I agree with everything you say, but I would say we're well beyond "headed for" at this point...

In Sweden we do define terrorism and terrorist organizations by the laws, and what the government designates as one is irrelevant. Meanwhile, most countries just declare "X is a terrorist organization", with this being done by politicians and where the organization often has no practical legal recourse.

I think the US takes the second approach for the most part? You can't argue "X isn't a terrorist organization, it does violence, but it's an international armed conflict" or anything of the sort-- if the government thinks you support something they don't like they can get you by banning the group you're part of.

> The definition in 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) is broad: acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal law, with apparent intent to intimidate civilians or influence government policy, occurring primarily within the United States. It sounds precise. In practice, applied to protest activity, it creates enormous discretion.

The drift starts with how an incident is viewed and interpreted, even if no laws are broken, simply due to how an investigation is carried out.

> Consider how the label functions operationally. Once conduct gets coded as “domestic terrorism,” cases flow through joint terrorism task forces rather than ordinary criminal investigations. Prosecutors reach for terrorism sentencing enhancements. Banks and tech platforms treat individuals and organizations as if they’ve been officially designated, even when no such legal designation exists. The government’s internal machinery shifts and with it, the tools investigators use and the questions they ask.

This is magnified when there is a crime.

Suppose I block an ICE vehicle. That's illegal. I know full well I'll do the time.

But what's the crime? I might expect a public-order misdemeanor. I'm ready for that time.

What if ICE agents say they feared for their life and were intimidated by my clear attempt to influence government policy? Is my act now criminal intimidation, where I will be prosecuted as a terrorist? Even if found innocent, prosecutions like this historically "diverted investigative resources away from genuine threats while traumatizing thousands of people whose only offense was their politics."

That lack of precision about what 'terrorism' means - a problem pointed out when the law was made! - combined with institutional pressure "to treat the current threat as uniquely dangerous and the old protections as luxuries we can no longer afford" causes that line to drift.

All quotes and the scenario come from the linked-to piece.