The media continue to bend back to avoid the open political character of the murders of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and Unitedhealthcare CEO Brian Thompson – while President Donald Trump has taken the step to “designate” Antifa as a terrorist organization.
So, with political violence – unmistakably from the left – will we finally see federal terrorism against domestic actors who commit politics of the home front? Will the will of Tyler Robinson and Luigi Mangione now be confronted with federal terrorist charges?
Unfortunately, as the law is currently built, we will not do that.
View: legislators struggle with how they can approach a hateful political rhetoric in the aftermath of Kirk Assassination
That should change. Not by simply designating domestic groups as terrorists; That will actually not change when it comes to charging ‘domestic terrorism’.
Charlie Kirk throws hats to the crowd after arrival at Utah Valley University on 10 September 2025 in Orem, Utah. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty images)
No, there is a simpler, less politically charged resources available. And the blueprint has already been proven.
Some background: the way in which the federal law is now structured can only be referred to as ‘terrorists’. The fear among laws is – and remains – that the ability to designate a domestic group as “terrorists” can be used as a bat through both sides of the political aisle.
Experts warn the left -wing celebrations of the death of Charlie Kirk Signal a dangerous regular shift in politics
As a result, federal prosecutors twist themselves in pretzels to accuse violent acts by politically inspired actors at the home front. Mangione’s federal persecution of murder, for example, is based on the basis of a weak stalking statute; At the moment, every federal case against Robinson would probably look like it.
But is the process of “designation”-the prior labeling of a group-actual necessary? Would it not be preferable to leave the judicial process, the decision or violence is eligible for ideological purposes as “terrorism”?
The model for doing this already exists in the federal hate crime regime. Simply put, there are violent actions that are eligible as “crimes of hatred” if they are inspired by Animus against certain groups based on race, religion, etc.
Whether you agree with hate crimes or not, they have survived the legal control. So why not apply the same model to terrorism?
Trump could direct Antifa with ‘powerful’ Rico act, says the expert in the field of terrorism fighting
Here is how it would go. Firstly, there would be a list of various serious crimes that are eligible. This would be violent actions at crime level or the support or financing of such actions.
Then, when charging that crime, the public prosecutor should claim and then prove, the intention of the perpetrator to influence government policy or to force the civilian population (the federal definition of what “terrorism” is).
Luigi Mangione, suspect in the murder of the Brian Thompson of Unitedhealthcare CEO in New York City, arrives on a heliport with members of the NYPD on December 19, 2024 in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty images)
And that’s it.
Let us use as an example in the light of Robinson and Mangione. If the public prosecutor can prove that a murder was committed with this required terrorist intention, the crime would then be sued as “murder as a crime of terrorism.”
Trump defends the labeling of Antifa A ‘Terrorist organization’ while focusing on left -wing extremism
Usually the public prosecutor would accuse both regular “murder” and, also the “murder and a crime of terrorism”. If the judge decides that there is insufficient evidence for the “terrorism” indictment, he can eliminate it at the start of the test process.
If the indictment survives the judge, the public prosecutor must prove the entire shebang to a jury – not only the murder attack, but also the terrorist intention behind the murder.
This is in fact how the terrorism laws of New York are structured – and it works. In fact, a constitutional judge has just eliminated the terrorist piece in the Mangione case, but survives the regular indictment for murder.
So why would you worry? In many cases of political violence in many cases of political violence in many federal charges, we can at least go a new regime, do we really need a new regime that calls “t” word?
After the murder of KIRK, legislators respond to the deadly political climate: ‘Violent words precede violent actions’
We do it. As a society, we acknowledge that ideological murder is a crime against more than just the individual victim. It also influences society that is large and cuts the heart of our shared social contract.
Click here for more the opinion of Fox News
As such, these crimes must be eligible for improved conviction parameters, while at the same time removing politically from the mix by having a judge and jury control the trial.
As a result, federal prosecutors twist themselves in pretzels to accuse violent acts by politically inspired actors at the home front.
Is there still potential for politicization here? Certainly. But there is always in the criminal justice system. Doing differently is foolish.
But what is also foolish is witnessing events such as the murders of Charlie Kirk and Brian Thompson – and pretending they were not dedicated for political purposes.
Click here to get the Fox News app
It is beyond time to stop lying against ourselves. We have a domestic terrorism problem – and yes, despite the endless invocations of the Biden administration of ‘white supremation’, today it comes almost exclusively from elements of a disadvantaged, furious left.
It is time to charge it that way.
Click here for more from Paul Mauro
