There is a history of companies not only obtaining information from law enforcement during domestic terrorism investigations but also collaborating directly with the FBI. German points out that this was particularly notable during the response to a series of oil pipeline protests in the early 2010s.
Documents released by the news outlet Grist and Type Investigations revealed that the FBI identified one pipeline operator as a “domain stakeholder” in a particular protest case, which granted the company “direct access to the White House” and privileged information. The pipeline operator was also invited to collaborate with the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, National Guard, and local law enforcement. Discussions took place regarding the need to “ensure coordination and resource management” not just among law enforcement, but also with the company itself.
In a separate instance, another pipeline builder employed a firm to keep an eye on and infiltrate protest groups while generating intelligence reports, which were occasionally shared with federal and local law enforcement, according to reporting from The Intercept. One of these pipeline operators provided local police along its proposed route insights on how to potentially pursue criminal charges against organizers, as per Grist’s reporting.
Even after the protests diminished, oil and gas companies maintained close ties with law enforcement and governmental bodies. Notably, a Canadian pipeline company paid local police departments in Minnesota over $5 million in 2020 and 2021 to manage policing for pipeline protests. Since 2017, fossil fuel lobbyists have worked to have more than 20 states enact laws that classify disrupting “critical infrastructure,” such as oil and gas pipelines, as a criminal offense, based on records acquired by The Guardian.
While the outcomes of the FBI’s ongoing domestic terrorism investigations remain uncertain, Musk and other Tesla executives might eventually gain similar access to and sway over them. If these cases proceed to court, Tesla could potentially seek restitution from the government in the form of court-ordered compensation.
These funds are typically allocated to the families of terrorism victims; however, German informs WIRED that corporations are also eligible for compensation. He asserts that in a successful criminal case, there’s no reason Tesla wouldn’t receive recompense. Furthermore, Tesla may qualify for funding from state-level terrorism victim compensation programs, which receive some backing from federal funding.
Risks for Protesters
Domestic terrorism investigations can be fraught with complications. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have contended that the FBI frequently employs these investigations to unfairly surveil activists and communities of color without sufficient oversight.
Former President Trump has stated that his administration is taking Tesla-related incidents very seriously. He remarked in a social media post on Thursday, “Individuals caught sabotaging Teslas face a strong likelihood of imprisonment for up to twenty years, and that includes their financiers. WE ARE ON THE HUNT FOR YOU!!!”
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s national security project, asserts that instead of “focusing on the most serious criminal acts that pose a threat to life,” federal agencies have squandered resources and abused their power by “using alleged non-violent civil disobedience or vandalism as a pretext for overly aggressive investigations of civil rights and activist groups.”
Historically, German explains, the FBI has championed a notion referred to as “radicalization theory,” which suggests that the beliefs of extremists gradually progress from moderate, commonly held views. He contends this rationale justifies the FBI’s broad surveillance measures, particularly in monitoring activists.
“They propose that anyone harboring a similar ideology might engage in similar criminal behavior,” German elucidates. “There have been numerous instances of the FBI misusing its investigative powers, particularly concerning domestic advocacy groups.”
Five years ago, the FBI utilized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor individuals participating in Black Lives Matter demonstrations, probing whether they were linked to terrorist organizations. The DOJ inspector general later labeled this incident as an example of the FBI’s “extensive non-compliance” with FISA regulations.
According to German, in this context, rather than concentrating on individuals allegedly involved in arson or violent acts, the FBI’s scrutiny may focus on those expressing “anger or animosity towards Tesla or Elon Musk.”
