Trends in Domestic Terrorism

The recent tragedies of the Dayton and El Paso shootings have once again renewed the ongoing conversations of domestic terrorism in the United States. Such shootings have even been classified by the FBI as domestic terrorism cases. At first glance, these incidents make it seem as if terrorist attacks are more common in the United States than they were before. But is this actually true? If it is, how should Americans and their representatives move forward to ensure the safety of the country and their livelihoods? 

To investigate these questions, it is necessary to take a brief survey of terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11 to 2018. Because there are varying definitions of domestic terrorism–none of which are universally accepted definitions in the United States–this article will operationalize the FBI’s definition: ‘Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.’ 

By examining the frequency of domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11, it provides clarity in the present day vis-a-vis whether or not domestic terrorist attacks are more common and how alarmed and prepared American policymakers and their constituents should be. Furthermore, this article will also identify their preferred modes of attack, followed by the most common targets and cities in the United States.

Figure 1: Domestic Terrorist Attacks

Domestic terrorism cases have been relatively low in the mid-2000’s since 9/11. However, in the past five years, domestic terrorism incidents have increased at a rapid pace, jumping from 20 incidents in 2014 to over 60 in 2018. Most of these domestic terrorism cases were conducted by unknown prepetrators (91 total). Following the unknown perpetrators are jihadist-inspired extremists (23 cases), white supremacist (19), and pro-Trump extremists (16). Such an influx should be concerning to policymakers and citizens alike. But in order to understand potential solutions, it helps to evaluate the driving actors and means of attack of these recent influxes. 

Figure 2: Frequency of Different Attack Types

The most frequency attack type utilized by terrorist groups are facility/infrastructure attacks. According to the Global Terrorism Database Codebook, where this data is derived from, facility/infrastructure attacks can be classified as acts that are primarily targeting non-human targets. These targets typically include buildings, pipelines, monuments, and critical infrastructure. With the frequency of facility and infrastructure attacks, citizens may, at first glance, be alarmed and question what is actually being done by policymakers. These kinds of attacks may have direct implications for the health and integrity of the economic system. In other words, attacks that are targeting specific institutions, like banks, may lend themselves to consequences that don’t just affect the structural integrity of infrastructure of properties, but also the systems in place that we operate in on a daily basis.

However, there is an insurance program designed specifically for these kinds of attacks: the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). The act defines any attack terrorist attack–though, this itself is vague because the United States does not have a universally defined definition of terrorism–where there is an intent to harm infrastructure, people, or property, and insures up to five million dollars worth of damage. Therefore, Americans should take in some relief as these attacks may not entirely affect the economic well-being of America. 

Tailing behind facility/infrastructure attacks are armed assaults, where the acts are specifically targeting humans with the goal of harm or death, like the Dayton or El Paso shootings. Currently, the United States does not have any sort of insurance program for these kinds of attacks. This may be concerning to the average American who may not have life insurance. The frequency of armed assaults presents an interesting segue into the discourse of gun control in America. If armed assaults are the second most frequent types of attacks in domestic terrorism cases, which also cause the most fatalities since the goal is to harm citizens, why is there not a push by all policymakers for the regulation of guns to help mitigate the threat by domestic terrorists? TRIA was pushed forward after 9/11, but infrastructure and facility attacks presented the least amount of fatalities. 

Indeed, domestic terrorism is broadly defined and does not carry any penalties–but that only applies when there haven’t been any deaths. Regardless of how many deaths occur, it is still troubling that armed assaults are the second most frequent method of domestic terrorists, which in and of itself should constitute some sort of gun control laws in an effort to prevent domestic terrorists.

Figure 3: Frequency of Attacks by City

Of every city in the United States, New York City is the most targeted by various terrorist groups. Being one of the diverse places in the country, it’s no surprise that this city is the most targeted. However, there may be a symbolic meaning for why terrorists target New York City. Current governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, cites the reason that New York is an international symbol for democracy. Indeed, the Twin Towers represented an America that was steadfast in innovation, progression, and capital. Targeting such a symbol of America would strike the hearts of many, and the legacy of such an attack has perhaps left an impression on the many terrorists that target New York City. 

Moreover, when considering the modes of attack that domestic terrorist utilize, this is especially troubling in a metropolitan city (i.e., New York City). Indeed, throughout history New York City has seen numerous cases of bombings (see: World Trade Center 1993 or 2016 bombing). But what groups are responsible for such attacks in New York City?

Figure 4: Perpetrator Groups in New York

Breaking down the various groups who have attacked New York, it seems most groups are unknown. Excluding the unknown perpetrators, anti-Muslim extremist groups are the most prolific, followed by Jihadi-inspired extremists. (And perhaps this underscores the symbolism that New York City has when it comes to attacks.) Most of the bombings are actually conducted by Jihadi-inspired extremists, whereas most other groups engage in facility/infrastructure attacks. This is an interesting juxtaposition, as it may suggest there is an association between the attacks perpetrated by each group. While the number of attacks by each group is too small to warrant any kind of statistical analysis, it is still an interesting point to take note of. It is also worth noting the only two Al-Qaida attacks occurred on 9/11 in New York City, meaning that there have not been any other attacks committed by them since. Following Jihadi and anti-Muslim extremists are anti-Semitic extremists and pro-Trump extremists (emerging only recently in the past two years). 

Moving Forward

With the overall trend in domestic terror attacks and their capabilities, Americans should be increasingly concerned. The question, though, is what exactly policymakers and law enforcement are going to do about the increasing threat. The continuous debate of whether or not to enforce domestic terrorism laws and denote them as crimes is still ongoing. If such a law did pass, would that actually deter the continued domestic terrorism cases? 

Domestically, the government has fewer options when it comes to preventing domestic terror attacks; this is simply rooted in the fact that domestic terrorism is so broadly defined and carries no punishment, which leaves great incentive for groups to attack. Furthermore, a majority of domestic terrorism cases are committed by unknown perpetrators, which leads to the question of how law enforcement agencies are going to discover these groups before they do attack.

One might easily pose the answer of consistent surveillance and monitoring, but such an answer infringes on the rights of the Constitution. For example, the First Amendment makes it much more challenging to actually enforce punishment because hate groups are allowed to express their opinions. And if such a group is forwarding hate speech, at what point does law enforcement classify the entire organization as a potential threat that could engage in violent behavior and thus warrant surveillance? 

The answers to preventing such attacks are difficult to answer, and the data illustrated in this article does not provide proficient means to make any such conclusions. 

Featured Image Source: Politico