War Against Technology: An Analysis of Recent Developments in Anti-Technology Violence

The past few months point to the consolidation of an emerging driver of terrorism and political violence: anti-technology extremism. While decades old, this phenomenon is increasingly visible across a widespread series of sabotage and terrorist attacks in Europe and North America. This analysis focuses on the recent series of attacks to identify the underlying ideology, assess its potential for further escalation, and outline measures to address it. 

A Timeline of Recent Incidents: A Fragmented, but Converging Trend 

In November 2025, an insurrectionary anarchist cell carried out an arson attack on the construction site of the Artificial Intelligence Campus at the Equinix Data Centre in Meudon, France – an infrastructure hub built to manage the high-density power and cooling needs of AI training. In the subsequent communiqué, the perpetrators justified the attack by highlighting Equinix’s complicity in mass surveillance and genocide. These claims are based on the assertion that Equinix collaborates with the military-industrial complex responsible for developing AI-driven surveillance and weapons used in the Gaza conflict and for border control. This notion of technology serving the interests of the state and its ‘techno-elites’ is a recurring theme within insurrectionary anarchist anti-technology circles. 

The new year began with an attack on power cables in Berlin, which left 45,000 homes and 2,000 businesses without power. The Vulkangruppe, another anarchist network, claimed responsibility for the attack, framing it as an act of resistance aimed at disrupting the fossil fuel industry and AI’s power-thirsty data centres to protect both the Earth and those who inhabit it. This commitment to preserving and defending nature is recurrent in anti-technology extremism and constitutes one of its ideological pillars. Active since 2011, the Vulkangruppe have carried out at least 13 attacks targeting technology infrastructure, including rail networks and power lines. Their most prominent action to date was an attack on Tesla’s Gigafactory in Grünheide in 2024, which halted production for several days and resulted in what Tesla quantified as ‘several hundred million euros’ in damage.  

In early April, a series of events brought anti-technology violence to the forefront of media attention. On 3 April 2026, a 26-year-old resident of Rome was arrested for allegedly preparing acts of terrorism inspired by Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber (the US terrorist who waged a one-man war against technology from 1978 to 1996, killing three people and injuring 23, more recently becoming a source of influence over large swaths of contemporary extremists). Remarkably, the suspect managed an Instagram account called Nature_Pilled, which had over 200,000 followers, a significant number. He allegedly spread extremist material promoting violence, including how-to guides to build 3D-printed weapons and explosives, while encouraging attacks on major institutions. He was motivated by anarcho-primitivist beliefs (a current of anarchism that critiques civilisation as oppressive and advocates for ‘re-wilding’ and a return to a pre-industrial lifestyle) and called for the destruction of modern technological society. 

Just a few days later, on 7 April, incendiary devices were used in Italy and France at the construction site of the new technological centre of the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in Pisa, as well as at multiple electrical facilities near Bourges, La Chapelle-Saint-Ursin, and Saint-Florent-sur-Cher, which supply power to significant armament factories. Anarchist cells claimed responsibility for both attacks, denouncing the link between technology, research, and warfare. Meanwhile, on the previous day in the United States, a city councillor’s residence in Indianapolis was targeted in a shooting reportedly linked to tensions over a planned data centre project.  

Finally, on 10 April 2026, a man threw a firebomb at the home of Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI. He was arrested hours later while allegedly trying to break into OpenAI’s headquarters. Reports indicate that he carried a manifesto outlining the existential dangers he associated with artificial intelligence. The suspect, Daniel Moreno-Gama, had previously called for ‘Luigi’ing’ tech CEOs, a reference to Luigi Mangione, the man accused of the UnitedHealthcare CEO’s murder, who has garnered a significant following and is revered as a ‘saint’ in some extremist circles. 

It would be misleading to characterise these incidents as a coordinated transnational campaign; although some coordination exists, these attacks appear fragmented, geographically dispersed, and primarily driven by lone actors and decentralised cells. However, dismissing them as isolated events would overlook significant commonalities. Rather than coordination, we are witnessing the convergence towards similar targets. 

Who and What Gets Targeted 

The targeting logic behind these incidents reflects a two-pronged strategy that has long characterised anti-technology terrorism: attacks against representatives of the tech world and critical infrastructure.  

Attacks on representatives of the technological system, such as researchers and CEOs, were also part of the Unabomber’s anti-technology terrorist campaign. More recent high-profile examples include the wounding of the CEO of a nuclear engineering group in Italy in 2012 by the Informal Anarchist Federation, and the killing of a nanotechnology scientist in Mexico in 2011 by the Individualists Tending Towards the Wild, an eco-extremist network. Less conspicuous attempts have typically taken the form of parcel bombs or improvised explosive devices targeting research institutes in various fields such as robotics, nanotechnology, or artificial intelligence, as well as companies specialising in mining, green technology, or defence. These kinds of attacks may also focus on the interests of a particular individual rather than the person themselves. For instance, in spring 2025, an international anarchist campaign targeted Tesla, viewing it as a symbol of surveillance and environmental harm masked as green innovation. This campaign, titled ‘Welcome Spring, Burn a Tesla’, followed previous attacks, including the above-mentioned 2024 sabotage in Grünheide and an attack in Frankfurt in 2023. It was initiated after a call was circulated on anarchist blogs, urging insurrectionary anarchists to target Tesla. As a result, Tesla dealerships were attacked in several European cities, such as Toulouse, Lyon, Rome, Berlin, and Dresden. This campaign took place amid widespread protests against Elon Musk for his involvement with the US government, creating an overlap that blurred the lines between protests led by movements like Tesla Takedown and clandestine, underground actions carried out by insurrectionary anarchists.  

These attacks follow the enduring principle of ‘propaganda of the deed,’ a type of direct action aimed at influencing public opinion by setting examples. As the attacker of Altman also allegedly stated, ‘If I am going to advocate for others to kill and commit crimes, then I must lead by example and show that I am fully sincere in my message.’ 

A different rationale underlies attacks on infrastructure, which is targeted due to its critical role in the functioning of the technological system. Common targets include data centres, the power grid, and the public transportation network. Examples include the previously mentioned sabotage by the Vulkangruppe, as well as incidents in several countries, including Italy, Germany, France, Indonesia, Greece, the USA, Brazil, Mexico, and Chile. The 2022 Grenoble sabotage exemplifies this. The attack, perpetrated by anarchists, caused power outages for thousands of individuals and hundreds of businesses, although the purported targets were two specific companies – one specialising in microelectronic components and the other in semiconductors. These were attacked due to their role in contributing to systems of enslavement and policing. Similar logic underpinned the 2025 anarchist attack on the Adlershof technology park near Berlin, where power pylons were set ablaze, cutting the supply for days to tens of thousands of households and causing tens of millions of euros in damage.  

Of course, some degree of symbolism also contributes to this targeting logic. The anarchist sabotage of railway networks during the opening ceremonies of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games illustrates this. The attack disrupted high-speed train lines, affecting around 800,000 passengers. In an email sent a few days later, the sabotage was framed as an act of resistance against the Olympic Games, viewed not only as a ‘celebration of nationalism’ but also as a ‘testing ground’ for mass policing to subjugate populations – a concern potentially linked to the use of AI surveillance during the games. One and a half years later, the sabotage of high-speed train lines also targeted the 2026 Milan-Cortina Games. The communiqué that claimed responsibility similarly mentioned policing and control of the masses as motives behind the attack. These ideas build on the anarchist notion of prison-society – the idea that technology is allowing the techno-elites to build a machine-led totalitarian society.  

Another highly symbolic sabotage was the arson attack during the 2025 Cannes Film Festival. This attack affected approximately 160,000 homes after a substation and electricity pylons were set on fire. The statement of responsibility emphasised how the sabotage did not simply aim at the film festival but also at ‘technological factories of great importance’ in the area.  

Despite being historically associated with left-wing and anarchist terrorists, anti-technology violence has also attracted far-right terrorists – in particular, eco-fascists. Several countries, including Canada, the USA, the UK, and the Netherlands, have indeed experienced attacks on communications infrastructure, such as 5G networks and towers. Eco-extremist networks like the Individualists Tending Towards the Wild have similarly attacked technology and its representatives across Central and South America. Prominent examples include the above-mentioned killing of a nanotechnology scientist in Mexico in 2011, and a parcel bomb delivered to the home of Codelco CEO Óscar Landerretche in Chile in 2017. First emerging in 2011, this phenomenon appears to have ebbed in more recent years after claiming responsibility for forty-eight attacks. Finally, as demonstrated by the Altman and Indianapolis cases, anti-technology terrorism can also be associated with individuals who lack ties to particular ideologies or networks.   

An accurate picture of the whole phenomenon is, however, still missing, as is a comprehensive database of anti-technology terrorism. This calls for revisiting existing databases to identify and recode instances of anti-technology violence that have either gone unnoticed or been put in larger ‘left-wing’, ‘anarchist’, ‘radical environmentalist, or ‘right-wing’ categories. 

Outlook: Routine Sabotage, Increasing Escalation 

Moving forward, we will likely continue to see a sustained number of sabotage activities and other low-level attacks on both symbolic targets and critical infrastructure, consistent with trends observed in recent years. These actions are often overlooked, overshadowed by the constant stream of major news events from around the world. While Europol and some national intelligence agencies have acknowledged the anti-technology threat, scholars and practitioners have much work to do. As just argued, we lack a clear overview of the number and distribution of these attacks, as current databases do not adequately capture the anti-technology motives behind many recent incidents. A clearer picture of this phenomenon will allow a more nuanced analysis of trends, patterns, and shifts in anti-technology violence. 

In addition to these low-intensity campaigns, high-profile attacks may also occur. The attack on Altman could inspire similar actions, just as Luigi Mangione’s attack influenced Altman’s assailant. This increases the risk of copycat attacks. Furthermore, as a recent study argues, the systemic difficulty in attributing AI-mediated harms to specific human agents creates an ‘accountability gap’ that redirects public grievances away from abstract algorithms and toward visible individuals and physical institutions, thereby increasing the likelihood of future, similar attacks. 

Further escalations could also stem from broader societal trends. Concerns about technology are mounting. A growing number of groups, associations, initiatives, and activists are calling for stronger regulations, greater transparency, and greater accountability in the development of AI and other emerging technologies. Concurrently, public data reveal widespread worries about job losses, environmental impacts, and even existential risks, particularly associated with AI. It is important to acknowledge that these concerns do not always lead to, or justify, violence. However, they could be exploited by pre-existing narratives, often fuelled by conspiracy theories, that glorify or sanction violence. The widespread popularity of Theodore Kaczynski across various ideological milieus could be interpreted in this light. At the same time, many anti-technology narratives are rooted in apocalyptic expectations. Adding to this, the two-track violence that characterises anti-technology terrorism inclines it towards escalation. For one, attacks on representatives of technology follow the logic of ‘propaganda of the deed’, inspiring copycat attacks. Then, attacks on infrastructure follow an accelerationist logic, seeking to hasten the demise of technological civilisation by striking critical infrastructure. The anti-tech strategy is, in other words, bent on escalation. 

Balancing Security and Legitimacy as Proactive Responses 

Responding to the current developments requires a balanced approach: strengthening security and resilience against attacks, while also addressing the broader anxieties and grievances that anti-technology narratives exploit. Overreaction risks validating extremist worldviews, but inaction allows them to spread unchecked.   

The first step will require distinguishing between different forms of opposition to technology. Not all critiques of technology are extremist; many concerns about technology are legitimate. Public debates surrounding AI safety, regulation, privacy, and environmental impact are widely shared and expressed through democratic, legal, and non-violent channels. Moreover, not all radical or extremist critiques are violent. Some movements advocate for dismantling the technological system through legal or non-violent means. Conflating these groups with anti-technology extremists who seek to eradicate technology through violence would be counterproductive. Such conflation could reinforce anti-technology narratives of control, surveillance, and oppression, thereby further contributing to anti-tech radicalisation. For these reasons, it is important to avoid an over-securitised response that dismisses people’s legitimate concerns. Since many critiques of technology stem from genuine concerns, these voices should not be demonised, criminalised, or treated as deluded technophobes. Therefore, stakeholders, including tech companies, regulators, and governments, should engage with critics of technology in discussions about technological innovations and their societal impact.  

These collaborations should focus on addressing the root causes of technology-related anxieties. In addition to achieving strong regulation, accountability, and transparency, tackling deeper existential fears will require a broader societal shift in how we perceive and integrate innovations. Reaffirming our control over our relationship with technology may be a vital first step towards addressing the underlying causes of apocalyptic and doomerist worldviews.  

In other words, distinguishing between critics of technology and anti-technology terrorists while addressing the root causes of the widespread techno-related anxiety could disrupt anti-tech narratives and prevent further radicalisation. 

Of course, these initiatives must be complemented by an approach aimed at controlling the escalating political violence and terrorism. While isolating and condemning those who resort to violence, we need to focus on securing potential targets. The targeting logic of anti-technology extremists is, as discussed above, clear. So, efforts to secure targets should be based on analyses of these trends.  

Since critical infrastructure has become a clear target of anti-technology violence, security measures should be strengthened around these sites. This involves increasing redundancy to avoid single points of failure and boosting resilience, which helps critical infrastructure better withstand targeted attacks. Additionally, companies should implement threat assessment strategies and improve security for their leadership and staff. 

Furthermore, disrupting the terrorist anti-technology networks requires a better understanding of the trends, actors, distribution, and ideological motivations underlying anti-technology terrorism. Although many of the examples discussed here are linked to left-wing extremism and anarchism, it is crucial to emphasise once again that this phenomenon extends beyond these circles. As previously noted, revisiting and restructuring databases could offer a more detailed and nuanced view of the issue.  

This is of particular importance at a time when the US government – arguably the world’s most consequential counter-terrorism actor – has produced a new counter-terrorism strategy that, taking ‘aim at those opposing the ideological viewpoints of the current administration’, identifies far-left terrorism as one of the top priorities and Europe as an incubator of terrorism. While it is true that anarchists have been heavily involved in several anti-technology terrorism incidents, there are compelling reasons to oppose the US approach.  

According to Europol, left-wing and anarchist terrorism consistently make up a significant share of terrorist attacks (whether completed, foiled, or failed) across Europe in recent years – 36 percent in 2025, 26 percent in 2024, and 46 percent in 2023. As discussed, most of these attacks target property and infrastructure and seldom cause casualties. Although disruptive, these actions do not justify the securitisation move proposed by the US government. The trend of targeting individuals is more troubling, although, as argued, it is not exclusive to anarchism and is far less severe compared to the more deadly jihadist and right-wing terrorism. Moreover, unlike terrorist anarchist networks like the Informal Anarchist Federation or the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, movements like Antifa engage in violent acts but not terrorism. 

A more granular understanding of anti-technology terrorism is therefore necessary. First, anti-technology terrorism cannot be seen solely as a left-wing issue because it intersects with various ideological groups and individual grievances. Labelling it this way might result in misleading counter-terrorism strategies that focus solely on anti-technology terrorism within left-wing ideological groups. The emphasis should instead be on identifying the traits of anti-technology extremism that emerge from cross-ideological analysis, namely an understanding of technology as a complex system that constitutes an existential threat to both the planet and humanity, and an accelerationist two-track violence motivated by a pervasive sense of apocalyptic urgency.   

Second, while there is evidence of mounting escalation, the response should be built around four key pillars. First, gather comprehensive insights by dedicating resources to better understand the phenomenon. Second, avoid securitising approaches that may lead to heavy-handed, counterproductive measures; instead, focus on engaging with nonviolent critiques of technology. Third and fourth, enhance the security of critical infrastructure and individuals, respectively, primarily through collaboration among stakeholders and public authorities, rather than relying solely on law enforcement.  

In conclusion, current developments signal an ongoing escalation; we must act proactively to contain its violent fringes before they coalesce into something more organised and sustained. Ultimately, preventing further escalation will also depend on our ability to isolate violence without dismissing legitimate critique, and to rebuild trust in how technology is developed, governed, and integrated into society. 

This article represents the views of the author(s) solely. ICCT is an independent foundation, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy unless clearly stated otherwise.

Photo credit: Bruce Barrow/Unsplash