Does this apply to the current case? It seems to check every box. The actions were unlawful, since the student — even immigrant students on visas — have 1st amendment rights. Was it intimidation? It certainly was. Was it against civilians? Yes. In pursuit of political aims? Yes.
The Gestapo weren’t terrorists, for example, again, unless even police brutality is terrorism at which point we have to conclude that every system has elements of terrorism in it, which again, dilutes the term to meaninglessness.
Disagree that it's only terrorism if perpetuated by non-state actors. State-sponsored terrorism occurs when a government actively supports or engages in terrorist violence, either directly or through non-state actors, to achieve its political goals. (This definition is from Google as well, from its AI overview).
The Wikipedia section on the definition is probably a smarter place to start than an AI summary.
I believe the real purpose of the current administration is to establish a precedent of suppressing dissent at universities. Their method is twofold: (1) Ambush and spirit away students to intimidate the student community and establish an atmosphere of fear, and (2) make it clear to university administrations that their research funding — to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars — will be taken away if they don't suppress dissent.
They are not just doing this to universities. They are doing this to members of congress (threat of primarying by Trump and Musk), judges (threat of impeachment), law firms (threat of canceling federal contracts and security clearances), etc. This atmosphere of fear and intimidation — of pretty much everyone — will be needed when Trump refuses to give up power at the end of his second term.
Yes, I agree that this is state terrorism. I also agree with the article’s criticism section, inasmuch as I think there is a useful delineation between illegal arrests and e.g. the government planting bombs among its opposition [1].