Since late January 2025, a series of attacks have targeted Tesla facilities and vehicles across the United States, prompting federal investigations into possible domestic terrorism.
In Loveland, Colorado, a Tesla dealership was targeted in a series of five attacks with graffiti and Molotov cocktails throughout January, February, and March. Two suspects have been arrested for the attacks. On January 20 and February 19, an individual attacked a Tesla dealership in Salem, Oregon, with Molotov cocktails and gunfire. On March 3, seven Tesla charging stations were set on fire at a shopping center outside Boston. On March 6 and 13, a Tesla dealership in Tigard, Oregon, was targeted with gunfire, causing damage to vehicles and the building. On March 7 in North Charleston, South Carolina, a suspect threw Molotov cocktails at a Tesla charging station, accidentally setting himself on fire before being arrested. On March 9, four Cybertrucks were burned in a parking lot in Seattle, Washington. On March 18, two separate incidents occurred. In Las Vegas, a Tesla service center was damaged with gunfire and set ablaze with Molotov cocktails and in Kansas City, Missouri, two Tesla Cybertrucks burned at a Tesla dealership.
Law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), are investigating these incidents, increasing security around Tesla facilities, and working to determine whether these attacks are coordinated. Attorney General Pam Bondi condemned the attacks as domestic terrorism and vowed to prosecute those responsible. The Department of Justice has announced charges against multiple suspects. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have both criticized the attacks as domestic terrorism and suggested that larger forces are at work coordinating and funding the attacks.
Q1: What are the challenges of defining domestic terrorism?
A1: The recent attacks on Tesla have brought renewed attention to a long-standing debate among policymakers, scholars, and law enforcement over what qualifies as terrorism. Some argue for a broader definition of terrorism, contending that any ideologically motivated violence should be classified as terrorism if it seeks to further political, social, religious, or other ideological goals. The FBI reflects this perspective, defining domestic terrorism 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.” By this definition, several of the Tesla attacks could be considered domestic terrorism.
Others have argued that terrorism should be defined more narrowly to exclude attacks that do not direct violence toward individuals. Under this view, incidents where perpetrators do not target people—such as some acts of economic sabotage or property destruction—may not meet the threshold for terrorism. The recent attacks on Tesla facilities and vehicles in the United States appear to have been carried out in a manner that deliberately minimized the likelihood of human casualties. For instance, all of the violent incidents at dealerships have occurred outside of business hours when facilities were almost always unoccupied by workers and shoppers. None of the attacks have targeted occupied vehicles and most have used incendiary devices, which are far less efficient at causing casualties compared to firearms. These patterns suggest that while the attackers intended to damage property and convey their opposition to Tesla and Elon Musk, they took measures to avoid causing physical harm to people.
Unlike international terrorism charges, there is no stand-alone federal charge for “domestic terrorism” in the United States. Instead, prosecutors rely on existing criminal statutes such as arson, destruction of property, and weapons charges to prosecute those responsible. In some cases, authorities may apply terrorism sentencing enhancements if they can demonstrate that the crimes were intended to intimidate a civilian population or influence government policy. Evidence of ideological motives—such as a manifesto, group affiliation, or explicit political statements—would bolster prosecutors’ ability to pursue enhancements in the Tesla cases. Arson and vandalism cases without casualties have not consistently received such enhancements in the past. However, given that President Trump and Attorney General Bondi have framed these attacks as domestic terrorism, there may be political pressure to pursue such enhancements.
Q2: Who is committing the Tesla attacks and why?
A2: Recent attacks on Tesla in the United States have been linked to individuals expressing opposition to CEO Elon Musk’s political affiliations, particularly his role and actions in the Trump administration. During one of her arson attacks against a Tesla dealership in Loveland, Colorado, Lucy Grace Nelson spray-painted “Nazi” and “Fuck Musk” on the property. In North Charleston, South Carolina, Daniel Clarke-Pounder spray-painted the phrases “Fuck Trump” and “Long Live Ukraine” before he attempted to burn down a Tesla charging station using Molotov cocktails. In the Las Vegas attack, the unknown suspect spray-painted “Resist” on the facility’s doors before shooting multiple cars and setting them ablaze.
Although in most cases suspects have not been publicly identified and their motivations remain uncertain, plausible explanations include political opposition to Elon Musk’s actions as part of the Trump administration and broader dissatisfaction with the Trump administration’s actions and policies. Although authorities are still investigating whether these attacks are connected, they collectively indicate a growing trend of politically motivated violence.
Q3: What is the left-wing terrorist threat in the United States?
A3: In recent years, a series of violent incidents linked to left-wing extremist ideologies have underscored the persistent but often overlooked threat of left-wing terrorism in the United States. According to CSIS data, left-wing domestic terrorism in recent years has been driven by a range of ideological motivations, including pro-choice extremism, anti-government extremism, and partisan extremism, with perpetrators often framing their actions as resistance to perceived institutional oppression or state violence. Left-wing terrorists have targeted government institutions, businesses, demonstrators, law enforcement, and transportation infrastructure using weapons like explosives and incendiaries, firearms, and vehicles.
Left-wing domestic terrorism in the United States has historically been characterized by relatively low lethality, with most incidents involving property destruction, arson, and sabotage rather than mass-casualty attacks. The recent attacks on Tesla most closely resemble past left-wing movements that used property destruction as a form of protest, such as environmental extremism in the 1990s and early 2000s and violent incidents during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.
Q4: What are the greatest terrorist threats in the United States?
A4: The greatest terrorist threat to the United States today comes from domestic extremists rather than foreign Salafi-jihadist organizations. While Salafi-jihadist ideology continues to inspire occasional mass-casualty attacks, such as the 2025 New Year’s Day attack in New Orleans, overall trends show a decline in jihadist plots in the United States since the Islamic State’s territorial defeat in 2019. In contrast, according to CSIS data, white supremacist terrorism has become the deadliest and most active terrorist ideology in the United States in recent years, driven by racial and social grievances. Though white supremacist terrorists typically have limited operational capabilities, their grievances reflect mainstream cultural and political debates, which amplifies their impact by fueling societal polarization and political tensions.
Partisan extremism represents the fastest growing domestic terrorist threat, with attacks targeting elected officials, political candidates, political party officials, and political workers from terrorists with opposing political views. According to CSIS data, the number of domestic terrorist attacks and plots against government targets motivated by partisan extremism in the past 5 years is nearly triple the number of such incidents in the previous 25 years combined. These extremists do not neatly align with mainstream political parties and often hold contradictory ideological beliefs. Like most U.S. terrorism, partisan attacks tend to be unsophisticated, carried out by individuals or small groups using readily available weapons. However, their focus on political leaders and government institutions means they pose a disproportionate threat to political stability.
Overall, the United States has strong counterterrorism measures that effectively limit the threat of terrorism, including advanced intelligence capabilities, well-funded law enforcement agencies, and comprehensive counterterrorism laws. These efforts have successfully constrained both foreign terrorist organizations and domestic extremists, though not eliminated them entirely. Additionally, the United States benefits from structural factors that reduce the spread of terrorism, such as stable political institutions, low ethno-religious divisions, geographic distance from active conflict zones, border security measures, and widespread economic opportunity. Although terrorism remains a concern in the United States, its overall prevalence and impact is significantly mitigated by these factors.
Riley McCabe is an associate fellow for the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
