorism“Before they can explain the evidence that supports this conclusion. In doing so, they raise two predictable problems.”

The first problem is Institutional. Once a senior official declares something definitively, the regime can feel pressure—sometimes subtle, sometimes overt—to press it. Address validation.

In high-profile incidents, the opposite response, institutional caution, is easy It is seen as evasion – Pressures that could lead to premature public statements. Instead of starting with questions – “What do we know?” “What evidence will change our minds?” – Investigators, analysts and communicators can find themselves Defending the president’s story.

The second problem is public confidence. Research has found that the label “terrorist” itself is shaped How the public perceives the threat and evaluate responses, regardless of basic facts. Once the public begins to see the term as a tool for political messaging, it may rule out future uses of the term — including cases where the intent to coerce is already present.

Once officials and commentators have publicly committed to the version before any assessment of intent and context, Confirmation bias Interpreting evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs – and placing heavy reliance on pre-existing information – can shape internal decision-making and public reaction.

The cost of long-term misuse

This is not just a semantic battle between experts. Most people hold a mental profile of “terrorism” shaped by mass violence and overt ideological targeting.

When Americans hear the word “terrorism,” they likely think of the events of September 11, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing Or high-profile attacks abroad, e.g 2005 London bombings And December 2025 Anti-Semitic attack in SydneyWhere the intention was clear.

By contrast, the most common experience of violence in the United States — shootings, assaults and chaotic encounters with law enforcement — is typically treated by investigators, and understood by the public, as homicide or targeted violence until a motive is determined. This general habit reflects a logical sequence: first determine what happened, then decide why, then decide how to classify it.

Published by US federal agencies Standard definitions and traceability terminology For domestic terrorism, however, public statements by senior officials can override investigative reality.

The Minneapolis cases illustrate how quickly damage can occur: early reporting and documentary material quickly Contrary to official accounts. This feeds Accusations That the narrative was shaped and conclusions reached before investigators gathered the basic facts.

Although Trump administration officials later… They distanced themselves from the initial claims With regard to domestic terrorism, corrections rarely go as far as the original assertion. This classification remains stuck, and the public is left to argue about policy rather than evidence.

None of this diminishes the seriousness of violence against officials or the possibility that an incident may ultimately meet the definition of terrorism.

The point is discipline. If the authorities have evidence of coercive intent – ​​the element that defines “terrorism” – they would do well to say so and show what can be responsibly demonstrated. If they don’t, they can describe the event in normal investigative language and let the facts mature.

The “domestic terrorism” label that comes before the facts does not run the risk of being wrong in just one case. It teaches the audience, case by case, to treat this term as propaganda rather than a diagnosis. When this happens, this category becomes less useful precisely when the state needs clarity most.