	Introduction

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), domestic terrorists— people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and movements —have not received as much attention from federal law enforcement as their violent jihadist counterparts. Possibly contributing to domestic terrorism's secondary status as a threat at the federal level, a large number of those labeled as domestic terrorists do not necessarily use traditional terrorist tactics such as bombings or airplane hijackings. These individuals can be motivated to commit crimes in the name of ideas such as animal rights, white supremacy, and abortion, for example. It separates domestic terrorists from U.S.-based terrorists motivated by the ideologies of foreign terrorist organization s . 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." While not naming specific groups , DOJ and the FBI have openly delineated domestic terrorist threats . The extensive use of such examples in this report does not imply the prominence of animal rights extremism or eco terrorism over other domestic terrorist threats. In this case, however, they do not rise to that level." Protected Activities vs. Terrorism—Divergent Perceptions of the ALF

The boundary between constitutionally protected legitimate protest and terrorist activity has received much attention in public discussions of domestic terrorism. 109-374)

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act ( P.L. 109-374 ; AETA) expanded the federal government's legal authority to combat animal rights extremists who engage in criminal activity. Signed into law in November 2006, it amended the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act ( P.L. 102-346 ; AEPA). First, domestic terrorists likely have been responsible for numerous incidents since 9/11. Third, domestic terrorists—much like their violent jihadist analogues—are often Internet savvy and use the medium as a resource for their operations. These are often bundled under the concept of "paper terrorism." The Internet and Domestic Terrorists

In the counterterrorism world, there has been much concern regarding violent jihadist use of the Internet and social media. A number of examples stand out. First, on an operational level, militant, underground, ideologically motivated cells or individuals (lone wolves) engage in movement-related illegal activity without any centralized direction or control from an organization that maintains traditional leadership positions and membership rosters. Second, on another level, the above-ground public face (the "political wing") of the movement propagandizes and disseminates ideology—engaging in protected speech. This can be seen as a form of leaderless resistance. They have weaknesses.
The emphasis of counterterrorism policy in the United States since Al Qaeda's attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) has been on jihadist terrorism. However, in the last decade, domestic terrorists—people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and movements—have killed American citizens and damaged property across the country. Not all of these criminals have been prosecuted under federal terrorism statutes, which does not imply that domestic terrorists are taken any less seriously than other terrorists.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) do not officially designate domestic terrorist organizations, but they have openly delineated domestic terrorist "threats." These include individuals who commit crimes in the name of ideologies supporting animal rights, environmental rights, anarchism, white supremacy, anti-government ideals, black separatism, and beliefs about abortion.
The boundary between constitutionally protected legitimate protest and domestic terrorist activity has received public attention. This boundary is highlighted by a number of criminal cases involving supporters of animal rights—one area in which specific legislation related to domestic terrorism has been crafted. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374) expands the federal government's legal authority to combat animal rights extremists who engage in criminal activity. Signed into law in November 2006, it amended the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-346).
This report is intended as a primer on the issue, and four discussion topics in it may help explain domestic terrorism's relevance for policymakers:
Level of Activity. Domestic terrorists have been responsible for orchestrating numerous incidents since 9/11. Use of Nontraditional Tactics. A large number of domestic terrorists do not necessarily use tactics such as suicide bombings or airplane hijackings. They have been known to engage in activities such as vandalism, trespassing, and tax fraud, for example. Exploitation of the Internet. Domestic terrorists—much like their jihadist analogues—are often Internet and social-media savvy and use such platforms to share ideas and as resources for their operations. Decentralized Nature of the Threat. Many domestic terrorists rely on the concept of leaderless resistance. This involves two levels of activity. On an operational level, militant, underground, ideologically motivated cells or individuals engage in illegal activity without any participation in or direction from an organization that maintains traditional leadership positions and membership rosters. On another level, the above-ground public face (the "political wing") of a domestic terrorist movement may focus on propaganda and the dissemination of ideology—engaging in protected speech.