There’s precedent for companies not only receiving information from law enforcement during domestic terrorism investigations, but also working directly with the FBI. German says this was particularly evident during the response to a wave of oil pipeline protests in the early 2010s.
Records published by the news site Grist and Type Investigations found that the FBI considered one pipeline operator a “domain stakeholder” in one protest case, which gave the company “direct access to the White House” and privileged information. The company was also invited to strategize with the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, National Guard, and local police. And there conversations about how to “ensure coordination and resource management” not only among law enforcement officials, but with the company.
A different pipeline constructor hired a firm to monitor and infiltrate protest groups and write intelligence reports, which were sometimes shared with federal law enforcement and local police, according to reporting by The Intercept. One of these pipeline operators briefed local police along its proposed pipeline route on how to possibly pursue criminal charges against organizers, Grist reported.
Even after the protests waned, oil and gas companies remained close to police and the government. One Canadian pipeline company paid local Minnesotan police departments more than $5 million in 2020 and 2021 for policing pipeline protests. Since 2017, fossil fuel lobbyists have pushed more than 20 states to pass laws making disrupting “critical infrastructure” like oil and gas pipelines a criminal offense, according to records obtained by The Guardian.
Though it’s unclear how the FBI’s current domestic terrorism investigations will play out, Musk and other Tesla executives could ultimately have similar access to and influence over them. When the cases go to court, Tesla could also be eligible for compensation from the government in the form of court-ordered restitution.
Such funds are often used to pay the families of terrorism victims, but German tells WIRED corporations are also eligible. In a successful criminal case, he says he sees no reason why Tesla wouldn’t get compensated. Tesla could also be eligible for money from state-level terrorism victim compensation programs, which receive some funding from the federal government.
Risks for Protesters
Domestic terrorism investigations are often fraught. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union have argued that the FBI routinely uses them to unfairly surveil activists and communities of color without adequate oversight.
President Trump has said his administration is taking Tesla incidents very seriously. “People that get caught sabotaging Teslas will stand a very good chance of going to jail for up to twenty years, and that includes the funders,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. “WE ARE LOOKING FOR YOU!!!”
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s national security project, says that instead of “focusing on the most serious criminal conduct that harms life,” federal agencies have wasted resources and abused their authority by “treating alleged non-violet civil disobedience or vandalism as justification for abusive investigations of civil rights and other activists.”
Historically, German says, the FBI has endorsed an idea called “radicalization theory,” which posits that the beliefs of extremists naturally escalate from moderate and widely held beliefs. That logic, he says, justifies the FBI casting a wide surveillance net, particularly when it comes to monitoring activists.
“They suggest that anybody who’s got a similar ideology might be willing to commit the same kind of crime,” German explains. “We’ve seen a lot of abuse of FBI investigative authorities, particularly around domestic advocacy groups.”
Five years ago, the FBI used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to surveil people participating in Black Lives Matter protests, investigating whether they had ties to terrorists. The DOJ Inspector General called the incident an example of the FBI’s “widespread non-compliance” with FISA rules.
German claims that in this case, instead of focusing on people who are alleged to have committed arson or acts of violence, the FBI’s focus could ultimately be scrutinizing people who it thinks are expressing “anger or animosity towards Tesla or Elon Musk.”
