In a stunning and controversial statement that has set off a firestorm of debate, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has publicly criticized the FBI’s decision to label the June 1, 2025 firebombing attack in Boulder, Colorado, as an act of terrorism. The attack, which involved the use of Molotov cocktails and a flamethrower, injured eight innocent pro-Israel demonstrators and shocked the nation. The suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, reportedly shouted “Free Palestine” during the assault, a chilling detail that underscored the political motives behind the violent act.

Despite the FBI’s clear classification of the incident as a “targeted terror attack,” McCabe is raising eyebrows with his outright dismissal of the label. Instead of condemning Soliman’s actions in unequivocal terms, McCabe controversially framed the attacker as more of a protester than a terrorist. His remarks have ignited fierce backlash from law enforcement officials, victims’ advocates, and political figures alike, with many questioning McCabe’s motives and his judgment.

McCabe’s Troubled Legacy Adds Fuel to the Fire

This isn’t the first time McCabe’s name has been associated with controversy. Fired from his position in 2018 amid allegations of lacking candor under oath—a dismissal later overturned through a legal settlement—McCabe’s tenure at the FBI was marked by turbulent episodes, including his role in investigations related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Critics say his past and political ties cast a shadow over his latest comments, accusing him of politicizing an incident that should be universally condemned.

“The attacker threw Molotov cocktails at elderly protesters,” one former FBI official told reporters. “He shouted slogans to incite violence. This is textbook terrorism. McCabe’s defense of this man undermines the bravery of the agents who investigated this crime and the victims who survived.”

The Attack That Shook Boulder

On a quiet afternoon in Boulder, what was supposed to be a peaceful pro-Israel demonstration turned into a nightmare. Soliman, armed with incendiary devices and a flamethrower, launched an assault that left eight people severely injured, some with life-threatening burns. Eyewitnesses recall the chaos and horror as the attacker screamed political slogans, fueling fears of escalating violence linked to the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

The FBI’s swift investigation led to Soliman’s arrest, and the bureau’s clear labeling of the attack as terrorism sent a firm message: politically motivated violence, especially attacks targeting specific communities, will not be tolerated. Yet McCabe’s criticism suggests a fracture within the ranks of former FBI leadership over how such incidents should be interpreted and prosecuted.

Defending the Attacker or Defending a Principle?

In a recent interview, McCabe argued that the label “terrorism” should be reserved for acts carried out by organized groups with clear hierarchies and stated political objectives. By that definition, he claimed, Soliman’s actions were more akin to violent protest rather than terrorism.

But this reasoning has been met with skepticism and outright anger from many quarters. The use of firebombs and flamethrowers against unarmed civilians, accompanied by explicit political chants, is a clear attempt to terrorize and intimidate. To many, McCabe’s stance dangerously downplays the severity and intent of Soliman’s attack.

Political and Social Context

This event occurs amidst rising tensions across the U.S. tied to the ongoing Gaza conflict, where pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel demonstrations have grown increasingly volatile. Anti-Semitic incidents have surged, and communities are on edge. The FBI’s terrorism designation was seen by many as a necessary acknowledgment of this escalating threat.

However, McCabe’s dissent taps into a broader debate on how law enforcement and society classify and respond to politically motivated violence. Some argue that applying the terrorism label too broadly risks politicizing law enforcement and inflaming social divisions. Others warn that failing to do so risks emboldening violent extremists.

Public and Political Backlash

The backlash against McCabe was swift. Victims’ families called his comments “outrageous” and “disrespectful” to those who suffered. Conservative voices accused him of trying to rewrite the narrative to protect a suspect whose actions endangered innocent lives. Even some former colleagues within the FBI expressed dismay at his public position.

“It’s incomprehensible,” said a victim’s advocate. “This man set fire to people because of their beliefs and identity. To call that anything other than terrorism is a betrayal of justice.”

What Does This Mean for the FBI and Public Trust?

McCabe’s statement risks undermining public confidence in the FBI’s impartiality and resolve to combat domestic terrorism. The bureau has faced increasing scrutiny and politicization in recent years, and internal disagreements like this only add to the confusion.

Experts warn that political figures and former officials must be careful not to blur the lines between legitimate protest and violent extremism, especially when public safety is at stake.

Conclusion: A Divided Response in a Divided Nation

As the nation grapples with rising political and social tensions, the Boulder firebombing attack and the subsequent debate over its classification reflect deeper fractures in how Americans view political violence. Andrew McCabe’s defense of the attacker as a mere protester—not a terrorist—has shocked many and reignited controversies about the FBI’s role and decisions.

One thing remains clear: the victims of the attack and the communities affected deserve unequivocal support and justice. As this story continues to unfold, the question lingers—why would a former top FBI official defend someone who hurled firebombs at peaceful demonstrators? The answer may speak volumes about the complex and dangerous crossroads the country now faces.