In recent weeks, numerous disaffected activists have protested Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk and the actions he has undertaken as the nominal head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Amid nationwide protests that organizers have dubbed the “Tesla Takedown,” some demonstrations have turned destructive: Activists have set fire to Tesla charging stations in Boston, fired gunshots into a dealership in Oregon, and vandalized vehicles and dealerships in numerous locales.
This week, President Donald Trump made a public show of faith in Musk. At the same time, he threatened to use the full force of the federal government against demonstrators by deeming them “domestic terrorists.” If Trump follows through on his threat, the action would be a significant overreach, but it would also be consistent with recent American history.
In an appearance on the White House lawn with Musk in tow, Trump tested out five Tesla models and said he would buy one. A photographer snapped a picture of Trump’s handwritten notes for the press event, which “read like a Tesla sales pitch,” as Business Insider put it.
Trump also said his administration would crack down on the violence committed against his friend’s business. In response to a reporter’s question about calls to label the offenders “domestic terrorists,” Trump said, “I will do that…because they’re harming a great American company.”
“You do it to Tesla, you do it to any company, we’re going to catch you, and you’re going to go through hell,” Trump pledged.
Indeed, prosecuting offenders for destroying private property is fully within a government’s power—though in the cases cited above, local authorities are better suited to the task than the feds.
But Trump’s willingness to tar the offenders as terrorists is a bridge too far. Unfortunately, it’s also perfectly consistent with American history in the 21st century.
Trump’s allies within government jumped on the designation: “Ongoing and heinous acts of violence against Tesla by radical Leftist activists are nothing short of domestic terror,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said.
In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, eight members of Congress—led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.), the chairwoman of the House DOGE Subcommittee—deemed the acts “domestic political terrorism” and suggested that “Antifa, known for their history of domestic terrorism,” as well as certain non-governmental organizations affiliated with the Democratic Party, may be somehow involved. (The letter provided no evidence or citation for either claim, other than “reports suggest.”)
Terrorism is a famously amorphous term, with no clear definition. “It is now a cliché to observe that, despite innumerable efforts to define terrorism, scholars are no nearer to arriving at a consensus,” Martyn Frampton wrote in 2021’s The Cambridge History of Terrorism.
The FBI defines domestic terrorism in particular as “violent, criminal acts” committed “to further ideological goals.” But “violent, criminal acts” are by definition already illegal, and punishing them more severely because of their ideological motivation potentially constitutes viewpoint discrimination by the government, a violation of the First Amendment.
In fact, the FBI admits as much, preferring the term violent extremism instead. A November 2020 memo referenced the federal statute defining domestic terrorism but noted, “This is a definitional statute, not a charging statute,” and “each of the FBI’s threat categories…uses the words ‘violent extremism’ because the underlying ideology itself and the advocacy of such beliefs is not prohibited by US law.”
It is for this reason that the U.S. still does not have a criminal domestic terrorism statute at the federal level. In a 2020 article for the Northwestern University Law Review, Francesca Laguardia noted “the lack of a generalized terrorism statute and the failure to designate right-wing organizations as ‘terrorists.'” She concluded, however, that “the arguments for a domestic terrorism statute are compelling, but so are the risks of misuse.”
Still, federal sentencing guidelines allow for a significant “enhanced penalty…if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism.” When high-ranking members of the far-right Proud Boys were convicted for their actions during the Capitol Riot on January 6, 2021, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly sentenced them each to more than a decade in prison.
Kelly disagreed with the government’s position that the violence that day was, in the words of an assistant U.S. attorney, “no different than the act of a spectacular bombing of a building.” But he nonetheless held that “the constitutional moment we were in that day is something that is so sensitive that it deserves a significant sentence.”
Over the past couple of decades, the government has applied the terrorism label very broadly. In 2000, two environmental activists blew up three vehicles at a Chevrolet dealership in Eugene, Oregon. Jeffrey Luers was sentenced to more than 22 years for the crime—even though nobody was hurt and the total damage was only estimated at $28,000 ($51,006 in 2024 dollars). The Oregon Court of Appeals later overturned his sentence, and a judge reduced it to 10 years, allowing Luers to leave prison in December 2009.
“I am sorry if my actions instilled fear or the sense of victimization in the [dealership’s owners],” Luers said in a statement to the judge. “That was never my intent.”
We should condemn acts of violence against private property, and local authorities should investigate and prosecute the perpetrators. But the federal government has no business getting involved unless the facts very specifically warrant it. Designating individual offenders as “domestic terrorists” has no basis in federal law, and for good reason.
The post Trump Declares Tesla Vandals ‘Domestic Terrorists’ appeared first on Reason.com.
