Department of Homeland Security uses “domestic terrorist” to control public perceptions
By Ashly Lopez, February 3, 2026
In the aftermath killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, the Department of Homeland Security didn’t wait for investigations to finish before shaping their story. It reached for its most powerful weapon in their corner. Not a gun, but a phrase: “domestic terrorist.”
When the government uses this term before all the facts are known, it doesn’t just describe what happened, it dictates what people are supposed to believe. Since 9/11, Americans have felt the weight of the word “terrorist.” The label is not neutral. It carries judgment. It turns civilians into enemies and shifts attention away from questioningwhat happened. Once that label is applied, evidence becomes secondary, and accountability disappears quietly.
On Saturday, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem agreed with the White House’s statement that Alex Pretti, a Minneapolis man shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol officer on January 24, 2026, had “committed an act of domestic terrorism.”
Earlier, after the January 7, 2026 shooting of Renee Good, Noem made a similar claim. She said Good had “weaponized her vehicle” to carry out an act of violence against law enforcement and the public, again calling it domestic terrorism.
In both cases, witnesses and video evidence tell a different story. Videos from multiple angles show actions that don’t match the government’s claims of a dangerous attacker. It’s left many with serious questions about how federal officials came to their conclusions so quickly, especially when the public can see evidence that contradicts their claims.
When officials quickly assign motives that don’t match video evidence, they’re not just explaining what happened, they’re trying to dictate the story for the public. By pushing one official version, they ask people to ignore what they can clearly see and trust authority instead. That is dangerous in a democracy.
Democracy depends on accountability. When the government asks people to believe statements without proof, and stories replace real investigations, the public loses its power to hold leaders responsible. This issue isn’t just about one shooting. It’s about the idea that truth must be proven, not just announced.
This debate is about more than just words. Language has power, especially when wielded by institutions that can surveil, detain or kill. Calling someone a domestic terrorist doesn’t just describe them, it justifies violence against them. It trains the public to see state force as necessary rather than questionable.
A retired Customs Border Patrol agent, who asked to remain anonymous, said he feels his colleagues today are doing work very different from what his job entailed for nearly 20 years.
“In my 20 plus years on the job at LAX our whole motto was to protect America and its citizens,” said the former agent. “We have intercepted deadly drugs coming into the country, dangerous criminals, people who are trying to enter illegally with false records, human trafficking to illegal animals being imported. It’s disheartening to see agents being used for witch hunts…something about vilifying innocent hardworking people and deporting kids just doesn’t sit right with me.”
None of this ignores the real risks law enforcement officers face, or the seriousness of violence against them. Let me be clear, if justified, police and federal agents should also be protected in defending themselves while on the job.
That very same concern was raised when California federal prosecutor Bill Essayli said via his X account, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”
The CA federal prosecutors statement drew criticism from the National Rifle Association. In a post on X, the NRA called Essayli’s remarks “dangerous and wrong.” The post continued stating, “Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”
Minnesota officials confirmed Pretti had a license to carry. Video circulating online does not appear to show him brandishing his gun at agents. Instead, what you can see before being murdered is Pretti holding up his cell phone as he recorded his interactions with agents.
The right to legally own guns, peacefully protest, free speech, receive due process, and hold our government accountable are on full display in America. The question remains,do these rights apply to everyone or only to those in support of the Trump administration. Kyle Rittenshouse seems to get a pass and so do January 6th rioters, who received pardons by the President. A striking contrast in stance compared to that of Alex Pretti.
When the NRA pushes back against how the government describes a lawful Second Amendment supporter like Alex Pretti, it shows how serious this issue has become. Is thiswhere the great divide begins? Have we reached a catalyst turning point in our society?
For when the government labels people as “domestic terrorists” before fully examining the evidence, they are not offering clarity, they are demanding acceptance, leading many to believe that they’re not protecting the public, but rather the government is protecting itself. The label shuts down questions, dismisses grief and sends a warning that disagreement itself can be treated as a threat.
If this kind of behavior isn’t questioned, it may become more common. Over time, the difference between a citizen and an enemy could depend only on who’s in power.
“Things are escalating between civilians and agents. I’m afraid of what’s to come if things don’t change,” said the retired patrol agent.
If accountability is going to mean anything, the public can’t accept government statements as the final truth, especially when those statements come from people who have something to protect. In this era of government when the state names its dead enemies, the truth is often buried with them.
Feature graphic courtesy of Connor Lalea Hampton
