The Trump administration’s newest focus concerning domestic terrorist activity in the United States is attacks on Tesla vehicles. Terrorism concerns have been on the rise in the U.S., with recent attacks at public celebrations and security concerns, but the Trump administration has shown a specialized focus on vandalism and arson offenders.
On March 20, Attorney General Pamela Bondi announced charges for three individuals responsible for attacks on Tesla vehicles. Bondi expressed outrage at the situation in her statement, stating, “The days of committing crimes without consequence have ended. Let this be a warning: if you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put you behind bars.”
All three defendants used Molotov cocktails to set fire to Tesla dealerships in Colorado, Oregon, and South Carolina. Two were found with additional weaponry, and the third was found responsible for profane vandalism. Based on the Trump administration’s reactions to these acts, it appears that some of the expected legal proceedings may be influenced by personal closeness to Tesla.
Responses from the Trump administration
Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk has taken to social media to express his thoughts on the situation. He replied to and reposted upwards of 10 different posts to his X profile. Some of his reposted content pegged the three defendants as Democrats; however, their political registry was not released in the Department of Justice’s statement. Additionally, on March 20, Musk began to allege that the fires were started by people who identified as either transgender or nonbinary. This is likely related to a March 16 article from the New York Post that alleges the same. However, it is unclear if Musk’s accusations came as a result of this or his daughter’s Teen Vogue interview, also released March 20.
The 2023 Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic Terrorism report reflects a heightened concern for terrorist activity in the United States. The document states, “The threat posed by international and domestic threat actors has evolved significantly since 9/11. One of the most significant terrorism threats to the United States we face today is posed by lone actors and small groups of individuals who commit acts of violence motivated by a range of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances.”
The lines between terrorism, arson, and vandalism
To investigate this further and examine the differences in severity of terrorism, arson, and vandalism charges, here are the legal differences between the three and how they apply to Floridians based on the FBI’s description of each offense.
- Terrorism
-
The FBI breaks terrorism into two categories: domestic and international. In this case, offenders are being threatened with domestic charges, described as “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”
More specifically, 18 USC § 2331(5) cites that activities that fall under the domestic terrorism title “involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State.” These acts may also be done in the pursuit of coercing civilian populations, influencing policy, or affecting the conduct of a government through mass destruction — be it through acts such as large-scale assassinations or kidnappings.
Punishments for terrorism vary significantly by state. In Florida, terrorism is a felony of the first degree, punishable by up to 30 years in jail. Those found guilty are also required to pay a $10,000 fine and will be punished by life in prison without the possibility of parole in the event of severe or fatal casualties.
According to the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law, four states consider the death penalty when sentencing terrorists. Additionally, 14 states do not have a crime of terrorism, including California, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Colorado, the state of one of the defendant’s offenses.
Notably, while attacks against Tesla vehicles are considered an act of domestic terrorism, participants involved in the Jan. 6 direct attack on the U.S. Capitol largely avoided terrorism charges.
- arson
-
The FBI describes arson as “any willful or malicious burning or attempting to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, [or] personal property of another.”
Arson charges may differ slightly by state. In Florida, arson is a first-degree felony, punishable by up to 30 years in prison. If this results in injuries, prison time may be extended.
Unlike terrorism, arson may not have any relation to potential political or ideological influences. While arson and terrorism can coexist, like in the case of the Happy Land Night Club, the charges aren’t necessary conditions for each other. While some terrorist organizations may opt for arson, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime cites that guns and bombs are “favorites” and are used more often.
- vandalism
-
Vandalism’s range of punishment for those found guilty is based on monetary value. The FBI calls the offense “to willfully or maliciously destroy, injure, disfigure, or deface any public or private property, real or personal, without the consent of the owner or person having custody or control by cutting, tearing, breaking, marking, painting, drawing, covering with filth, or any other such means as may be specified by local law.” In this case, attempts to damage property are included within the scope of the charge.
Florida State Statute 806.13 addresses vandalism in tandem with arson. Called “criminal mischief,” vandalism can range from a misdemeanor to a felony, depending on the expense of the damaged property and the nature of the crime.
As part of his newly prioritized task of combating what his administration calls domestic terrorism, Trump has suggested that deportation should be a component of these punishments. In a Truth Social post, the President claimed that those responsible for these acts should face at least 20 years in prison for any actions used to “sabotage” Musk or Tesla. Additionally, he suggested that those involved may be suited for prisons in El Salvador, sarcastically citing that these facilities “have become so recently famous for such lovely conditions.”
The strangely personal nature of the White House discussion regarding these attacks makes it appear that the concern is more rooted in Tesla and Musk than the acts. The bulk of the Administration’s responses, especially those from Musk himself, circle back to Tesla’s “peaceful” nature, as Musk states.
Whether or not these acts are considered domestic terrorism is up for debate until the defendants are sentenced. While it is highly unlikely that the suspects who were only found responsible for vandalism will be charged with domestic terrorism, there is the small question of how far the government’s response will be taken. It is unclear if the respective defendants will have their cases managed similarly to Jan. 6 aggressors or if the justice system will choose to go further with more severe charges.