The Oxford English Dictionary defines “terrorism” as “2. gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.”

As definitions go, it’s hard to argue with it. But it really doesn’t take us very far. In general, there is no single, widely accepted understanding of terrorism: no agreed-upon essence, set of unquestionable attributes, and so on. The Wikipedia entry has this to say: “There is no legal or scientific consensus on the definition of terrorism. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism, and governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed-upon legally-binding definition. Difficulties arise from the fact that the term has become politically and emotionally charged.”

Recognizing this situation, and concerned about the misuse of “terrorism” to justify any number of violent responses, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights recently convened a discussion aimed at developing and advancing a common understanding. In that discussion, Ilze Brands Kehris, Assistant Secretary-General, said: “How we define terrorism shapes how we prosecute it, how we prevent it, and how we protect the rights of individuals and communities affected by it. Instead of clearly and precisely defined acts of terrorism, in a number of jurisdictions broad and open-ended definitions result in their application to a wide range of acts. The consequence can be the criminalization of dissent, peaceful protest, and political expression and can hinder humanitarian action, all of which are protected under international law.”

Hmmm — ring any bells? 

Where there is a vacuum of meaning, and uncertainty, and ambiguity, the demagogue steps in. Trump, Stephen Miller, and Russel Vought are fond of justifying their international and domestic actions as “anti-terrorist.” Thus the attacks on boats in the Caribbean are part of a war on “narco-terrorism” — never mind that more drugs come into the US through the Pacific. The administration has designated several organizations, including the Venezuelan “Cartel de los Soles” (which Trump claims is headed by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro), as foreign terrorist organizations, a position that has faced strong criticism from U.S. lawmakers and international experts. This is exactly the sort of ungrounded expansion of the notion of “terrorism” that the UN is concerned about. 

Domestically, the White House has launched “counter-terrorist” measures against “Antifa” under the National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The Brennan Center and the ACLU have useful analyses and rebuttals of the claims in the memorandum. “Antifa” is not a coherent organization but a vague, dispersed movement. To designate it as an organization is meaningless. The Brennan Center has this to say:

The events listed, according to NSPM-7, are “not a series of isolated incidents” and have not “emerged organically.” Rather they are the culmination of “organized campaigns” of intimidation and violence designed to “silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society.”

As a basic factual matter, this claim is not credible. For one thing, the list is obviously cherry-picked to highlight what the administration believes to be “left-wing” violence and excludes other high-profile examples of political violence that do not comport with its storyline. These include the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol; a 2022 mass shooting at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store motivated by white supremacist beliefs; and the deadly 2025 shootings of two Democratic Minnesota state lawmakers and their spouses. Painting this fuller picture, however, would puncture the narrative that political violence is the result of a left-wing conspiracy. Nor is there any support for the claim that those involved in the incidents listed were acting in concert. 

But, suppose we turn things around.

The New York Times yesterday ran an important article, “Homeland Security Missions Falter Amid Focus on Deportations,” showing the devastating misdirection of resources away from, for instance, investigation of child exploitation and human trafficking toward raids on immigrants, including, as we see every day, documented immigrants, immigrants trying to do the right thing but getting “stung,” and American citizens who happen to have features that make them suspect under DHS’s racial profiling. “Today, the Trump administration has remade the agency into a veritable Department of Deportation.”

And we know the results: people afraid to leave their homes, afraid to go to work or to church, afraid to let their kids play outside, afraid of ICE showing up at schools and parking lots and playgrounds. People having to constitute a veritable underground resistance of social media and whistle alerts and neighborhood watches. 

Communities, in short, terrorized. Side effect — or intention?

Sounds like it fits a definition.

The situation is similar in the Caribbean, as articles in the Times and investigation by the AP show. Without even a show of justification, the US continues to launch attacks on small boats, disrupting the livelihoods of hosts of Venezuelans who, making their livelihoods from the sea, are terrified to leave shore. There is every reason to think that these attacks are war crimes. And Trump’s continual allusions to invasion of Venezuela — more intimidation, more de-stabilization.

So, where are the terrorists?