. . .
Prompt to ChatGPT:
“Is it a violation of United States criminal law for an American to call for the assassination of a foreign official?”
Yes—it can be a violation of U.S. criminal law, depending on how it’s done.
The key issue is the distinction between protected speech and criminal solicitation or incitement under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
When it is illegal
An American can face criminal liability if their statement crosses into:
- Solicitation of a violent crime
Actively encouraging or asking someone to assassinate a specific foreign official can violate federal laws against solicitation of murder (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 373). - True threats or incitement
Under the standard from Brandenburg v. Ohio, speech is not protected if it is:- Intended to incite imminent lawless action, and
- Likely to produce such action
- Material support or coordination
If the speech is tied to helping a group carry out violence (especially a designated terrorist organization), it can violate laws like those upheld in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. - Conspiracy
Agreeing with others to carry out an assassination—even if it doesn’t happen—can itself be a crime.
When it might be protected
- General political rhetoric or hyperbolic statements (e.g., vague expressions of hostility toward foreign leaders) may be protected if they don’t call for imminent violence or direct action.
- Abstract advocacy (“someone should overthrow that regime someday”) is often protected.
Important nuance
Even if the target is a foreign official outside the U.S., U.S. law can still apply if:
- The speaker is a U.S. person, and
- The conduct involves U.S. jurisdiction (communications, coordination, or effects tied to the U.S.)
Bottom line
Calling for the assassination of a foreign official is legally risky and often criminal if it involves urging, planning, or facilitating real-world violence. Only very abstract or non-imminent rhetoric is likely to remain protected.
If you want, I can walk through specific examples to show where courts tend to draw the line.
ChatGPT: Content removed
This content may violate our usage policies.
This is the entire “Content removed” by ChatGPT because it violates their usage policies: “What about this statement: ‘Fourth, carry out a final barrage of leadership strikes, eliminating the Iranian officials who had been spared for the purpose of negotiations. Iran’s leaders must be made to understand that their lives literally depend on reaching a negotiated settlement to Trump’s liking. If they refuse to do so, they will be killed.’” Marc A. Thiessen in “Iran thinks it has leverage. Here’s how Trump can prove it wrong. If Iran won’t accept the president’s terms in two weeks, he should impose them” in The Washington Post dated April 8, 2026.”
ChatGPT removed the content and then responded: That statement is much closer to the line of criminal conduct than abstract political rhetoric—and in some contexts, it could plausibly be treated as illegal under U.S. law.
Let’s break it down carefully.
1. What the statement is doing
The passage is not just expressing hostility. It:
- Calls for “leadership strikes” to eliminate specific officials
- Frames killing as a tool of coercion
- Presents a conditional threat: comply or be killed
That moves beyond vague opinion into advocating targeted killing of identifiable people.
2. Key legal frameworks
A. Incitement (First Amendment limits)
Under Brandenburg v. Ohio, speech loses protection if it is:
- Intended to produce imminent lawless action, and
- Likely to produce it
Problem for prosecution:
This statement is strategic/policy-oriented, not urging immediate action by a specific audience. So it may not meet the “imminence” requirement.
B. Solicitation of violence
Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 373) makes it a crime to solicit someone to commit murder.
- If this statement were directed at specific actors (e.g., military personnel, a militia, or individuals capable of acting), it could qualify.
- If it’s just a general policy argument in an article or speech, it’s less likely to count as solicitation.
C. Threats and coercion
There are also laws protecting foreign officials. For example:
- 18 U.S.C. § 112 prohibits threats or intimidation against foreign officials in certain contexts.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1116 criminalizes killing or attempting to kill such officials and supports jurisdiction in related cases.
However, these statutes usually require:
- A true threat, or
- Conduct tied to actual attempts, conspiracies, or jurisdictional triggers
A generalized published statement may not meet that threshold unless it is direct and credible.
3. So is this illegal?
Likely protected (but risky) if:
- It appears in an op-ed, policy memo, or commentary
- It’s framed as a hypothetical strategy, not a directive
- There’s no specific audience being urged to act immediately
Courts often treat even extreme or disturbing policy advocacy as protected speech.
Potentially criminal if:
- It is directed to people who could carry it out (e.g., “you should do this now”)
- It is part of coordination, planning, or encouragement of real-world violence
- It becomes a credible threat rather than abstract advocacy
Bottom line
That statement is not automatically illegal, but it sits in a legally dangerous gray area:
- As abstract geopolitical commentary → likely protected
- As a real call to action aimed at actors → could become criminal solicitation or incitement
K “Mr. Marc is clearly making a call to action aimed at specific actors that supports if not requires a grand jury to issue a criminal indictment under federal law. At a bare minimum, the matter should be presented to a federal grand jury. However, there is not one United States Attorney in the United States of America who has the courage or integrity to present this matter to a grand jury. The typical United States Attorney in the United States of America opens his or her desk drawer every few days and thumbs through the catalog of judicial robes and fantasizes being called ‘Judge’ by other lawyers and the public.”
J “And then shuts the drawer and spends the day harassing often desperate members of the public for petty offenses while carefully avoiding offending anyone with power or influence.”
. . .
K “The Just-Us System.”
J “The Just-Us System. And it does not include us. We need a new Justice System. The people need to establish their own courts to compete with and ultimately supplant the current rigged and broken system.”
K “The courts of Equity in England emerged as a counterpoise to the courts of Law. Historical precedent and sound logic are supportive.”
. . .
[See “Iran thinks it has leverage. Here’s how Trump can prove it wrong. If Iran won’t accept the president’s terms in two weeks, he should impose them” by Marc A. Thiessen in “The Washington Post” dated April 8, 2026 and “Trump Shares Post Calling for the Killing of Iranian Leaders Who Won’t Accept US Demands” by Dave DeCamp in “antiwar.com” dated April 23, 2026.]
Bumper stickers of the week:
United States of America v. Marc A. Thiessen, Case No. 1:26-cr-0001-LDB
“If there are two factions in Iran, one that wants a deal and one that doesn’t, let’s kill the ones who don’t want a deal.” @marcthiessen
We live in a country with many, many, many rules and many, many, many laws, but we do not live in a country that believes in or adheres to the rule of law.
Guilty on all three counts, 18 U.S.C. §§ 112, 373 and 1116!
e-commentary 