In January 2026, two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, were shot by U.S. federal agents in Minneapolis as part of local protests against U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In describing the circumstances surrounding their deaths, Trump Administration officials used the term “domestic terrorism.” What defines “domestic terrorism” under U.S. law? How do we evaluate the risk of future political violence in the United States? We spoke with Professors Bruce Hoffman and Jacob Ware (SSP’19), the authors of “Gods, Guns and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America,” to offer their analysis on the events in Minnesota and the broader context of that terminology.
Q: Trump Administration officials have recently used the term “domestic terrorism” in reference to the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by U.S. federal agents in Minnesota. What defines an act as “domestic terrorism,” according to U.S. law?
A: There is no unified domestic terrorism definition in the United States, as different agencies have defined the term differently. The definitions used by the FBI and DHS, however, both concern acts “dangerous to human life” that are “a violation of the criminal laws of the United States” and that appear to intend to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” or “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination.”
There is no federal law criminalizing “domestic terrorism” as an act in itself. Accordingly, the Trump administration’s varying accusations of domestic terrorism (as well as designations of “domestic terrorism” against collectives like Antifa) do not carry any real legal basis.
Moreover, there is no evidence that Alex Pretti engaged in acts “dangerous to human life,” seriously undermining the government’s claims—especially since Pretti reportedly had a concealed weapons permit and was thus licensed to carry a firearm. Pretti intervening with an ICE agent pepper-spraying a woman also could not be construed as intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” It could perhaps be claimed that Pretti was attempting to “influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion” of the ICE officer wielding the pepper spray—though that would constitute a thin and highly debatable argument.
At least historically, terrorism has been an act of violence or calculated threat of violence that is planned, premeditated and purposeful. Under that framework, Pretti did not commit an act of domestic terrorism.
Q: What is the history of the term “domestic terrorism” in the United States?
A: “Domestic terrorism” has a long history in the United States and can be traced back to the treatment meted out to Native Americans from before the nation’s founding through the treatment of enslaved people brought from Africa before the Civil War to the advent of the Ku Klux Klan afterwards. These racially-motivated variants of domestic terrorism gave way to violent political extremism and anarchist violence at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries and to the revivals of the Klan in the 1910s and 1920s and again in the 1950s and 1960s. Also, during the 1960s, opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War gave rise to far-left domestic terrorism and, to a lesser extent, to the handful of bombings in the 1980s to protest U.S. intervention in Central America. Throughout that period, a variety of ethno-nationalist and religious groups carried out acts of domestic terrorism in the United States, including Puerto Rican independistas, anti-Castro Cuban groups, militant Jewish organizations and Croatian separatists, among others.
There have also been acts of domestic terrorism motivated by specific issues. Radical opponents of legalized abortion have bombed abortion clinics and assassinated medical professionals. People protesting logging or the development of ski resorts have engaged in domestic terrorism, as have militant proponents of animal rights. And violence perpetrated by far-right extremists has been a fixture of domestic terrorism since the 1980s and includes the single most lethal act of terrorism committed within the United States by a U.S. citizen: the 1995 bombing of a federal office building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 persons.
But for an act of violence to be considered domestic terrorism, it does not necessarily have to be lethal. Kidnapping, arson, vandalism, harassment and intimidation can also be considered acts of domestic terrorism, depending on the intent and motivation.
Q: The shooting of Alex Pretti was seemingly justified by the Trump Administration because he had a gun on his person. According to the Minneapolis Police Chief, Pretti was a legal gunholder in Minnesota. In 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse also brought a gun to a protest but was celebrated as a hero by the far-right and gun rights advocates. Does this disconnect in response indicate any type of developing schism between the far-right and gun advocates?
A: Gun rights sit atop the summit of far-right mythology. Indeed, the deadliest domestic terrorism attack in U.S. history—the aforementioned 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, perpetrated by an anti-government extremist—was largely inspired by a conviction that the U.S. government intended to strip citizens of their gun rights. “Ban Guns: Make The Street Safe For A Government Takeover,” read a bumper sticker that Timothy McVeigh, the bomber, sold near the Waco Siege in 1993. It’s fair to say McVeigh likely would have been similarly enraged by President Trump’s recent declaration after Pretti’s killing that “You can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns.”
Indeed, early news reporting in the wake of Trump’s comments point to widespread fury among Second Amendment supporters. Any further commentary that appears to infringe on gun rights and infringe on Alex Pretti’s right to be armed during his First Amendment-protected activity is likely to seriously strain the relationship between the Trump administration and gun rights advocates, including those with a violent inclination like McVeigh.
Q: Typically, well-known incidents of domestic terrorism have been committed by those on the political extremes, with a disproportionate number committed by the far-right. As our politics become more extreme, do you believe we’re in danger of more political violence in the future?
A: Domestic terrorism has been a relatively common occurrence over the past several years. Last year, however, was a deviation from general trends. According to the Anti-Defamation League, during the three years prior, every act of political violence in the United States was perpetrated by individuals on the violent far-right. Last year, however, attacks in New Orleans, Washington, DC, and Boulder, CO, provided reminders of the ongoing threat of jihadist terrorism; while assassinations of Charlie Kirk in Utah and Melissa Hortman in Minnesota revealed the dangers of more idiosyncratic and personalized justifications for violence.
Additionally, the U.S. counterterrorism capacity was partly eroded in 2025, as the Trump administration redistributed resources towards countering immigration and drug cartels and fired many FBI agents who had worked on cases related to January 6. We are living in a violent moment, and we should expect to see more acts of violence against both public figures and the general public in the weeks and months ahead.
Q: In your opinion, is there anything the U.S. government can do to bring the extreme elements of society and politics to more moderate positions, respecting Constitutional rights of assembly, free speech and the right to bear arms while still safeguarding borders and national security?
A: Unfortunately, such a measure is highly unlikely during this administration, which has shown little interest in establishing a more peaceful and productive political debate. After Rep. Ilhan Omar was targeted in a serious assault this week, Trump responded by alleging, “She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her.”
The marginalizing of extreme voices will instead require a generational reckoning, requiring Americans of all stripes to reject the divisive forces that define politics today. As we wrote in our book God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America, “in the long term, the United States needs to restore, reenergize, and strengthen its democratic norms and institutions, rebuilding faith in the system and encouraging politicians and public alike to once again place country above party.” Unfortunately, the tragedy in Minneapolis suggests we are far from ready for such a moment.
Featured image courtesy of Fibonacci Blue. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.