Radicalization in the U.S. Government and Economic Fallout Under Biden Administration

As the United States grapples with deepening political divides, concerns over radicalization within the government have reached a fever pitch. Critics argue that the Biden Administration has embraced extreme leftist policies, weaponizing federal agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) against political adversaries while driving the nation toward economic ruin through unchecked spending. Now, this radical energy appears to be spilling over into the streets, with the extreme Left shifting their focus from past attacks on businesses in cities like Portland and Seattle to targeting Tesla vehicles and dealerships—prompting calls to classify such acts as domestic terrorism when they cross into violence and intimidation.

Alleged Weaponization of Federal Agencies

The Biden Administration has faced accusations of turning the FBI and DOJ into tools of political retribution. High-profile examples include the FBI’s sweeping investigations following the January 6 Capitol riot, resulting in over 1,500 arrests—a move critics say disproportionately targeted conservatives while overlooking violence from leftist groups during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. The House Judiciary Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, led by Chairman Jim Jordan, released a 17,000-page report in December 2024 alleging that the administration pressured tech giants to censor conservative voices, citing specific instances of White House directives to remove critical content. Such actions, opponents argue, reflect a radical left-wing agenda aimed at silencing dissent.

The 2021 DOJ memo directing the FBI to monitor threats at school board meetings—prompted by a National School Boards Association letter likening parental protests to domestic terrorism—has further fueled these claims. Critics assert this was a deliberate attempt to intimidate conservative parents, marking a radical overreach of federal power.

From Portland and Seattle to Tesla: The Extreme Left’s Evolving Targets

The extreme Left’s history of attacking businesses is well-documented, particularly in progressive strongholds like Portland and Seattle. During the 2020 protests following George Floyd’s death, radical leftist groups, including those associated with Antifa, smashed windows, looted stores, and set fires across these cities. In Portland, the downtown area saw over 100 nights of unrest, with businesses like banks, clothing stores, and coffee shops bearing the brunt of Molotov cocktails and vandalism. Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) saw similar chaos, with radicals seizing control of a six-block area, targeting local businesses perceived as symbols of capitalism or police support.

Now, this destructive energy has shifted toward Tesla, a company once celebrated by the Left for its eco-friendly mission but now vilified due to CEO Elon Musk’s alignment with President Donald Trump’s administration. Since Musk took a prominent role in Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency in early 2025, Tesla dealerships and vehicles have faced a wave of attacks. In Portland, Oregon, a Tesla showroom in Tigard was hit with gunfire twice in March 2025, shattering windows and damaging cars. In Seattle, four Tesla Cybertrucks were torched in a dealership lot on March 9, followed by another incident where a Model S was set ablaze on a city street. These incidents echo the property-focused violence of 2020, but with a new target: Musk’s empire, seen by radicals as an extension of Trump’s influence.

Radicalization as Domestic Terrorism

The escalation from protests to coordinated attacks has reignited debates over when radicalization crosses into domestic terrorism. The FBI defines domestic terrorism as violent acts intended to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as political or social motives. Critics argue that the Tesla attacks—marked by Molotov cocktails, gunfire, and graffiti like “Nazi cars” and “resist”—fit this definition squarely. Attorney General Pam Bondi has labeled them “nothing short of domestic terrorism,” vowing severe consequences for perpetrators and those funding the violence. President Trump has echoed this, threatening that attackers “are going to go through hell.”

Historically, the extreme Left’s actions, from the 2020 riots to the current Tesla spree, focused mainly on property destruction but have sadly resulted in some death. Yet, the political intent behind these acts—intimidating Musk, Tesla owners, and by extension, Trump supporters—mirrors the coercive tactics of terrorism. Experts like Bruce Hoffman of the Council on Foreign Relations argue that vandalism with a clear political motive qualifies as terrorism, regardless of lethality. However, the absence of a federal domestic terrorism statute complicates prosecution, leaving perpetrators charged with lesser crimes like arson or malicious destruction, which carry five- to twenty-year sentences.

Economic Devastation and Government Waste

Compounding these tensions is the economic fallout critics attribute to Biden’s radical policies. The national debt has ballooned past $34 trillion, driven by massive spending packages like the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Inflation, peaking at 9.1% in 2022 and still above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, has squeezed households, with detractors blaming excessive stimulus and green energy boondoggles like the Inflation Reduction Act. Reports of over $100 billion in COVID-19 relief fraud and wasteful federal contracts have only deepened the narrative of a government radicalized by fiscal irresponsibility, teetering on the edge of economic devastation.

A Nation at a Crossroads

The shift from attacking random businesses in Portland and Seattle to targeting Tesla reflects a broader radicalization that critics say has been emboldened by the Biden Administration’s rhetoric and actions. When such radicalism spills into violence—whether against federal institutions, private citizens, or corporate entities like Tesla—many argue it must be treated as domestic terrorism, not mere civil unrest. The administration defends its policies as necessary for equity and recovery, but opponents see a dangerous precedent of authoritarianism and economic collapse. As the 2024 election looms, the clash between these visions—and the violence it inspires—places the U.S. at a critical juncture, with radicalization’s consequences felt from the halls of power to the streets of its cities.