This past year the Institute for Future Conflict partnered with the Front Range Consortium (FRC) to publish articles from their National Security Scholars Program (NSSP). This program was open to students at Colorado College, Colorado State University, CU Boulder, Denver University, the United States Air Force Academy, and University of Colorado-Colorado Springs.
We will be publishing several articles over the course of the month showcasing the results of the NSSP's research.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) reports far fewer terrorism-related deaths than the United States on an annual basis. This gap is the result of different definitions of terrorism, legal infrastructure, and methods. The CCP’s defines terrorism according to the “Three Evils” (or “three streams of forces”): terrorism, separatism, and extremism. According to their data, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) claims to more effectively prevents terrorist attacks than the United States. This essay is an investigation into this claim.
A Caveat on Chinese Counterterrorism Data
Any comparison of American and Chinese counterterrorism must contend with a basic asymmetry in data quality. China is restrictive with public release of information regarding terrorist attacks, exerting censorship over the media and independent researchers. The United States, by contrast, operates within a relatively open information ecosystem; terrorist attacks are almost always made public through independent reporting and court prosecution. Consequently, the numbers presented for Chinese counterterrorism likely represent a floor, not a ceiling for the true number of attacks. Because of this ambiguity, experts should be cautious with any claim of PRC effectiveness.
Regardless of the PRC overclaim, we should still be looking at available data. The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) at the University of Maryland offers a comprehensive list of every reported terrorist attack between 1970 and 2021. According to the GTD, the United States has experienced 3,150 terrorist attacks since 1970. In contrast, China has reported only 296 attacks over the past 51 years. Another source is the Armed Conflict Location and Event Database (ACLED), which catalogues a global index of conflict each year, combining factors like terrorist-related fatalities, terrorist groups, and citizens’ exposure rate to terrorism. In 2025, the United States received an index ranking of 51, meaning only 50 countries experienced more political violence than the United States. Atop the list were Palestine, Myanmar, and Syria while China ranked at 76. However, because of the lack of transparency and independent verification, it would be unwise to take these numbers at face value.
The PRC's Counterterrorist Methods
While the statistics might be suspect, we can gain greater clarity on the cost of PRC counterterrorism methods by looking at their operational methods. Chinese domestic counterterrorist methods are much more aggressive than the United States, as evidenced by CCP legislative documents. In many instances people with no criminal liability can be detained under the pretense of “countering extremist behavior.” China does have an equivalent to the Bill of Rights, in fact, Article 39 of the Constitution of the PRC is incredibly similar to the Fourth Amendment. However, broad provisions like Article 51 state that “citizens of the People’s Republic of China may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective” while exercising their rights. Clauses like these limit any rights that other articles grant.
Another key difference between United States and PRC lies in agencies responsible for counterterrorism. Within the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) holds the primary responsibility for dealing with terrorist threats within the country. The FBI defines terrorism as “the use of violence to further political or ideological goals.” While joint work is conducted with the military, it is typically supplementary. Because the FBI is a law enforcement agency, counterterrorism policy depends on the legal system. Domestic terrorism is treated as a criminal issue. Domestic terrorists in the United States still retain their freedoms under the Bill of Rights, can expect to be treated fairly in a court of law (Fifth Amendment), and cannot be persecuted directly for their religion or ideology (First Amendment). In China, domestic terrorism is dealt with as a national security threat and addressed by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The PLA is China’s primary military force and is authorized to conscript most armed security forces in China to assist in any counterterrorism efforts. Unlike the FBI, the PLA is not required to give terrorism suspects due process.
This institutional leeway, combined with the politically-loaded “Three Evils” definition of terrorism gives the PLA a much broader scope than their American counterparts. The justification for this wide scope is the CCP’s guarantee of stability against existential threats. Stated in the abstract, this seems rational. However, on the ground, this justification falls apart. Behaviors that have been identified as religious extremism in Xinjiang include wearing a hijab; growing a beard; abstaining from alcohol and smoking for religious reasons; public prayer; wearing clothing with the Islamic “star and moon” symbol – along with 67 other activities. While not strictly illegal, these activities are defined as abnormal and fundamentalist, and warrant suspicion. This religious suppression of the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region has sparked controversy worldwide in protest of human rights violations. Even peaceful behaviors or protests can be framed as instances of separatism and can be targeted using counterterrorism law. This indicates the PLA’s wide counterterrorist scope might have less to do with counterterrorism and more with maintaining extensive social control
Chinese minorities aren’t much safer online. The CCP places stringent state limitations on social media to reduce the likelihood of online radicalization and to minimize reporting of these violations. In the United States, there is a lively and ongoing debate over how much the state can interfere or censor social media without violating the First Amendment.
Different Demographics
Even if readers are willing to bracket all of the human rights violations above, another major difference between Chinese and American terrorism is demographics. In northwest China, Uyghur extremists and members of the Eastern Turkmenistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) are the only organized groups regularly encountered. These groups mostly attack in western China, in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region. Most are practitioners of Sunni Islam and by separatist movements in the Xinjiang region. Islam has been seen as a threat to the authority of the CCP in Xinjiang and has been the focus of Chinese counterterrorism for the past 20 years. As such, the Uyghurs pose a predictable threat for the CCP.
However, outside the Xinjiang region a significant majority of attacks are cited as coming from an unknown ideology. Many of these attackers are simply unstable individuals with personal grievances. For these cases, there is no network to track and little intelligence to gather prior to the event – or at least none accessible to the international community. To conserve resources, China largely ignores these arbitrary attacks and focuses their counterterrorism efforts towards combating Uyghur extremists and separatists.
By contrast, the United States faces a more complex demographic and evolving terrorism threat. Organized terrorism within the United States comes from a multitude of ideologies. The FBI lists five major categories as being known threats: (1) racially motivated violence; (2) anti-government extremism; (3) environmental extremism; (4) anti-abortion violent extremism, and (5) miscellaneous domestic terrorism. These diverse sources make tracking and preventing attacks more difficult. While it is true that majority of recent terrorist attacks within the United States are the result of right-wing extremists, like Patrick Crusius, the perpetrator of the 2019 El Paso Mall Shooting; there are several other groups looking to cause chaos within the United States. These include the Earth Liberation Front, Antifa, and actors inspired by ISIS and al-Qaeda. Given this wide demographic and ideological supply of home-grown extremism, US counterterrorism resources are often spread thin.
Conclusion
The PRC wields a very different counterterrorism apparatus from the United States. It is much more aggressive, more authoritarian, and deals with a vastly different demographic. The preventative aggression that Chinese counterterrorism operates is a tradeoff that most Western readers would be unwilling to swallow. The CCP oppresses religious and political differences and lacks any recourse to judicial review and lacks due process. Given America’s demographic diversity, political freedoms, social media dissemination, and legal rights, the threat of extremism and terrorism will likely be a permanent feature of American society for the years to come, but it remains better than the alternative absolute repression of the CCP and PRC.
Charlie Lehner is a junior at Colorado College majoring in Political Science and Arabic, Islamic, Middle Eastern Studies.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Air Force, Defense Department, or the US government.