By Thom Weidlich and Eric Rose

Charter Communications, the company that sells internet and other services under the Spectrum brand, put out a press release declaring that vandalism done to its fiber-optic cables was in fact an act of “domestic terrorism.” Law enforcement is balking at that description, which really does seem to be irresponsible.

On June 15, vandals (terrorists?) severed 13 fiber-optic cables in Van Nuys, California, in the San Fernando Valley, disrupting service. At the time, the leading theory of the case was that the cables were cut for their copper, even though they didn’t contain copper — thieves are often not the smartest kids in the class. Law enforcement and Charter itself called the incident an act of vandalism.

But on July 1, the company put out a press release in which it declared the incident to be one of “domestic terrorism.” That declaration was the point of the press release. Charter came to the conclusion “based on the nature of the fiber cuts, extent of damage and make-up of impacted customers.” Those customers included a U.S. military base, 911 communications services and local fire and police departments, according to Charter.

Law Enforcement

The company didn’t cite any law-enforcement agencies agreeing with it. In response to a question from Channel 4 Los Angeles, it acknowledged it came up with the descriptor itself. Terrorism, we’ll point out, typically involves acts of violence against civilians in pursuit of political aims. The FBI said it was working with law enforcement to investigate the nature of the attack, according to the NBC story.

In its July 1 story, the Los Angeles Times quoted what was apparently an earlier statement from the Los Angeles Police Department (it’s in a mid-June NBC article): “The incident involving the severing of fiber-optic cables in Van Nuys on June 15, 2025, is being investigated as a case of felony vandalism. Based on the evidence collected and the circumstances observed at the scene, this incident is not being treated as an act of domestic terrorism.”

Yet, Charter is adamant. It wrote in its July 1 release: “Charter will continue to refer to these intentional attacks on critical infrastructure as domestic terrorism, reflecting what they are, and demanding the appropriate level of attention nationwide.”

Criminal Acts

This insistence seems irresponsible. Companies, and their PR professionals, must remain disciplined in how they describe criminal acts, especially those that impact infrastructure. Terms like domestic terrorism carry legal, emotional and national-security implications. Using the term inaccurately, without confirmation from law enforcement or federal authorities, not only misleads the public but risks undermining trust in the institutions responsible for protecting us.

Even citing the first responders that experienced service disruptions seems off. Any service disruption could have affected those facilities. Where’s the evidence that they were the target? Crisis communicators should be cautious about using hyperbole in their messaging — it could erode public trust.

The vandalism of Charter’s system should be taken seriously. It was disruptive, dangerous and deserving of prosecution. But escalating the language to domestic terrorism without evidence is reckless. It politicizes public safety, causes confusion and distracts from the facts. Charter’s job is to provide clarity, not sensationalism.

Photo Credit: Karolis Kavolelis/Shutterstock

Sign up for our free weekly newsletter on crisis communications. Each week we highlight a crisis story in the news or a survey or study with an eye toward the type of best practices and strategies you can put to work each day. Click here to subscribe.