Menu
Menu
\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nMichael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\n\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nShirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nLegal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nExperts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nFormer DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nNotably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nSelective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nFaiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nAttorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nThe administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nExpanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nCritics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nThe Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nImmigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nLegal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nThe Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nA pattern in immigration enforcement cases<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nKeith Ellison\u2019s criticism reflects this concern. By labelling Good a domestic terrorist almost immediately, the administration effectively framed her killing as justified self-defence against an existential threat, rather than a police use-of-force incident subject to scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A pattern in immigration enforcement cases<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nCivil liberties experts warned that such language dangerously conflates political beliefs with criminal intent. The memo\u2019s broad framing, they argue, risks criminalising protest, resistance, and even non-compliance with law enforcement\u2014activities traditionally protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keith Ellison\u2019s criticism reflects this concern. By labelling Good a domestic terrorist almost immediately, the administration effectively framed her killing as justified self-defence against an existential threat, rather than a police use-of-force incident subject to scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A pattern in immigration enforcement cases<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nDespite these limitations, the Trump administration has increasingly relied on the phrase as a rhetorical tool. In September, a DHS memo instructed law enforcement to prioritise threats including \u201cviolent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement,\u201d claiming that \u201cdomestic terrorists\u201d were advancing \u201cextreme views in favour of mass migration and open borders.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Civil liberties experts warned that such language dangerously conflates political beliefs with criminal intent. The memo\u2019s broad framing, they argue, risks criminalising protest, resistance, and even non-compliance with law enforcement\u2014activities traditionally protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keith Ellison\u2019s criticism reflects this concern. By labelling Good a domestic terrorist almost immediately, the administration effectively framed her killing as justified self-defence against an existential threat, rather than a police use-of-force incident subject to scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A pattern in immigration enforcement cases<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nFrom legal definition to political rhetoric<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Despite these limitations, the Trump administration has increasingly relied on the phrase as a rhetorical tool. In September, a DHS memo instructed law enforcement to prioritise threats including \u201cviolent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement,\u201d claiming that \u201cdomestic terrorists\u201d were advancing \u201cextreme views in favour of mass migration and open borders.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Civil liberties experts warned that such language dangerously conflates political beliefs with criminal intent. The memo\u2019s broad framing, they argue, risks criminalising protest, resistance, and even non-compliance with law enforcement\u2014activities traditionally protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keith Ellison\u2019s criticism reflects this concern. By labelling Good a domestic terrorist almost immediately, the administration effectively framed her killing as justified self-defence against an existential threat, rather than a police use-of-force incident subject to scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A pattern in immigration enforcement cases<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nThe Congressional Research<\/a> Service noted in 2023 that, unlike foreign terrorism, there is no formal legal mechanism to designate an individual as a domestic terrorist. Former FBI agent Michael German has repeatedly emphasised that government officials have no legal authority to unilaterally label US citizens as domestic terrorists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From legal definition to political rhetoric<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Despite these limitations, the Trump administration has increasingly relied on the phrase as a rhetorical tool. In September, a DHS memo instructed law enforcement to prioritise threats including \u201cviolent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement,\u201d claiming that \u201cdomestic terrorists\u201d were advancing \u201cextreme views in favour of mass migration and open borders.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Civil liberties experts warned that such language dangerously conflates political beliefs with criminal intent. The memo\u2019s broad framing, they argue, risks criminalising protest, resistance, and even non-compliance with law enforcement\u2014activities traditionally protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keith Ellison\u2019s criticism reflects this concern. By labelling Good a domestic terrorist almost immediately, the administration effectively framed her killing as justified self-defence against an existential threat, rather than a police use-of-force incident subject to scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A pattern in immigration enforcement cases<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nFederal law provides definitions of domestic terrorism, but notably does not provide a specific criminal charge called \u201cdomestic terrorism.\u201d According to the FBI, the term applies to acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate civilians or influence government policy. The Department of Homeland Security uses a similar definition tied to threats against life or critical infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Congressional Research<\/a> Service noted in 2023 that, unlike foreign terrorism, there is no formal legal mechanism to designate an individual as a domestic terrorist. Former FBI agent Michael German has repeatedly emphasised that government officials have no legal authority to unilaterally label US citizens as domestic terrorists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From legal definition to political rhetoric<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Despite these limitations, the Trump administration has increasingly relied on the phrase as a rhetorical tool. In September, a DHS memo instructed law enforcement to prioritise threats including \u201cviolent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement,\u201d claiming that \u201cdomestic terrorists\u201d were advancing \u201cextreme views in favour of mass migration and open borders.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Civil liberties experts warned that such language dangerously conflates political beliefs with criminal intent. The memo\u2019s broad framing, they argue, risks criminalising protest, resistance, and even non-compliance with law enforcement\u2014activities traditionally protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keith Ellison\u2019s criticism reflects this concern. By labelling Good a domestic terrorist almost immediately, the administration effectively framed her killing as justified self-defence against an existential threat, rather than a police use-of-force incident subject to scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A pattern in immigration enforcement cases<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nThe controversy is not merely semantic. In US law and political culture, \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d carries extraordinary weight. It evokes mass casualty attacks, ideological violence, and existential threats to public safety. Applying the label to a single civilian encounter\u2014before an investigation is complete\u2014fundamentally alters how the public interprets state violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Federal law provides definitions of domestic terrorism, but notably does not provide a specific criminal charge called \u201cdomestic terrorism.\u201d According to the FBI, the term applies to acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate civilians or influence government policy. The Department of Homeland Security uses a similar definition tied to threats against life or critical infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Congressional Research<\/a> Service noted in 2023 that, unlike foreign terrorism, there is no formal legal mechanism to designate an individual as a domestic terrorist. Former FBI agent Michael German has repeatedly emphasised that government officials have no legal authority to unilaterally label US citizens as domestic terrorists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From legal definition to political rhetoric<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Despite these limitations, the Trump administration has increasingly relied on the phrase as a rhetorical tool. In September, a DHS memo instructed law enforcement to prioritise threats including \u201cviolent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement,\u201d claiming that \u201cdomestic terrorists\u201d were advancing \u201cextreme views in favour of mass migration and open borders.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Civil liberties experts warned that such language dangerously conflates political beliefs with criminal intent. The memo\u2019s broad framing, they argue, risks criminalising protest, resistance, and even non-compliance with law enforcement\u2014activities traditionally protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keith Ellison\u2019s criticism reflects this concern. By labelling Good a domestic terrorist almost immediately, the administration effectively framed her killing as justified self-defence against an existential threat, rather than a police use-of-force incident subject to scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A pattern in immigration enforcement cases<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nWhy the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label matters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The controversy is not merely semantic. In US law and political culture, \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d carries extraordinary weight. It evokes mass casualty attacks, ideological violence, and existential threats to public safety. Applying the label to a single civilian encounter\u2014before an investigation is complete\u2014fundamentally alters how the public interprets state violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Federal law provides definitions of domestic terrorism, but notably does not provide a specific criminal charge called \u201cdomestic terrorism.\u201d According to the FBI, the term applies to acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate civilians or influence government policy. The Department of Homeland Security uses a similar definition tied to threats against life or critical infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Congressional Research<\/a> Service noted in 2023 that, unlike foreign terrorism, there is no formal legal mechanism to designate an individual as a domestic terrorist. Former FBI agent Michael German has repeatedly emphasised that government officials have no legal authority to unilaterally label US citizens as domestic terrorists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From legal definition to political rhetoric<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Despite these limitations, the Trump administration has increasingly relied on the phrase as a rhetorical tool. In September, a DHS memo instructed law enforcement to prioritise threats including \u201cviolent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement,\u201d claiming that \u201cdomestic terrorists\u201d were advancing \u201cextreme views in favour of mass migration and open borders.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Civil liberties experts warned that such language dangerously conflates political beliefs with criminal intent. The memo\u2019s broad framing, they argue, risks criminalising protest, resistance, and even non-compliance with law enforcement\u2014activities traditionally protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keith Ellison\u2019s criticism reflects this concern. By labelling Good a domestic terrorist almost immediately, the administration effectively framed her killing as justified self-defence against an existential threat, rather than a police use-of-force incident subject to scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A pattern in immigration enforcement cases<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\nGood, a US citizen with no criminal record, was not known to be politically active. Her ex-husband told The Associated Press that she was a poet and a mother focused on raising her children, not an activist or protest organiser. She had just dropped off her six-year-old son at school when she encountered ICE officers in her own neighbourhood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label matters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The controversy is not merely semantic. In US law and political culture, \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d carries extraordinary weight. It evokes mass casualty attacks, ideological violence, and existential threats to public safety. Applying the label to a single civilian encounter\u2014before an investigation is complete\u2014fundamentally alters how the public interprets state violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Federal law provides definitions of domestic terrorism, but notably does not provide a specific criminal charge called \u201cdomestic terrorism.\u201d According to the FBI, the term applies to acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate civilians or influence government policy. The Department of Homeland Security uses a similar definition tied to threats against life or critical infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Congressional Research<\/a> Service noted in 2023 that, unlike foreign terrorism, there is no formal legal mechanism to designate an individual as a domestic terrorist. Former FBI agent Michael German has repeatedly emphasised that government officials have no legal authority to unilaterally label US citizens as domestic terrorists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From legal definition to political rhetoric<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Despite these limitations, the Trump administration has increasingly relied on the phrase as a rhetorical tool. In September, a DHS memo instructed law enforcement to prioritise threats including \u201cviolent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement,\u201d claiming that \u201cdomestic terrorists\u201d were advancing \u201cextreme views in favour of mass migration and open borders.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Civil liberties experts warned that such language dangerously conflates political beliefs with criminal intent. The memo\u2019s broad framing, they argue, risks criminalising protest, resistance, and even non-compliance with law enforcement\u2014activities traditionally protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keith Ellison\u2019s criticism reflects this concern. By labelling Good a domestic terrorist almost immediately, the administration effectively framed her killing as justified self-defence against an existential threat, rather than a police use-of-force incident subject to scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A pattern in immigration enforcement cases<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Trump administration has recently intensified immigration enforcement in Minneapolis following media reports<\/a> about alleged daycare fraud involving members of the local Somali community. While Good herself had no connection to these allegations, the broader enforcement surge has heightened tensions in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that aggressive tactics, combined with politicised rhetoric, create conditions in which routine encounters escalate rapidly. When enforcement operations are framed as counterterrorism missions rather than civil immigration actions, the threshold for force inevitably lowers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Expanding the label beyond immigration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s use of the term extends beyond immigration cases. After the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump issued a memo expanding \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d priorities to include organised doxxing, swatting, trespass, rioting, and civil disorder. Days earlier, he signed an executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, despite its lack of formal structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed federal agencies to compile lists of groups that \u201cmay constitute domestic terrorism,\u201d prompting warnings from legal scholars<\/a> about viewpoint-based enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice described these moves as \u201cungrounded in fact and law,\u201d arguing they threaten to turn ideological disagreement into a basis for surveillance and prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective enforcement and ideological imbalance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notably, critics point out what the administration does not label domestic terrorism. The policy directives do not prominently reference right-wing violence, including the politically motivated assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman months earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former DOJ counsel Thomas E. Brzozowski argued that when enforcement priorities target one ideological family while marginalising others, \u201cany pretense of neutrality collapses.\u201d This selective framing fuels perceptions that \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d has become a partisan instrument rather than a neutral security concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts warn of long-term consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Legal scholars stress that the danger lies not only in mislabelling a single incident, but in normalising executive discretion over fundamental definitions. Brzozowski warned that labelling Good\u2019s actions as domestic terrorism before an investigation strips the term of meaning and undermines the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School added that while intentionally ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in certain contexts, the available evidence in this case does not support such a conclusion. \u201cHere,\u201d she said, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cthe administration\u2019s language appears designed to malign a civilian and justify lethal force.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Michael German was even more blunt: there is no public evidence that Good\u2019s actions could have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cCalling her a domestic terrorist is entirely pejorative and prejudicial,\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
he said.<\/p>\n","post_title":"How \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 became a tool in US immigration politics","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"how-domestic-terrorism-became-a-tool-in-us-immigration-politics","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_modified_gmt":"2026-01-12 10:37:34","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=10154","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":21},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\npointing to video evidence that appears to show Good attempting to drive away rather than deliberately attack officers. Frame-by-frame analyses<\/a> conducted by The New York Times and The Washington Post found that while Good\u2019s vehicle moved toward an agent, the officer was able to step aside and fired multiple shots from the side of the car as it veered away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Good, a US citizen with no criminal record, was not known to be politically active. Her ex-husband told The Associated Press that she was a poet and a mother focused on raising her children, not an activist or protest organiser. She had just dropped off her six-year-old son at school when she encountered ICE officers in her own neighbourhood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label matters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The controversy is not merely semantic. In US law and political culture, \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d carries extraordinary weight. It evokes mass casualty attacks, ideological violence, and existential threats to public safety. Applying the label to a single civilian encounter\u2014before an investigation is complete\u2014fundamentally alters how the public interprets state violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Federal law provides definitions of domestic terrorism, but notably does not provide a specific criminal charge called \u201cdomestic terrorism.\u201d According to the FBI, the term applies to acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate civilians or influence government policy. The Department of Homeland Security uses a similar definition tied to threats against life or critical infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Congressional Research<\/a> Service noted in 2023 that, unlike foreign terrorism, there is no formal legal mechanism to designate an individual as a domestic terrorist. Former FBI agent Michael German has repeatedly emphasised that government officials have no legal authority to unilaterally label US citizens as domestic terrorists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From legal definition to political rhetoric<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Despite these limitations, the Trump administration has increasingly relied on the phrase as a rhetorical tool. In September, a DHS memo instructed law enforcement to prioritise threats including \u201cviolent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement,\u201d claiming that \u201cdomestic terrorists\u201d were advancing \u201cextreme views in favour of mass migration and open borders.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Civil liberties experts warned that such language dangerously conflates political beliefs with criminal intent. The memo\u2019s broad framing, they argue, risks criminalising protest, resistance, and even non-compliance with law enforcement\u2014activities traditionally protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keith Ellison\u2019s criticism reflects this concern. By labelling Good a domestic terrorist almost immediately, the administration effectively framed her killing as justified self-defence against an existential threat, rather than a police use-of-force incident subject to scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A pattern in immigration enforcement cases<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Good shooting is not an isolated case. In October, during \u201cOperation Midway Blitz\u201d in Chicago, a Border Patrol agent shot US citizen Marimar Martinez five times. DHS described Martinez as a domestic terrorist, alleging she rammed an agent\u2019s vehicle and possessed a firearm. Federal charges against her were later dismissed by a judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal analyst Joey Jackson noted that once evidence was fully reviewed, \u201cthere were serious questions about the officers\u2019 narratives.\u201d The pattern is troubling to experts: aggressive claims made by federal authorities are later undercut by courts, but only after public perception has been shaped by official statements. This raises a fundamental question: is the \u201cdomestic terrorism\u201d label being used to pre-empt accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immigration, enforcement, and racialised scrutiny<\/h2>\n\n\n\n