Lawmakers weigh domestic terrorism framework as political violence rises

With political violence on the rise, lawmakers are reexamining how to address it at the federal level. Some legal scholars and policymakers advocate a domestic-terrorism regime built not on designating domestic groups as terrorists but on a crime-of-terrorism framework modeled after hate-crime statutes. The approach would focus on the crime and the perpetrator’s intent, not on labeling a group.

Under current federal law, only foreign groups can be designated as terrorist organizations. Advocates warn that giving the executive branch power to pre-label domestic groups could be weaponized for political ends. The discourse has intensified in the wake of killings cited in coverage of political violence, including cases tied to figures such as Luigi Mangione and, in some commentary, the deaths of Charlie Kirk and UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. In Mangione's case, prosecutors have pursued a terrorism theory alongside murder; a New York judge recently limited the terrorism part while allowing the murder charge to proceed.

Proponents propose a concrete model: identify a catalog of serious violent crimes that would qualify and require prosecutors to prove that the defendant acted with the intent to influence government policy or to coerce the civilian population—the federal definition of terrorism. In practice, a murder could be charged as both standard murder and as a crime of terrorism if the requisite intent is shown. The approach mirrors the state terrorism regimes that require the accompanying intent to trigger enhanced penalties, while allowing the court to separate the charges if the evidence for terrorism falls short.

Advocates say the process would keep politics out of the courtroom by letting judges decide, rather than pre-labeling groups. If the judge rules there isn’t enough evidence to support a terrorism element, the case proceeds on the regular murder theory. If the terrorism piece survives, the jury would hear both the murder charge and the terrorism theory, with sentencing tied to the enhanced framework. Critics, however, warn that any broad expansion of terrorism powers risks politicization and civil-liberties concerns.

The debate has also intersected with current political rhetoric around anti-extremism. Former President Donald Trump has framed the issue as a matter of targeting left-wing extremism, including calls to label Antifa a terrorist organization. Supporters say a formal framework could close loopholes that delay accountability for homegrown violence; opponents warn such moves could chill political speech and empower prosecutors to leverage ideology in ways that extend beyond crime.

Regardless of how it is framed, proponents insist the core goal is to recognize that ideological murder extends beyond a single victim and robs society of its social contract. They point to the need for clearer federal parameters that can handle homegrown violence without becoming a partisan tool. Critics reply that any automatic expansion of federal reach must be carefully checked by courts and safeguarded against politicization.

In practice, the model would require robust prosecutorial standards and careful evidentiary requirements—ensuring that a terrorism theory is not applied in vague or overreaching ways. The debates in Washington reflect a larger question about how the United States balances civil liberties with national-security demands in the era of political polarization.