When “Domestic Terrorism” Is Claimed Without Proof
Federal employees are trained to respect precision—especially when words trigger legal consequences. That is why recent events in Minneapolis deserve close attention, not only as a civil liberties issue, but as a signal about how power is being exercised inside the federal system.
On January 7, ICE agents approached a vehicle in Minneapolis. Within seconds, an ICE officer shot Jonathan Ross and killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good. Federal officials have said the shooting was self-defense. Local leaders have responded very differently, calling the encounter reckless and unnecessary and demanding transparency. Video evidence is disputed, and Minnesota officials report that federal authorities have attempted to block state participation in the investigation.
That dispute alone should concern any federal worker who believes in process. But the situation escalated further when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem publicly described Good as a “domestic terrorist,” alleging she attempted to ram officers with her vehicle.
“Domestic Terrorism” Is a Legal Term, Not a Talking Point
Under federal law, “domestic terrorism” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5). It requires dangerous criminal conduct and intent: conduct that appears intended to intimidate or coerce civilians, influence government policy through intimidation, or affect government conduct through mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. Intent is not optional. It is the core element.
Labeling a U.S. citizen a domestic terrorist before an investigation is complete skips the legal analysis entirely. Chaos, fear, or even alleged criminal behavior does not automatically meet the statutory definition. When senior officials use that label prematurely, it risks misleading the public and distorting the legal framework investigators are supposed to apply.
Why Prejudging the Facts Undermines Accountability
Federal employees understand how investigations are supposed to work: evidence first, conclusions second. Publicly declaring a narrative at the Cabinet level does the opposite. It pressures investigators, hardens public opinion, and sends a message that outcomes may already be decided.
This should sound uncomfortably familiar to federal workers who have faced discipline, security referrals, or EEO retaliation where leadership language framed the issue before facts were gathered. Once a label sticks, neutrality is hard to recover.
Training and Use-of-Force Questions Cannot Be Dismissed
There is also a serious training issue embedded here. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations materials describe a 13-week FLETC “ICE-D” basic program. Reporting around the Good shooting suggests the academy may have been shortened, with DHS disputing specifics and pointing to roughly eight weeks plus on-the-job training.
The precise number matters less than the principle. Vehicle approaches and close-quarters encounters are among the most dangerous law-enforcement scenarios. They demand extensive scenario-based training, de-escalation skills, and strict adherence to “no safe alternative” standards. Oversight bodies have repeatedly flagged DHS-wide weaknesses in use-of-force training, reporting, and accountability—the very safeguards meant to prevent irreversible mistakes.
Why Federal Employees Should Care
If a state is blocked from investigating a civilian death, if the most severe legal labels are applied before facts are known, and if training concerns are brushed aside, that reflects a broader erosion of accountability. Federal employees operate in systems where precedent matters. What is tolerated at the top eventually filters down.
Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.