CRS Insights
Sifting Domestic Terrorism from Other Illegal Activity
Jerome P. Bjelopera, Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism (jbjelopera@crs.loc.gov, 7-0622)
June 24, 2015 (IN10299)
Domestic terrorism cases differ from ordinary criminal activity in key ways. Most importantly, unlike ordinary
criminals—who are often driven by self-centered motives such as profit and tend to opportunistically seek easy
prey—domestic terrorists are driven by a cause or ideology. If the motives involved eventually align with the
definition laid out in 18 U.S.C. §2331(5), presumably the case becomes a domestic terrorist investigation.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines domestic terrorism as "acts of violence that [violate] the
criminal laws of the United States or any state, committed by individuals or groups without any foreign
direction, and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion, and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offers a similar definition.
Domestic terrorists are a widely divergent lot, drawing from many philosophies and worldviews to justify their
illegal acts. They can be motivated to commit crimes in the name of ideas such as animal rights, environmental
rights, white supremacy, anti-government beliefs, and anarchism, for example. Importantly, the expression of
these worldviews—minus the commission of crimes—involves constitutionally protected activity. As such,
individuals and movements openly and legally espousing such beliefs distance themselves from terrorists who use
the ideas to justify their own criminal actions.
From the perspective of federal law enforcement, the FBI safeguards against cases focused solely on
constitutionally protected activities. All FBI investigations have to be conducted for an authorized national
security, criminal, or foreign intelligence collection purpose. Investigations may not solely monitor the exercise of
First Amendment rights. Finally, the Department of Justice and the FBI visualize domestic terrorism in terms of
threats, not named or designated groups or actors
Hate Crime
Current federal law defines hate crimes to include any crime against either person or property in which the offender
intentionally selects the victim because of the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation. Hate crimes may appear to involve ideological issues.
However, as described by one federal official, a "hate crime" "generally involve[s] acts of personal malice directed
at individuals" and is missing the broader motivations driving acts of domestic terrorism. For investigators,
distinguishing between "personal malice" and ideologically motivated actions may be difficult in specific cases.
This suggests that sorting domestic terrorism from hate crimes depends on the degree of a suspect's intent. Did the
suspect articulate an ideology, belong to a domestic terrorist group, or follow an extremist movement? The grey
area between domestic terrorism and hate crime hints that in some instances, suspects with links to domestic
terrorist movements or ideologies supporting domestic terrorism may be charged with hate crimes. It is unclear to
what extent this influences how the government understands the threat posed by extremist movements that hold
racist beliefs. If some individuals of this ilk commit crimes against police or judges, for example, is the
government more apt to label this activity as terrorism while individuals sharing these same racist motivations but
targeting ordinary citizens based on race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation are charged with
hate crimes?
The Harpham Case
The FBI's public description of the case of confessed would-be bomber Kevin Harpham exemplifies how difficult

---

it may be to characterize acts as domestic terrorism. Initially the FBI viewed the case as domestic terrorism. In
2011, Harpham, allegedly motivated by white supremacist ideology, left a bomb—which never detonated—along
the route of a parade in Spokane, WA, honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The FBI's Northwest Joint Terrorism
Task Force led the investigation. In prepared public remarks framing the "current state of the terrorism threat"
from April 2011, the then FBI Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism Division noted that Harpham's case was
one of "several recent domestic terrorism incidents [that] demonstrate the scope of the threat." Harpham eventually
pled guilty to committing a federal hate crime and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. Thereafter, the
bureau described the case as the successful prevention of a "horrific hate crime."
Homegrown Violent Extremists
The FBI and DHS have popularized the phrase "homegrown violent extremist" (HVE). It separates domestic
terrorists from U.S.-based terrorists motivated by the ideologies of foreign terrorist organizations. According to
DHS and the FBI, a HVE is "a person of any citizenship who has lived and/or operated primarily in the United
States or its territories who advocates, is engaged in, or is preparing to engage in ideologically-motivated terrorist
activities (including providing support to terrorism) in furtherance of political or social objectives promoted by a
foreign terrorist organization, but is acting independently of direction by a foreign terrorist organization." They
also assert that an HVE is not a domestic terrorist—these are two distinct categories of terrorist actors.
Figure 1. Who Are Domestic Terrorists?

---

Source: CRS graphic derived from information in: https://www.fbi.gov/about-
us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview; https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/animal-rights-extremism-
and-ecoterrorism; Department of Justice, Counterterrorism White Paper;
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2009/september/domterror_090709; http://www.dhs.gov/topic/countering-
violent-extremism.

---