USA - Types of Terrorism
Right-Wing Terrorism
Right-wing terrorist groups generally refer to those that adhere to a "backward-looking" ideology, one that advocates a return to a political or social system that is perceived to have existed previously in the U.S. Typically associated with extreme conservatism, examples include the KKK, white supremacy groups like the Aryan Nations or groups like the Sheriff's Posse Comitatus that oppose centralized federal power.
Right-wing extremist groups currently constitute the primary domestic threat to US security. These groups espouse the themes of conspiracy, such as a United Nations takeover of the U.S., the coming of a New World Order, or a movement by the government to take away citizens' weapons. Many extremists on the right articulate anti-government, anti-taxation, and while supremacy sentiments, and many adherents to these philosophies engage in paramilitary and survivalist training. The most ominous aspect of some extremists advancing these views is their belief that there is an impending conflict with the federal government that necessitates the stockpiling of weapons. Some militia members, for example, assert that the federal government is enacting gun control laws in order to make it impossible for the people to resist the imposition of a "tyrannical regime" or a "one-world dictatorship."
Some right-wing extremists have shown an interest in obtaining chemical, biological, or radiological weapons. For example, in 1995, four persons associated with a group known as the Patriot Council were convicted in Minnesota on charges of manufacturing ricin, a highly toxic biological substance made from castor beans. Their intended targets were a Deputy U.S. Marshal and a sheriff.
The right-wing extremist groups thrive on cultural xenophobia (fear of anything foreign or unfamiliar), which has varied in scope and intensity over the period studied. Currently, the Klan, the Aryan Nations, and groups sharing similar views are in decline and disarray, competing for an ever shrinking supply of those vulnerable to their appeals. Federal prosecution and State laws banning paramilitary activities and punishing racial and religious harassment have contributed to this decline. Law enforcement in this area, however, is inconsistent, and history suggests that right-wing extremist organizations pass through dormant periods and then have a resurgence when conditions are suitable for an audience receptive to their message.
Left-Wing Terrorism
Left-wing terrorist groups generally refer to those that adhere to a "forward-looking" ideology, one that advocates a political or social system that has not existed before in the U.S. Typically associated with extreme liberalism, examples include the May 19th Communist Party, the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army.
The threat posed by extremist groups on the left has greatly diminished in recent years. The end of the Cold War and subsequent fall of the Soviet Union have drastically reduced the political underpinnings of left-wing organizations, Puerto Rican terrorist groups, such as the Fuertas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional Puertorriquena (FALNP) and the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros (EPB-Macheteros), are an exception and represent an on-going threat. They have previously used violence in an attempt to achieve independence for Puerto Rico. In an eleven-year span, Puerto Rican terrorists were responsible for more than 100 bombings and arsons, in both Puerto Rico and on the US mainland.
Religious Terrorism
Religious terrorist groups – groups relying heavily on terrorism that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (i.e., those who seek to “politicize” religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults). This type of terrorism comes in five main varieties: 1) Islamist terrorism; 2) Jewish fundamentalist terrorism, primarily inside Israel; 3) Christian terrorism, which can be further subdivided into fundamentalist terrorism of an Orthodox (mainly in Russia), Catholic, or Protestant stamp (which, in the U.S., is especially aimed at stopping the provision of abortions) and terrorism inspired by the idiosyncratic Christian Identity doctrine; 4) Hindu fundamentalist/nationalist terrorism; and 5) terrorism carried out by apocalyptic religious cults.
Special Interest Terrorism
Special Interest terrorism differs from traditional left-wing and right-wing terrorism since specific interest resolutions are sought, rather than widespread political changes. Some of the special interests of these groups include animal rights, environmental issues, and Hawaiian independence. While the causes special interest groups represent can be understandable or even noteworthy in nature, they are separated from traditional law-abiding special interest groups by the conduct of criminal activity. These terrorist groups are attempting through their violent criminal actions to force various segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to them. Therefore, special interest groups will continue to present a threat that could surface at any time.
Stray Dog / Lone Offender
A fourth category of terrorist threat of concern to law enforcement is the lone offender. Such persons may hold views resembling those of left or right-wing extremists but they act on their own - and not as part of any group. Because they are not part of a group, they are not bounded by or controlled by group structure and may resort to violent acts that a group would deem too risky or otherwise reject. Further, it is much more difficult for law enforcement to track the activities of such persons, since they have linle or no contact with larger groups that are monitored. Lone offenders represent an unsettling and, to a significant degree, unknown threat to US security.
The structure of certain groups favors violent action. Some groups have adopted the principle of "Leaderless Resistance," which calls for a secretive, decentralized cellstructure. Not only does this structure make it difficult for law enforcement to investigate them, but it removes the restraining influence of a larger group, thereby increasing the potential of violence from small units of isolated, like-minded individuals.
Advances in communications technology have allowed these groups to cooperate with each other and spread their ideas. Extremists have become adept at the use of the Internet. The well-established support network among members of extremist groups allows for easier access to training information, intelligence and weaponry. This, in turn, may support increased levels of violence.
Following Executive Order 14157 signed on January 20, 2025, by President Donald Trump, the U.S. government designated eight drug cartels and transnational gangs as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). The designations took effect on February 20, 2025.
The designations were based on the determination that these organizations pose an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security and foreign policy. While cartels had previously been subject to other sanctions, the terrorist designations provide U.S. authorities with new tools and authorities to disrupt their operations and target their resources.
List of cartels and gangs designated as terrorists
The U.S. Department of State designated the following eight organizations:
Cártel de Sinaloa (Sinaloa Cartel): A powerful Mexican cartel involved in trafficking various illegal drugs, including fentanyl.
Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG): Another highly powerful and violent Mexican cartel that traffics large quantities of illicit drugs and is known for extreme violence.
Cártel del Noreste (CDN): A faction of the former Los Zetas, known for using violence to control territories and engaging in kidnapping and extortion.
La Nueva Familia Michoacana (LNFM): Considered the successor to the original La Familia Michoacana, this Mexican cartel was previously targeted by separate sanctions.
Cártel del Golfo (Gulf Cartel): A major Mexican cartel primarily based in Mexico's northeastern region, which was previously targeted by counternarcotics sanctions.
Cárteles Unidos (CU): A coalition of cartels and gangs in Mexico that the U.S. government now classifies as a terrorist entity.
Tren de Aragua (TdA): A transnational gang that originated in Venezuela and has expanded its presence throughout Latin America and into the U.S..
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13): A transnational criminal gang with roots in Los Angeles and a strong presence in Central America, which was previously designated as a transnational criminal organization.
The intent of designating these cartels and transnational organizations as terrorists is to protect the nation, the American people, and the hemisphere. That means stopping the campaigns of violence and terror by these groups both in the United States and internationally. These designations provide law enforcement additional tools to stop these groups. The designations trigger several consequences for the listed organizations and those who interact with them.
Financial sanctions: The assets of these organizations and their members that are under U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are prohibited from conducting transactions with them.
"Material support" penalties: It is a federal crime for any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to these designated FTOs, with severe penalties for violations.
Expanded law enforcement powers: The terrorist designation provides U.S. law enforcement with additional tools to pursue these groups. The executive order also raised questions about potentially authorizing the U.S. military to take action against the groups abroad.
Restrictions on foreign nationals: Non-U.S. citizens affiliated with a designated FTO can be denied entry into the United States and, in some cases, removed.
International pressure: The U.S. government is able to pressure other countries and financial institutions to increase scrutiny and avoid interactions with the designated entities.
The Trump administration has authorized the use of U.S. military force against Latin American drug cartels, citing their designation as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). This initiative has triggered legal disputes, drawn international criticism, and led to reported strikes on suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean.
In August 2025, it was reported that President Trump signed a secret directive authorizing the Pentagon to use military force against Latin American drug cartels. The directive provides a basis for operations at sea and potentially on foreign soil against these groups, which the U.S. has labeled "narco-terrorists". Following this directive, U.S. forces reportedly carried out at least three strikes on suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean Sea in September 2025. The U.S. has also deployed additional naval and air assets to the region to counter drug trafficking.
Mexico and Venezuela strongly condemned the U.S. actions, viewing them as a violation of their national sovereignty. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has stated that U.S. troops will not be allowed on Mexican territory. The United Nations and other international experts warned that the U.S. strikes may violate international law, including the right to life.
In the U.S., the strikes prompted a backlash from Democrats, who argue the actions were taken without proper congressional authorization. The use of military force against cartels raises complex legal issues, including the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the military's involvement in domestic law enforcement.
U.S. military action against cartels represents a significant shift from previous strategies, which largely focused on supporting law enforcement and intelligence gathering. The U.S. military has historically supported anti-drug operations, but primarily in a support role to law enforcement, and with the consent of partner nations. Experts and some officials have cautioned that an overly militarized approach could worsen the conflict, as previous efforts in Mexico show that decapitating cartels can lead to splintering and increased violence. Some have advocated for a more cooperative approach focused on intelligence sharing and capacity building with Mexican authorities.
Administration officials offered the legal justifications of self-defense and the designation of drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) for recent military action. However, legal experts and human rights organizations have strongly criticized the legality of these actions under international and domestic law.
The Trump administration asserts that drug cartels "pose an immediate threat to the United States" and that military force is justified under exigent circumstances to eliminate imminent threats. Legal scholars argue that this justification misapplies the international standard for self-defense. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, military force can be used in self-defense only in response to an "armed attack" or an imminent armed attack. Critics contend that a drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean, even if operated by a designated FTO, does not meet the legal threshold for an imminent threat.
The definition of an "imminent threat" under international law is highly restrictive and was established during the 19th-century Caroline affair. The landmark ruling permits anticipatory self-defense only in response to a threat that is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". This high standard is viewed by many legal scholars and human rights experts as difficult to justify for preemptive military actions, such as those authorized against drug cartels. Critics contend that the administration's reliance on the standard is a misapplication of international law.
Administration Officials have argued that designating cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) provides additional authority for the military to act against them. Legal experts counter that an FTO designation is primarily for imposing sanctions and does not inherently grant the Pentagon authority to conduct military operations against the group. For military action to be lawful under international law, it must still be justified under existing legal frameworks, such as self-defense in an armed conflict.
International human rights law protects the right to life. The strikes on suspected drug vessels are particularly contentious because the targets may include civilians, and the use of lethal force is only justified when there is an immediate and unavoidable threat of harm. Human Rights Watch and UN human rights experts have condemned the maritime strikes, calling them "unlawful extrajudicial killings". The UN special rapporteur has stated that "international law does not permit the unilateral use of force abroad to fight terrorism or drug trafficking".
The administration views cartels as presenting "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States". This declaration of a national emergency under IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) provides a basis for policy decisions aimed at the total elimination of cartel presence and threats to U.S. territory, safety, and security. The influx of "deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs" into the U.S. is seen as a significant national security risk. Combating drug cartels is considered an "integral part of a national security strategy" for addressing border security issues.
The Trump administration also insisted that the President has legal authority under their constitutional power as commander-in-chief. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and Congress has not authorized any armed conflict with drug cartels. Prior to this shift, anti-drug operations were handled as law enforcement matters, typically involving the U.S. Coast Guard under the command of a law enforcement officer.Lethal force was reserved for self-defense and was part of a due process. By circumventing this process with targeted killings, the administration has been accused of blurring the line between law enforcement and military conflict.
The use of military force without explicit congressional authorization is a major point of contention. This has prompted a backlash from Democratic members of Congress who argue the actions were taken without proper congressional approval. A draft bill has circulated in Congress to provide an AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) for action against cartels, suggesting the administration itself may recognize the legal weakness of its current stance.
The statement "half of shooters are trans" is false and part of a persistent misinformation campaign. All available data shows that transgender individuals account for a minuscule fraction of mass shooters, and they are statistically far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Donald Trump Jr. did not claim that half of all shooters are transgender.
A 17-year-old student at Perry High School in Iowa fatally shot a sixth grader on 05 January 2024, Donald Trump Jr. reposted a tweet from Libs of TikTok that stated that “the modern LGBTQ+ movement is radicalizing our youth into becoming violent extremists.” Trump baselessly wrote “Per capita is there a more violent group of people anywhere in the world than radicalized trans activists??? Given the tiny fraction of the population that they make up it doesn’t seem like anyone else even comes close.”
After a mass shooting in Minneapolis in August 2025, and following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump Jr. said that "it feels like [trans people] have done practically every mass shooting in America for the last few years". In July 2025, in response to a double murder in Minnesota, he falsely claimed that "the radical transgender movement is per capita the most violent domestic terror threat... probably the entire world".
Anti-transgender social media accounts, like "Libs of TikTok," have played a role in spreading misinformation after multiple shootings. Right-wing disinformation accounts — such as Chaya Raichik’s “Libs of TikTok” — have spread false accusations against trans people on at least a dozen occasions from 2022 to 2024.
With approximately 1% of the U.S. adult population identifying as transgender, data shows that transgender individuals are underrepresented, not overrepresented, among mass shooting perpetrators. More likely to be victims. Experts consistently state that transgender people are more likely to be victims of violence, including gun violence, than they are to be perpetrators. Research from Everytown for Gun Safety shows that a gun is used in the majority of homicides against transgender people
Key statistics from major research organizations show the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are committed by cisgender males (men whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth). The Violence Project research center, which tracks mass shootings back to 1966, finds that 97.5% of mass shooters are cisgender men. The Gun Violence Archive (GVA), using a broader definition of mass shootings (four or more people shot), found that fewer than 0.1% of mass shootings between 2013 and 2025 were carried out by transgender or nonbinary people. Out of 4,684 such mass shootings documented by the Gun Violence Archive since 2014, at most six involved trans people. National Institute of Justice, in a study covering 172 public mass shootings over a half-century, found 97.7% of the perpetrators were male.
From 2017 to 2023, there were 263 homicides of transgender or gender-expansive people in the US. In 2023 alone, at least 35 trans or gender-expansive people were killed. Of those killed, a large share were Black trans women. Between 2017-2022, more than 70% of homicides of trans people involved a firearm. Nearly two-thirds of trans gun homicide victims during that period were Black trans women.
16 June 2025
Vance Boelter was accused of killing Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman, a former Speaker of the House, her husband, Mark, and their dog, in their home in the suburb of Brooklyn Park.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
