The U.S. is a well-oiled machine in many respects. It was founded on principles that were revolutionarily equitable for its time. It possesses a relatively robust rule of law. Federal action has given way to some remarkable national victories like childhood poverty reduction and Title IX protections, while also boasting the strongest global economy and military presence. The U.S. dominates the rest of the world in these respects.
At the same time though, there are some marked oversights within the United States’ composition. A notable one is the fact that our federal government has no standalone law addressing domestic terrorism.
Implementing a federal statute would give law enforcement and intelligence agencies clearer guidance, allowing for more efficient resource allocation and consistent application of the law.
U.S. Code defines domestic terrorism, but specific penalties for committing an act of domestic terrorism are void. Instead, a variety of other criminal statutes, such as those addressing weapons charges or those relating to the use or possession of explosives, are applied alongside state charges.
The main problem is that state charges vary considerably throughout the nation, meaning definitions of domestic terrorism and their associated punishments are inconsistent. Over the years, this lack of clarity and focus has led to a number of disputes. For example, attorneys have challenged Georgia for infringing on free speech under the First Amendment, while Oklahoma has been criticized for punishing even minor property damage with life in jail.
In 2022, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI released a report indicating that domestic terrorism arrests surged from approximately 180 to approximately 800 over the course of a single fiscal year. The DHS’s most recent Homeland Threat Assessment states that the threat of domestic violent extremists is projected to remain high into 2025, particularly following the 2024 election cycle and rising tensions regarding conflicts abroad. These agencies and the federal government have been mobilizing to increase protections against domestic terrorism, but they have been doing so without a catchall federal statute.
The Department of Justice began detailing its budget requests for domestic terrorism in 2021, citing the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and its subsequent large-scale criminal investigation as a “recent and visible example” of domestic violence threats in its budget request for 2022. In 2024, the FBI requested more funding to counter rising acts of domestic terrorism across the country. Congress has aided these advancements in numerous measures as outlined in H.R.8257, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2023.
Congress has also increased its focus on domestic terrorism with Senate Bill 1591, also called the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. It was introduced last year to expand the availability of information on domestic terrorism, including the relationship between domestic terrorism and hate crimes.
This is a decent start, but the lack of a federal statute explicitly defining and punishing domestic terrorism creates significant gaps in addressing the problem effectively. Without clear and consistent legal definitions, federal agencies are unable to develop coordinated strategies and hold perpetrators accountable under a cohesive legal framework. State and local governments using an increased number of funds and resources without federal guidance could lead to more confusion and discrepancy than it already has.
Implementing a federal statute would provide the clarity needed for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to better target their efforts, ensuring that resources are allocated and legislation is applied in a more consistent and organized manner. This would make investigations and prosecutions more efficient, maximizing the impact of the increased federal resources and legal measures that address this growing threat.
A 2023 congressional report seeks to explain the complications behind the federal government’s means of defining and combating domestic terrorism and extremism. Some legal scholars contend that existing statutes are sufficient for arresting, prosecuting and punishing domestic terrorist offenders.
However, the sheer number of controversies associated with this issue would likely be resolved with a catchall federal statute.
Violations of civil liberties also come into question, as believing in or expressing extremist ideals and even supporting incidents of domestic terrorism are not illegal under federal law. It is true that words alone are rarely punishable, but the fighting words doctrine and proofs of premeditation are commonly employed in criminal proceedings to impose legal penalties when words are attached to violent crimes. Extending this principle to domestic terrorism cases is not just acceptable under special conditions; it is a natural part of the law.
Finally, civil rights and activist groups worry that certain demographic groups will be disproportionately targeted by more precise and more restrictive anti-extremist legislation or by labels that designate certain individuals or organizations as domestic terrorists.
In establishing exhaustive definitions and sanctions for domestic terrorism, it is important to prioritize bipartisanship. The Proud Boys, a radical right-leaning group, are not any less or more of a threat to national security than far-left anarchist radicals. A sufficiently comprehensive framework will effectively address both ends of the political spectrum by gauging the crime based on its effects, not prosecuting it solely based on ideology.
Considering the ever-rising threat of domestic terrorism and the controversial patchwork of associated penalties, the need for a more standardized framework for defining and punishing domestic terrorism is clear. Although resources and legislative attention are being invested to tackle the issue –– which is a good start –– federal statutes establishing a nationwide framework for domestic terrorism could further augment the federal government’s approach by ensuring it is handled in a more consistent manner.
Casey Mendoza is an Opinion Intern for the winter 2025 quarter. He can be reached at caseym4@uci.edu.
Edited by Joshua Gonzales