Under 18 U.S.C. § 115, threatening to assault, kidnap, or murder certain federal officials or their immediate family members with the intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with their official duties—or to retaliate against them for performing those duties—is a serious federal felony.

The statute protects federal judges, law enforcement agents, prosecutors, and high-ranking government officials from physical violence, threats, and intimidation.

For an elected official, political candidate, campaign strategist, or PAC director, allegations involving federal threats trigger aggressive criminal investigations led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Secret Service (USSS), or the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).

Heated legislative debates, inflammatory campaign speeches, aggressive social media commentary, or private communications criticizing a federal investigation can quickly cross into federal criminal accusations.

Defending under 18 U.S.C. § 115 requires senior white-collar trial counsel who can establish First Amendment protections, challenge government claims of "true threats," analyze intent standards under recent Supreme Court precedent, and prevent political hyperbole from being criminalized as a federal felony.

What Does 18 U.S.C. § 115 Prohibit?

18 U.S.C. § 115, threatening public officials, prohibits specified acts of violence and threats against protected federal officials and family members when connected to the performance of official duties. The statute contains three principal categories of prohibited conduct:

• 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(A): Assaulting, kidnapping, murdering, attempting or conspiring to kidnap or murder, or threatening to assault, kidnap, or murder an immediate family member of a protected federal official
• 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B): Threatening to assault, kidnap, or murder a protected federal official directly
• 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(2): Assaulting, kidnapping, murdering, attempting or conspiring to kidnap or murder, or threatening violence against a former protected federal official or an immediate family member in retaliation for previous official duties

Which Federal Officials Are Protected Under Section 115?

Section 115 protects specific categories of federal personnel, not every person employed by the government. Protected individuals include:

• Federal judges: United States District Judges, Circuit Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Supreme Court Justices
• Federal law enforcement officers: FBI Special Agents, DEA agents, and other qualifying federal investigative personnel
• Senior federal officials: The President, Vice President, Members of Congress, qualifying department heads, and the CIA Director
• Other federally protected personnel: Officials covered through 18 U.S.C. § 1114, including qualifying federal officers and employees
• Immediate family members: Spouses, children, parents, siblings, and certain related household members of protected officials

Can Political Speech Be Considered an Unlawful Federal Threat?

Political speech occupies the highest level of protection under the First Amendment. Aggressive political debate, harsh criticism of federal investigations, calling prosecutors corrupt, or advocating for the removal of federal judges is constitutionally protected expression.

However, the First Amendment does not protect "true threats"—statements where the speaker communicates a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful physical violence against a particular individual.

The Constitutional "True Threat" Intent Standard

Following the landmark United States Supreme Court decision in Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), the prosecution must satisfy a subjective mental state requirement in true threat prosecutions.

To convict a politician or speaker under 18 U.S.C. § 115, federal prosecutors must prove that the defendant acted with a subjective mental state of at least recklessness—meaning the speaker consciously disregarded a substantial risk that their communications would be understood as a threat of physical violence.

Can Campaign Speeches or Social Media Posts Lead to Section 115 Charges?

Yes. Public statements and online communications can form the basis of federal threat charges when they satisfy Section 115.

A political candidate's verified social media account, private campaign messaging platform, or recorded fundraising event may provide prosecutors with evidence of alleged threats. Investigators may examine:

• Speeches encouraging supporters to confront federal agents or prosecutors
• Direct messages targeting a federal judge overseeing politically sensitive litigation
• Communications identifying the residences or family members of federal officials
• Repeated statements referencing physical violence against named investigators
• Campaign staff communications discussing pressure directed toward federal personnel

Summary Comparison: Federal Threat and Offense Penalties Under 18 U.S.C. § 115

What Are Related Federal Offenses for 18 U.S.C. § 115?

Federal prosecutors routinely stack companion white-collar and public integrity charges alongside 18 U.S.C. § 115 to increase potential sentencing guideline exposure.

• 18 U.S.C. § 875 (Interstate Communications of Threats): Prohibits transmitting any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to kidnap or injure any person. Why it matters: Applies to social media posts, emails, text messages, or phone calls made across state lines without requiring an official-duty connection.

• 18 U.S.C. § 871 (Threats Against the President): Criminalizes knowingly and willfully mailing or making threats to take the life of, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon the President or Vice President. Why it matters: Carries up to 5 years in prison specifically for presidential threats.

• 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (Obstruction of Justice / Intimidating Officers): Penalizes corruptly or by threats endeavoring to influence, intimidate, or impede any federal juror, officer, or magistrate judge. Why it matters: Serves as a primary obstruction felony, carrying up to 10 years in federal prison.

• 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or Informant): Prohibits using physical force, threats, or intimidation to delay or prevent testimony or official proceedings. Why it matters: Added when threats target witnesses or investigators in pending grand jury matters.

• 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Assaulting or Impeding Federal Officers): Prohibits forcibly assaulting, resisting, or interfering with federal officers performing official duties. Why it matters: Applied when physical contact or armed confrontations occur.

How Can Politicians Challenge Allegations of Threatening Federal Officials?

Several approaches may be available in defending Section 115 charges:

• First Amendment protection: Political hyperbole, rhetorical exaggeration, and expressions of opposition may remain protected when they do not amount to true threats.
• Lack of threatening intent or awareness: Communications may demonstrate that the speaker did not intend intimidation through violence and did not consciously disregard the risk that the statements would be understood as threatening.
• No connection to official duties: A personal dispute may fall outside Section 115 when the required intent involving federal official duties is absent.
• Misattributed communications: Campaign accounts may be accessible to communications directors, volunteers, consultants, and outside media contractors, raising questions about who actually authored a statement.
• Incomplete recordings: A selectively edited video may remove qualifying language, audience reactions, or statements establishing that the speaker was advocating lawful political action.

For a gubernatorial candidate accused of threatening a federal prosecutor, the complete speech recording may establish whether an inflammatory statement referred to lawful electoral consequences or physical retaliation.

Can a Politician Be Charged for Threatening a Federal Official's Family?

Yes. Section 115(a)(1)(A) specifically addresses threats and certain violent acts targeting immediate family members of protected federal officials.

These allegations can arise when political disputes become personal.

For example, a county executive under federal investigation might threaten an Assistant United States Attorney's spouse to pressure the prosecutor into abandoning the case.

What Are the Federal Penalties Under 18 U.S.C. § 115?

Federal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 115 depend on the nature of the threat or act of violence, whether physical injury occurred, and the underlying statutory classification:

For a sitting legislator, criminal proceedings may also prompt legislative ethics inquiries or disciplinary proceedings under applicable chamber rules.

A conviction does not universally disqualify someone from elected office. Eligibility and removal questions depend on the particular position and governing constitutional or statutory provisions.

Hypothetical Case Study: California State Senator Accused of Threatening an FBI Agent During a Campaign Finance Investigation

A California State Senator serving as chair of the Senate Transportation Committee became the primary target of a high-profile federal grand jury investigation regarding alleged illegal campaign contributions connected to a $180 million state highway infrastructure contract.

During a private strategy meeting with his campaign finance director and political consultants, the senator learned that an FBI Supervisory Special Agent had issued federal subpoenas for financial and bank records belonging to several major campaign donors.

Furious over the accelerating public integrity probe, the senator sent a direct electronic message to the FBI agent stating: "I know where you live, and I know when you're home. Keep digging into my campaign, and someone is going to make sure you regret it."

Federal agents subsequently recovered electronic communications showing that the senator instructed a political consultant to locate the agent's private residence and photograph the property. The consultant later provided surveillance photographs showing the FBI agent arriving home from work.

Federal prosecutors charged the senator under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B), alleging that he threatened physical violence to intimidate the FBI agent into abandoning an official federal campaign finance investigation.

Furthermore, prosecutors sought a six-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(1), arguing that the underlying residential surveillance demonstrated a concrete intent to carry out the threat.

How White-Collar Defense Counsel Intervened

Our federal defense team at Eisner Gorin LLP initiated a comprehensive evidentiary audit of all campaign messaging logs, political consulting retainers, banking records, and digital communications between the senator and his staff.

Our parallel defense investigation established critical factual and legal entry points:

• Distinguishing Opposition Research from Assault Preparation: Defense counsel demonstrated that the political consultant was initially retained for lawful opposition research aimed at publicly exposing alleged political bias by federal investigators, rather than facilitating a physical attack.

• Challenging Evidence of Intent to Execute Violence: While authenticated messages showed the senator intended to intimidate the agent, digital audits proved the senator never instructed the consultant or any third party to physically confront, surveillance-stalk, or assault the agent.

• Defeated Sentencing Enhancement Exposure: Counsel established that the consultant's photographic deliverables did not constitute tactical preparations to carry out a physical assault, undercutting the primary factual predicate for the government's proposed six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(1).

Case Resolution and Sentencing Outcome

Armed with these findings, our federal defense attorneys entered pre-trial negotiations with United States Attorneys and Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors to narrow criminal exposure and eliminate unsupported sentencing enhancements.

Following extensive negotiations and pre-trial proceedings:

• Dismissal of Aggravated Counts: Federal prosecutors agreed to proceed strictly on a single count of threatened assault under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B), agreeing not to pursue additional conspiracy charges or threat counts involving the agent's immediate family.

• Successful Defeat of Six-Level Enhancement: At the formal sentencing hearing, our defense attorneys presented financial records and consultant communications proving the surveillance was meant to intimidate rather than facilitate a physical attack. The federal court agreed, finding insufficient evidence of an intent to carry out the violence, and refused to apply the six-level U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(1) enhancement.

• Substantial Reduction in Custodial Exposure: Presenting the senator's lack of prior criminal history, prompt acceptance of responsibility, and immediate cessation of contact, our team secured a sentence of 12 months and one day in federal prison, followed by two years of supervised release.

By defeating the disputed sentencing enhancement and negotiating a single-count resolution, white-collar defense counsel secured a sentence substantially below the six-year statutory maximum, protecting the client from severe multi-year felony imprisonment.

Related Legal Topics

• Mailing Threatening Communication
• Defending Federal Doxing Crimes
• Threatening a Foreign Official Law
• Habitual Offender Domestic Assault