Domestic Terrorism in the United States

by | Dec 5, 2025 | Uncategorized | 0 comments

Executive Summary

Domestic terrorism in the United States has evolved from a marginal security concern into a central national security priority. This case study examines the current threat landscape, analyzes recent policy developments including the December 2025 directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi, assesses future trends, and explores both enforcement approaches and civil liberties concerns.

Pam Bondi was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General on February 4, 2025, by a Senate vote of 54-46 NPR, and was sworn in as the 87th Attorney General on February 5, 2025 Department of Justice.

The article you’ve provided describes a directive from Attorney General Bondi dated December 4, 2025 (yesterday), instructing federal law enforcement to prioritize investigations into what she characterizes as domestic terrorism activities. The memo specifically targets antifa and similar groups, directing the FBI to compile a list of entities potentially engaged in domestic terrorism and to investigate possible tax fraud by these organizations.

According to the document, Bondi’s memo characterizes certain domestic groups as terrorists if they use violence or threats to advance political agendas including opposition to law enforcement, support for immigration policies, gender ideology, or what she terms “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity.”

This directive represents a significant policy shift at the Justice Department, focusing federal law enforcement resources on investigating domestic political movements and their potential criminal activities, including tax violations.

1. The Current Threat Landscape

Scale and Scope

Between 2010 and 2021, the United States experienced 231 domestic terrorism incidents. FBI domestic terrorism investigations increased by 357% over the past decade, more than doubling since 2020 alone. By fiscal year 2021, the FBI had 9,049 open domestic terrorism investigations, up from 1,981 in 2013.

Predominant Threat Categories

Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violence (35% of incidents): This represents the largest and most lethal category. Notable attacks include the 2015 Charleston church shooting (9 deaths), the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue attack (11 deaths), and the 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre (23 deaths). Right-wing extremist violence accounts for approximately 75-80% of domestic terrorism fatalities since 2001.

Anti-Government Extremism: Since 2016, there has been a dramatic rise in attacks motivated by partisan political beliefs. Between January 2020 and April 2024, 50 attacks or plots targeted government, military, and law enforcement personnel.

Foreign-Inspired Threats: While ISIS and al-Qaeda maintain intent to inspire attacks in the United States, the threat from internationally based groups is relatively low compared to the past two decades. Recent high-profile incidents like the January 2025 New Orleans attack demonstrate that this threat remains persistent if episodic.

Geographic Distribution

States with major metropolitan areas experience the highest concentration of incidents. California, New York, and the District of Columbia lead in total incidents. However, all but eight states experienced at least one domestic terrorism incident between 2010 and 2021.

2. Case Study: The Bondi Memo and Policy Shift (December 2025)

The Directive

On December 4, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a controversial internal memo ordering federal law enforcement to intensify investigations into antifa and similar “extremist groups.” The directive represents a significant policy shift with several key components:

Investigative Priorities:

  • FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces ordered to prioritize investigations of domestic terrorism
  • Federal agencies directed to compile lists of entities potentially engaged in domestic terrorism
  • Law enforcement instructed to examine tax crimes by extremist groups accused of IRS fraud

Defining the Threat: The memo characterizes domestic terrorists as those using violence or threats to advance agendas including:

  • Opposition to law and immigration enforcement
  • Support for mass migration and open borders
  • Adherence to “radical gender ideology”
  • Anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity

Historical Context

This directive builds on a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7) issued in September 2025 following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. That memorandum established a comprehensive strategy involving:

  • Coordination by FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces
  • Investigation of radicalization and recruitment networks
  • Scrutiny of funding mechanisms and NGO involvement
  • Treasury Department efforts to disrupt financial networks
  • IRS examination of tax-exempt entities

The Trump administration designated antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, despite the fact that it lacks centralized leadership, membership rolls, or organizational structure.

3. Outlook: Future Trends and Projections

Persistent High Threat Level

The Department of Homeland Security’s 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment indicates the terrorism threat environment will remain high due to:

  • Potential violent extremist responses to domestic sociopolitical developments
  • International events including the Israel-Hamas conflict
  • Lone offenders and small groups posing the greatest operational threat

Increasing Partisan Political Violence

Since 2016, attacks motivated by partisan political beliefs have surged dramatically. In the first half of 2025, 35% of violent events tracked by researchers targeted U.S. government personnel or facilities, more than double the 2024 rate.

Technology and Radicalization

Emerging technologies and social media platforms continue to play significant roles in radicalization pathways. The blending of different ideologies, even those traditionally opposed, creates unpredictable threat vectors.

International Dimensions

While the primary threat comes from domestic actors, international extremist ideologies continue to spread globally, including far-right extremism. Salafi-jihadist organizations in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Africa are rebuilding capabilities that may eventually enable attacks beyond their immediate regions.

4. Solutions and Countermeasures

Law Enforcement Approaches

Enhanced Investigation and Prosecution: Federal agencies have expanded capabilities to detect, prevent, and prosecute domestic terrorism. This includes:

  • Increased information sharing between federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement
  • Updated screening procedures for federal and military personnel
  • Distribution of threat assessment materials to over 40,000 partners
  • Enhanced prosecution of domestic terrorism cases

Intelligence Gathering: The FBI and DHS have vastly increased production of domestic terrorism threat analysis. National Threat Assessment Centers provide training to law enforcement, educators, mental health professionals, and community leaders.

Prevention and Community-Based Approaches

Public Health Model: The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism shifted from traditional countering violent extremism (CVE) approaches toward a whole-of-society public health model. This includes:

  • Community outreach and resilience building
  • Early intervention before radicalization progresses to violence
  • Addressing long-term contributors including systemic racism and social grievances

Grant Programs:

  • Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVTP) Grant Program: $18 million awarded to 35 organizations in 2024
  • Nonprofit Security Grant Program: Over $450 million to support physical security enhancements for high-risk organizations
  • Domestic violent extremism designated as “National Priority Area” within Homeland Security Grant Program

Education and Digital Literacy: Efforts focus on building resilience against online radicalization, improving civic education, and helping communities identify warning signs of potential violence.

Addressing Root Causes

Comprehensive strategies must confront factors contributing to domestic terrorism:

  • Economic inequality and social dislocation
  • Political polarization and erosion of shared civic values
  • Misinformation and conspiracy theories, particularly election denialism
  • Access to weapons and tactics for mass violence

Technology Sector Partnership

Social media companies play critical roles in:

  • Removing violent extremist content while protecting legitimate speech
  • Addressing algorithmic amplification of radical content
  • Cooperating with law enforcement while maintaining privacy protections
  • Participating in initiatives like the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism

5. Political Implications and Civil Liberties Concerns

Constitutional Questions

The Bondi memo and related Trump administration policies raise fundamental constitutional concerns:

First Amendment Protections: Critics argue that broad categories like “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” encompass constitutionally protected beliefs unconnected to criminal conduct. The ACLU warns that vague labels threaten to criminalize political expression and ideological dissent.

Organizational Structure: Legal experts emphasize that antifa is not an organization with leadership, hierarchy, or command structure. Former DOJ officials note that existing frameworks for designating terrorist organizations do not apply to diffuse ideologies or decentralized movements.

Due Process: Designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations without clear legal standards risks violating due process rights. Unlike foreign terrorist organizations, no statutory framework exists for domestic designations.

Surveillance and Enforcement Concerns

Joint Terrorism Task Forces: JTTFs operate with limited transparency and oversight. Major cities including Atlanta, San Francisco, Oakland, and Portland have withdrawn or limited cooperation due to concerns about:

  • Privacy violations
  • Civil rights abuses
  • Targeting of racial justice activists, Muslims, journalists, and environmentalists
  • Shielding state and local officers from accountability under state laws

Surveillance Expansion: An antifa designation as a foreign terrorist organization could trigger:

  • FISA surveillance authorities designed for foreign intelligence
  • Financial sanctions freezing assets of associated individuals and organizations
  • Social media content removal and account suspensions
  • Potential criminalization of supporting even First Amendment-protected activities

Political Weaponization

Targeting Opposition: Critics argue the administration is using domestic terrorism authorities to investigate and intimidate political opponents. The broad definition of targeted conduct could encompass:

  • Criticism of immigration enforcement
  • Support for refugee and asylum policies
  • Advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights
  • Environmental activism
  • Progressive social movements

Selective Enforcement: While right-wing extremism accounts for the majority of lethal domestic terrorism, the current policy focus emphasizes left-wing movements. This raises concerns about politically motivated selective enforcement.

Chilling Effect on Civil Society: Former DOJ officials and civil liberties organizations warn that aggressive prosecution of protesters and activists creates fear that stifles democratic participation. The potential designation of funders, NGOs, and advocacy organizations as terrorism supporters threatens the entire nonprofit sector.

Institutional Concerns

Over 280 former DOJ officials have expressed alarm about erosion of the Justice Department’s independence and integrity. They warn that prosecutorial decisions based on political ideology rather than evidence-based threat assessment undermine rule of law.

Congressional and Judicial Response

Legislative Challenges: Previous attempts at bipartisan domestic terrorism legislation have failed. Current political polarization makes comprehensive legislative reform unlikely. Some members of Congress are examining whether the executive branch is exceeding its authority.

Judicial Oversight: Federal courts will likely scrutinize terrorism prosecutions arising from these directives. Key legal questions include:

  • Whether political ideology without organizational structure can meet legal standards for terrorism-related crimes
  • The balance between counterterrorism efforts and First Amendment protections
  • Limits on executive authority to designate domestic groups as terrorists

Appellate decisions in 2026 and beyond may establish new boundaries for domestic counterterrorism policy and redefine the relationship between national security and civil rights.

6. Recommendations for Balanced Approach

Strengthen Strategy Implementation

  • Clarify federal agency oversight responsibilities
  • Include risk assessments and performance metrics
  • Specify timelines and resource requirements for strategy activities
  • Improve communication with state and local partners

Maintain Civil Liberties Protections

  • Ensure domestic terrorism definitions focus on violent conduct, not political ideology
  • Maintain distinction between legitimate protest and criminal violence
  • Provide robust judicial oversight of surveillance and investigation
  • Protect First Amendment rights to speech, assembly, and association

Build Community Trust

  • Emphasize prevention and intervention over prosecution where appropriate
  • Engage communities most affected by both terrorism and counterterrorism measures
  • Ensure transparency in threat assessments and enforcement priorities
  • Address concerns of selective enforcement based on political viewpoint

Evidence-Based Resource Allocation

  • Direct resources toward threats that cause greatest harm based on data
  • Maintain capabilities against both domestic and international terrorism
  • Avoid disproportionate focus on ideologically disfavored groups
  • Regularly reassess threat landscape and adjust priorities accordingly

Long-Term Solutions

  • Address underlying social and economic factors contributing to extremism
  • Combat misinformation and conspiracy theories through education and media literacy
  • Strengthen democratic institutions and civic engagement
  • Build societal resilience against attempts to undermine trust in government

Conclusion

Domestic terrorism represents a genuine and evolving threat requiring sustained attention from law enforcement, policymakers, and civil society. However, the response to this threat must carefully balance security imperatives with constitutional protections. The current policy trajectory, exemplified by the Bondi memo, raises serious concerns about potential overreach, political weaponization, and erosion of civil liberties.

Effective counterterrorism requires evidence-based threat assessment, targeted investigation of actual criminal conduct, community partnerships built on trust, and unwavering commitment to constitutional principles. The challenge for American democracy is to confront violent extremism while preserving the open society and political freedoms that define the nation. How courts, Congress, and future administrations respond to current policies will shape the balance between security and liberty for decades to come.