On 7 January, US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents opened fire on Renee Goode, killing her. To be honest, I wanted to write a post on just how sad and terrifying this murder was. How wrong it is that ICE agents are targeting opposition-led cities and using brutal tactics against people suspected of being in the US illegally and protesters, including clergy who take part in protests. How unjustified it was that an ICE agent fired three times at someone who did not present any threat to him (see this good breakdown by a former FBI agent). How predictable it was that this happened, considering the demonization of immigrants and protesters by this administration.

But you can find these opinions all over the internet, so we didn’t need more of them here. Instead, I wanted to talk about one specific aspect of this tragedy that overlaps with my expertise: the (I will argue failed) attempt by the Trump administration to brand Goode a domestic terrorist.

Domestic terrorism charges, and what some expected to happen

Almost immediately after the murder, the Trump administration claimed this was an act of domestic terrorism. They claimed Goode attempted to run down federal agents as part of a broader campaign against Trump’s vicious anti-immigrant policies.

Whether or not Trump officials really believed this, it’s obvious what they thought would happen. The term “terrorism” is emotionally charged. It conjures shadowy threats to America that require drastic steps to counter. If Goode was a domestic terrorist, it would be much harder for any but die-hard civil libertarians to argue ICE agents should have shown restraint.

No one seems to be buying the terrorism narrative

This expectation is in line with critical approaches to terrorism. In my Terrorism and Counterterrorism class we read an essay by Edward Said as part of the session on defining terrorism. He discusses the “deformation of mind and language” introduced by the term terrorism. He also condemned the “terrorism scam” that results in “little resistance to…massively inflated claims, undocumented allegations and ridiculous tautologies” involved in branding something terrorism.

That is, we are so primed to be afraid of terrorists and demonize anyone suspected of terrorism that rational thought is impossible when the media or government officials claim terrorism occurred. Of course, Said was discussing how Western audiences viewed Palestinian militants, but I can imagine him extending this to white Americans protesting the mistreatment of the Latino “other” by the Trump administration.

What actually happened

But that’s not what happened. When J.D. Vance was sent out to defend the murder, he didn’t rely as heavily on the domestic terrorism charge. Scanning comments sections of Facebook posts, few ICE defenders are claiming they were defending us from terrorism. Even if these are Russian bots, it suggests they don’t see value in pushing that narrative.

Instead, ICE defenders are focusing on the procedural aspects of the murder. Was Goode complying with lawful orders from law enforcement? Was the ICE agent hit by her car, and in fear for his life? When are law enforcement officers allowed to fire on people. The overall narrative I’ve seen emerge is that she was behaving recklessly and put herself in danger, so we shouldn’t expect anything else than for her to die at the hands of her government.

This, of course, is disturbing on its own. As noted above, this wasn’t a case of someone ramming their car into law enforcement, as we’ve seen with ISIS-related attacks. Even if the ICE agent felt threatened, it is against legal standards to fire on a moving vehicle, especially three times. So I’m not really reassured that people are misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) what happened to defend the murder.

But no one seems to be buying the terrorism narrative. Many have discussed Goode as a caring woman, not a violent extremist. Others have argued ICE are the ones really engaging in terrorism. And experts have poked holes in the weak claim that this was terrorism.

A sliver of optimism, and challenge to critical theorists

So what does this mean? I find it to be slightly optimistic.

If the meaning of this was fixed as terrorism it would be very difficult to have a rational conversation about what should have happened, and what should happen next. Anyone who was politically active during the beginning of the Bush Administration’s response to 9/11 and the run-up to the Iraq war can remember that. For a useful academic discussion on this point, see Krebs and Lobasz’s work.

The best way to challenge false terrorism claims is to have clear, objective definitions of terrorism, not refuse to use the term at all.

Instead, we are debating tangible, objective matters. We can see the video of the shooting from multiple angles. We can compare it to legal standards on the use of force. Many will always defend ICE and the Trump Administration. But it is easier to explain why this shooting was unjustified.

This also presents a challenge to critical terrorism studies. This school of thought sees “terrorism” as a discourse of the powerful, which they use to misinform the public and maintain control. But the debate about Goode’s murder shows there is a limit to claims of terrorism, and that there is an objective truth that government officials run up against. The best way to challenge false claims like the attempted demonization of Renee Goode is to have clear, objective definitions of terrorism, not refuse to use the term at all.