In the aftermath of a fatal shooting involving an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer, the Trump administration has found itself facing growing scrutiny over its use of the term “domestic terrorism.” At the center of the debate is border czar Tom Homan, who addressed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s controversial claims during an appearance on NBC News’ Meet the Press.
Homan acknowledged that while he was not privy to all the information held by the Department of Homeland Security, the situation raised serious legal and definitional questions. According to him, The border czar says the actions of the person shot by ICE might fit the definition of domestic terrorism, depending on how the law is applied.
Homan Weighs in on Noem’s Allegations
Secretary Noem had previously described the actions of the woman killed in the incident, Renee Nicole Good, as an “act of domestic terrorism.” However, she did not publicly release evidence to support that assertion. When asked directly whether Noem’s characterization was accurate, Homan was cautious but firm in his language.
“I don’t know what Secretary Noem knows,” Homan said. “What I can say is that what happened was illegal, and if you look at the legal definition of terrorism, it could potentially fall under that category.”
Homan emphasized that his comments were based on legal standards rather than political rhetoric, repeatedly pointing back to how terrorism is defined under federal guidelines.
Conflicting Accounts and Questions Over Evidence
The administration’s version of events has been challenged by eyewitness accounts and video footage from the scene. Several senior officials, including President Donald Trump and Secretary Noem, claimed that Good attempted to run over an ICE officer. Trump described the incident as a deliberate and violent act.
However, witnesses interviewed after the shooting told NBC News that the officer did not appear to be directly in the vehicle’s path. Video footage circulating publicly shows that the officer was not knocked to the ground and was able to walk away without assistance, raising doubts about the severity of the threat described by officials.
When pressed again about whether the administration possessed concrete evidence to back up the domestic terrorism claim, Homan reiterated that he was not aware of all the details. “I don’t know what the secretary has that I don’t,” he said, declining to either fully endorse or reject Noem’s statement.
What Counts as Domestic Terrorism?
The FBI defines domestic terrorism as violent criminal acts carried out to advance ideological goals rooted in political, religious, social, racial, or environmental beliefs. This definition became central to the discussion, as Homan repeatedly referenced it during the interview.
According to Homan, the key questions are whether violence occurred or was threatened, and whether that violence was tied to an ideology aimed at influencing government actions. “That’s what you have to look at,” he explained, underscoring that each case must be evaluated on its own facts.
Political Reactions and Public Concerns
Vice President JD Vance also weighed in, stating that Good had tried to ram someone with her car and calling her death “a tragedy of her own making.” His comments, like those from other officials, were disputed by witnesses who said the situation unfolded differently than described.
The controversy has fueled broader concerns about how the administration labels protests and confrontations involving ICE. When asked whether protesting ICE could itself be considered domestic terrorism, Homan pushed back on that idea.
“I can’t say that,” he said. “It’s always case by case. You have to ask: was there violence, or a credible threat of violence, motivated by an ideology meant to change how the government operates?”
An Ongoing Debate
As investigations continue and more evidence is reviewed, the incident remains a flashpoint in the national conversation over law enforcement, immigration policy, and the expanding use of the term “domestic terrorism.” For now, Homan’s remarks highlight the administration’s attempt to frame the issue within legal definitions, even as critics question whether the label is being applied too broadly.