The media seems to be bending over backward to avoid acknowledging the political implications of the murders of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. It’s clear that political violence is increasing, primarily coming from the left. One wonders—will we eventually see federal terrorism charges brought against individuals involved in such politically motivated violence? Could people like Tyler Robinson and Luigi Mangion face federal counts?
As it stands, we’re not quite there yet; laws are in development. It shouldn’t just be about designating domestic groups as terrorists. The reality is, simply labeling acts as “domestic terrorism” isn’t going to bring about meaningful change. There are, after all, simpler, politically neutral approaches that have proven effective in the past.
Currently, federal law only allows for foreign groups to be labeled as terrorists, which raises concerns among legislators about the potential misuse of such designations for domestic groups by either political side.
With the death of Kirk, experts are warning that the left’s reaction signals a troubling trend in political discourse. Federal prosecutors are finding themselves in a tough spot, charging individuals for violent acts inspired by political beliefs. For instance, Mangion’s murder prosecution is based on rather flimsy stalking charges. The case against Robinson could follow a similar trajectory.
But is the bureaucratic system of labeling really necessary? Wouldn’t it be better to let the courts determine whether violence motivated by ideology counts as terrorism? A successful model already exists in the hate crime laws, which deem crimes fueled by bias against a group—whether by race, religion, or other characteristics— as elevated offenses.
If hate crime laws have endured legal challenges, then why not extend that framework to terrorism? The approach involves listing serious crimes, generally violent felonies, and requiring prosecutors to prove intent to coerce the government or terrorize civilians.
Take murder, for example. If prosecutors can demonstrate that a murder was committed with the intent to further a political agenda, that crime could be classified as “murder as a crime of terrorism.” Typically, charges would include both standard murder and terrorism, allowing judges to dismiss the latter if the evidence is insufficient at the trial’s outset. If the case proceeds, prosecutors would need to prove both the act of murder and the political intent behind it.
This method mirrors how New York’s terrorism laws operate, where only some terrorism charges in the Mangion case were dismissed, leaving the murder charges intact. So one might ask—why even initiate this process? If it means allowing for federal charges in various instances of political violence, does it really warrant a new legal approach branded with the “terrorism” label?
Following Kirk’s murder, lawmakers are grappling with the implications, acknowledging that “violent words precede violent actions.” We need to recognize that ideological murder isn’t just a tragedy for the victim; it also poses a significant threat to our societal framework.
These offenses should merit stricter sentencing guidelines, but we must also strive to keep politics out of it, handing the reins back to judges for impartial processing.
Yes, there’s always a possibility of politicization within the justice system, but ignoring the political motives behind events like Kirk’s and Thompson’s murders is more foolish.
It’s time to face the reality of domestic terrorism, and while there’s much talk about “white supremacy” during the Biden administration, it appears that current threats are largely emerging from a discontented leftist faction.
It’s time to take action.
