When 'Terrorism' Labels Outrun Evidence: A Dangerous Precedent

In January 2026, federal immigration agents killed two people in Minneapolis. Within hours, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declared both had committed "acts of domestic terrorism." Days later, she backtracked: "We were using the best information we had at the time."

This sequence reveals something troubling about how the terrorism label gets weaponized in modern politics. When narrative races ahead of evidence, what exactly do we lose in the process?

The Weight of Words

Under U.S. law, "domestic terrorism" isn't a catch-all term for politically charged violence. It describes something specific: acts dangerous to human life that appear intended to intimidate civilians, pressure government policy, or affect government conduct through extreme means. Intent is everything.

Former intelligence professionals who managed counterterrorism analysts at the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center emphasize this point: terrorism determinations require analytic discipline, not speed. The label should follow thorough assessment of intent and context, not precede it.

Here's the kicker: while "domestic terrorism" has a statutory definition, it's not itself a standalone federal offense. That gap between legal reality and public perception creates space for misuse—and political exploitation.

When Speed Trumps Accuracy

In the first news cycle after a violent incident, investigators typically know the basics: who fired, who died, roughly what happened. What they usually don't know is motive with enough confidence to declare coercive intent—the element that separates terrorism from other serious crimes.

The intelligence community learned this lesson the hard way. After 9/11, agencies codified analytic standards emphasizing objectivity, independence from political influence, and rigorous articulation of uncertainty. The goal wasn't to eliminate uncertainty but to manage it through disciplined methods and transparent assumptions.

But when senior officials make categorical declarations before investigations begin, they create predictable problems. The system feels pressure—sometimes subtle, sometimes overt—to validate the headline rather than follow the evidence.

The Trust Deficit

Research shows that the "terrorist" label itself shapes how audiences perceive threats and evaluate responses, separate from underlying facts. When Americans hear "terrorism," they think of 9/11, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, or high-profile international attacks where intent was crystal clear.

By contrast, more common experiences of violence—shootings, assaults, chaotic confrontations with law enforcement—are typically treated as homicide or targeted violence until motive is established. That public habit reflects common sense: determine what happened, then decide why, then categorize accordingly.

Once the public begins seeing terrorism labels as political messaging tools, they may discount future uses—including cases where coercive intent truly exists. The category becomes less useful precisely when clarity matters most.

The Minneapolis Effect

The Minneapolis cases illustrate how quickly damage spreads. Early reporting and documentary evidence diverged from official accounts, feeding accusations that narratives were shaped and conclusions drawn before investigators gathered basic facts.

Even after Trump administration officials distanced themselves from initial terrorism claims, corrections rarely travel as far as original assertions. The label sticks. The public argues over politics rather than evidence.

This dynamic—confirmation bias and anchoring effects—can shape both internal decision-making and public reaction once officials commit publicly to a version ahead of proper assessment.

The Long Game

None of this minimizes the seriousness of violence against officials or the possibility that incidents may ultimately meet terrorism definitions. The point is discipline.

If authorities have evidence of coercive intent, they should say so and show what can responsibly be shown. If they don't, they could describe events in ordinary investigative language and let facts mature.

Federal agencies have published standard definitions for domestic terrorism, but senior officials' public statements routinely outrun investigative reality. The cost compounds over time.