FAFO Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McGuire, John J. [R-VA-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill significantly expands the legal definition of domestic terrorism to encompass acts causing substantial property damage, potentially increasing federal prosecution powers for certain forms of protest or civil unrest.
What it actually does
This bill expands the definition of "domestic terrorism" under Title 18, United States Code, to include acts that are likely to cause "significant damage to property" in addition to those dangerous to human life. These acts must also be violations of criminal law and obstruct law enforcement, first responders, or individuals seeking medical attention. This change broadens the scope of activities that can be prosecuted as domestic terrorism.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that current law inadequately addresses acts of violence and destruction that target property, especially when such acts are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government. They contend that significant property damage can be just as disruptive and terrorizing as direct threats to human life, particularly when it impedes essential services or public safety functions. This bill would provide law enforcement with necessary tools to deter and prosecute individuals who engage in such destructive acts, ensuring accountability and protecting critical infrastructure and public order.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that expanding the definition of domestic terrorism to include property damage could lead to overreach and the criminalization of legitimate protest or civil disobedience. They may express concerns that such a broad definition could be used to suppress dissent, disproportionately target certain groups, and lead to harsher penalties for actions that might otherwise be prosecuted under existing vandalism or destruction of property statutes. Critics could also argue that existing laws are sufficient to address property damage and that labeling such acts as "terrorism" could have chilling effects on free speech and assembly.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, allowing for a quick read and easy comprehension of its direct impact.
Section 2
Expansion of Domestic Terrorism Definition to Include Significant Property Damage
This provision amends Section 2331(5)(A) of Title 18, U.S. Code, which defines "domestic terrorism." Previously, acts had to be "dangerous to human life" to qualify. This bill adds "or are likely to cause significant damage to property" as an alternative criterion. The acts must still be criminal violations and obstruct law enforcement, first responders, or persons seeking medical attention.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for addressing modern forms of domestic extremism and civil unrest where property destruction is used as a tactic to sow fear and disrupt society. They contend that significant property damage, especially to critical infrastructure or public services, can have widespread societal impacts akin to threats to human life, and therefore warrants the designation and penalties associated with domestic terrorism.
Critics contend
Opponents would argue that this expansion risks conflating property crimes with actual terrorism, potentially leading to the over-criminalization of protest and dissent. They might highlight concerns that the term "significant damage to property" is vague and could be applied arbitrarily, leading to disproportionate punishment and a chilling effect on First Amendment rights.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire to deter and punish destructive acts against concerns about potential overreach in classifying criminal behavior as terrorism and its implications for civil liberties and freedom of expression.