In January 2026, federal immigration agents in Minneapolis were involved in the deaths of two individuals, Renée Good and Alex Pretti. Following Pretti’s death, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem labeled the incident an “act of domestic terrorism.” Noem extended this characterization to Good’s death as well. Critics argue that such labels are premature and misrepresent the legal definition of domestic terrorism under U.S. law.
The term “domestic terrorism” is defined as acts that threaten human life and appear designed to intimidate civilians or influence government policy through extreme means. Intent is a critical factor. Drawing from experience managing counterterrorism analysts at the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center, it is clear that the application of the terrorism label should come only after a thorough investigation of intent and context.
Understanding the Risks of Premature Labels
In the immediate aftermath of a violent incident, investigators may gather basic details about what transpired, such as who was involved and the circumstances of the event. However, determining the motive with enough confidence to classify it as terrorism is often not possible at this early stage. The Congressional Research Service notes that while the term “domestic terrorism” is statutory, it does not constitute a standalone federal offense. This distinction highlights the gap between public perception and legal reality, particularly when officials rush to assign labels based on incomplete information.
The tendency to form narratives around an incident before sufficient evidence is gathered can lead to significant consequences. First, there is the internal pressure within institutions. When a high-ranking official asserts a definitive conclusion, the system may feel compelled to support that narrative rather than engage in a thorough investigation. This can stifle the essential questions that should guide inquiry, such as, “What do we know?” and “What evidence might change our understanding?”
Public trust is the second critical issue. Research indicates that labeling an incident as “terrorism” can shape audience perceptions and influence responses, often independent of the underlying facts. If the public begins to view the term as a political tool rather than an objective classification, future legitimate uses of the term may be discounted. When narratives are constructed before a full assessment of intent and context, it can lead to confirmation bias, where evidence is interpreted in a way that aligns with pre-existing beliefs.
Long-Term Consequences of Mislabeling
The debate over the definition of terrorism is not merely academic; it has profound implications for public understanding and policy. When Americans hear “terrorism,” they often think of well-known incidents like the attacks on September 11, 2001, or the Oklahoma City bombing. These events involve clear intent to instill fear and violence for ideological purposes. In contrast, many violent incidents in the U.S. are treated as homicides or assaults until a motive is established.
Federal agencies have established definitions and tracking terminology for domestic terrorism. However, the statements made by senior officials can sometimes outpace the investigative process. The Minneapolis cases exemplify how rapidly narratives can diverge from factual accounts, leading to public skepticism about the integrity of the investigation.
Even after officials distanced themselves from initial claims of domestic terrorism, corrections often fail to reach as wide an audience as the original assertions. The label tends to stick, diverting the public discourse toward political implications rather than evidence-based analysis.
The seriousness of violence against officials cannot be understated, nor can the potential for incidents to meet the definition of terrorism. The key is for authorities to act with discipline. If there is credible evidence of coercive intent, officials should present that evidence transparently. If not, they should refrain from labeling an event prematurely and allow the facts to unfold naturally.
Misapplying the term “domestic terrorism” not only risks mischaracterizing individual cases but also teaches the public to perceive it as propaganda rather than a careful diagnosis. This shift in perception can render the term less effective when clarity is needed the most.
