Threatening Federal Official – 18 U.S.C. § 115 Sentencing Guidelines

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group, a second-generation firm managed by Todd Spodek with over 40 years of combined experience. When federal prosecutors charge threatening a federal official under 18 U.S.C. § 115, they’re alleging you threatened to assault, kidnap, or murder a federal official, federal judge, or their family members because of their official duties or to influence their performance of those duties. Maximum sentence: **10 years** for threats to kill or kidnap; **6 years** for assault threats. The statute protects not just the officials themselves but also their immediate family members, recognizing that threats against families can be equally coercive in influencing official conduct. These prosecutions have increased with social media’s rise and heightened political polarization—angry constituents direct threats at judges, prosecutors, FBI agents, and other federal officials over controversial cases or policies.

Who § 115 Protects

The statute creates broad protections for federal personnel:

• **Federal officers and employees** – FBI agents, prosecutors, DEA agents, ATF agents, IRS agents, federal judges, immigration officials, U.S. Marshals, any federal employee performing official duties
• **Immediate family members** – Spouses, children, parents, siblings of federal officials. The statute recognizes threatening families can influence official conduct as effectively as threatening officials directly.
• **Former federal officials** – When threats are made because of prior official duties. Judges who sentenced defendants, prosecutors who tried cases, agents who conducted investigations—all retain § 115 protection for threats arising from their past work.

Defense challenges whether alleged victims actually were federal officials performing duties protected by § 115, or whether they acted in personal capacities unrelated to federal employment. An off-duty FBI agent involved in a bar fight isn’t a § 115-protected official if the confrontation had nothing to do with their federal role. The connection between threats and official duties must be established.

The “On Account Of” Element

Section 115 requires threats be made “on account of” or “with intent to retaliate against” official duties. Prosecutors must prove defendants threatened officials because of their federal roles, not for personal reasons unrelated to official conduct:

• *Threats over case outcomes* – Threatening judges who sentenced defendants harshly, prosecutors who secured convictions, agents who conducted arrests. These clearly satisfy “on account of official duties.”
• *Threats to influence future conduct* – “Drop the charges against my friend or I’ll kill you” explicitly links threats to official duties and demonstrates intent to influence.
• *Threats during official interactions* – Defendants who threaten IRS agents during audits, immigration officers during deportation proceedings, or U.S. Marshals during arrests threaten officials “on account of” their duties.

Defense presents evidence that threats arose from personal disputes unrelated to official roles—romantic relationships, financial disagreements, neighborhood conflicts. If the victim’s federal employment was incidental and threats weren’t motivated by official conduct, § 115 doesn’t apply.

Three Types of Threats

Section 115(a) criminalizes threats to:

(1) Assault

Threatening to assault federal officials or their families. Maximum: **6 years**. This covers threats to injure, attack, or harm physically—anything short of kidnapping or murder threats. “I’m going to beat you up for what you did” directed at a federal prosecutor because of a conviction violates this subsection.

(2) Kidnap

Threatening to kidnap officials or family members. Maximum: **10 years**. Threats to abduct, hold captive, or restrain unlawfully. “I know where your kids go to school” directed at a federal judge as implicit kidnapping threat might qualify if context demonstrates threatening intent.

(3) Murder

Threatening to murder officials or families. Maximum: **10 years**. Death threats, assassination threats, any threat to take life. “You deserve to die for that ruling” directed at a judge satisfies this element if stated as a threat rather than mere opinion.

Courts don’t require explicit statements naming specific acts. Implicit threats that reasonable recipients would understand as threatening assault, kidnapping, or murder suffice. Context, tone, and circumstances determine whether statements constitute true threats.

Federal Sentencing: Offense Level 12

Under §2A6.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, threatening federal officials receives base offense level 12 (10-16 months at Category I). Enhancements include:

• **+6 levels** if the offense involved any conduct evidencing intent to carry out the threat (level 18: 27-33 months)
• **+3 levels** if the victim was a high-level federal official (Cabinet member, federal judge, U.S. Attorney)
• **+2 levels** if the offense involved more than two threatening communications to the same victim
• **Cross-reference to assault, kidnapping, or murder guidelines** when substantial steps toward execution were taken

Most § 115 cases involve online threats or angry verbal statements without action toward execution. These result in offense level 12 (probation or under one year with acceptance of responsibility). When defendants acquire weapons, conduct surveillance, travel toward victims, or take other steps demonstrating intent, levels jump to 18+ (2-3 years or more).

The high-level official enhancement recognizes that threats against federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, and senior officials carry greater danger to governmental functions than threats against line-level employees.

Retaliation for Official Acts

Section 115(b) separately criminalizes *actual* assault, kidnapping, or murder of federal officials in retaliation for official duties. While § 115(a) covers threats, § 115(b) addresses completed crimes. Defendants who actually harm officials face prosecution under both general assault/murder statutes and § 115(b), with § 115(b) providing enhanced penalties for attacks motivated by officials’ duties.

Maximum sentences under § 115(b): **life imprisonment** for murder or kidnapping; **20 years** for assault. These exceed general assault/murder maximums, reflecting Congress’s determination that attacks on officials because of their duties warrant enhanced punishment.

Defending § 115 Charges

Challenge whether statements constituted “true threats” under First Amendment standards. Venting frustration, hyperbolic political commentary, or angry rhetoric that wouldn’t cause reasonable recipients to fear imminent harm don’t violate § 115. Present evidence that statements were:

• *Political speech* – Criticism of officials’ policies, decisions, or conduct that used intemperate language but wasn’t intended as threats
• *Hyperbole or venting* – Emotional outbursts expressing anger without intent to actually threaten harm
• *Misunderstood jokes* – Statements intended as dark humor or satire that recipients misinterpreted as literal threats
• *Conditional statements* – “If you do X, you deserve Y” statements discussing consequences rather than threatening personal action

Contest the “on account of official duties” element. If threats arose from personal disputes, romantic conflicts, financial disagreements, or other matters unrelated to victims’ federal employment, § 115 doesn’t apply. Present evidence that defendants and victims had relationships or conflicts predating any official interaction, that threats referenced personal matters rather than official conduct, or that defendants didn’t know victims were federal officials when threats were made.

Demonstrate lack of intent to carry out threats. When defendants made angry statements without any steps toward execution—no weapons acquired, no surveillance conducted, no travel toward victims—this shows statements were venting rather than genuine threats. Character evidence establishing defendants as non-violent, evidence of mental health issues affecting judgment, and immediate remorse after making statements all support lack of actual threatening intent.

The Social Media Factor

Most modern § 115 prosecutions involve online threats. Social media has transformed how people interact with officials:

• Judges’ email addresses are public; angry litigants send threatening messages after adverse rulings
• Prosecutors handle controversial cases; defendants’ supporters post threats on social media
• FBI agents are identified in charging documents; targets of investigations make threats online
• Politicians holding federal positions receive constant social media threats from constituents angry about policies

Defense challenges online threat prosecutions by demonstrating statements were made in contexts where reasonable readers wouldn’t interpret them as genuine threats:

• Posts were on accounts known for hyperbolic political commentary
• Statements mirrored rhetorical style defendants used for all political topics, not specific to the official
• Threats were directed at policies rather than individuals, with language reflecting political opposition rather than personal animus
• Defendants immediately deleted or retracted posts, demonstrating recognition they were inappropriate

Mental Health and Emotional Distress

Many § 115 defendants were experiencing crises when they made threats:

**Post-sentencing rage.** Defendants who just received harsh sentences make threats against judges or prosecutors while emotionally overwhelmed. Courts recognize these threats often reflect immediate anger rather than calculated plans.

**Mental health crises.** Individuals with paranoid disorders believe federal officials are persecuting them and make threats as defensive responses. Psychiatric evidence explaining threats arose from delusions rather than genuine intent supports mitigation.

**Family desperation.** Parents facing child removal by federal agencies, individuals facing deportation, defendants whose families are threatened by federal actions—these defendants sometimes threaten officials out of desperation to protect loved ones rather than malice.

While these factors don’t negate liability, they profoundly affect sentencing. Courts impose lower sentences with mental health treatment conditions, probation rather than incarceration, or downward variances when threats resulted from crises rather than calculated criminality.

Todd Spodek built this firm defending clients whose angry words—made during emotional crises, as political commentary, or while experiencing mental health episodes—resulted in federal felony charges threatening their freedom. Federal officials exercise enormous power over people’s lives: judges decide sentences, prosecutors bring charges, agents conduct investigations. When that power affects defendants or their families negatively, angry reactions occur—some people vent inappropriately, make intemperate statements, or express rage that officials interpret as threats. Our work taught us that § 115 prosecutions often involve people who said indefensible things without ever intending harm, whose statements reflected powerlessness and frustration rather than dangerous intent. The First Amendment protects angry political speech, and federal officials can’t silence criticism by claiming every angry statement is a criminal threat. If you’re under investigation for or charged with threatening a federal official, contact us immediately. These cases require immediate legal representation—federal agents interview subjects without counsel present, creating evidence used for prosecution, and early attorney involvement can prevent charges entirely by explaining context and demonstrating lack of genuine threat. We’re available 24/7.