Federal Threat Crimes — Threatening the President, Interstate Threats & Threatening Communications

It is a federal crime to threaten the President of the United States, to send threatening messages across state lines or through the mail, or to threaten former Presidents, their families, major presidential candidates, and other Secret Service protectees. These statutes — clustered in 18 U.S.C. §§ 871–880 — cover an enormous range of conduct in the digital age, from social media posts and text messages to letters mailed to the White House. What makes them constitutionally distinct from ordinary political speech is the Supreme Court's "true threat" doctrine: a statement is a true threat only if a reasonable person would interpret it as a serious expression of intent to commit violence, not merely rhetoric, hyperbole, or political frustration. But that line can be harder to find in practice than in theory — and crossing it results in felony prosecution.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 18 U.S.C. § 871 — Threats Against the President: The oldest and best-known threat statute, making it a federal felony to knowingly and willfully threaten to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm on the President, President-elect, Vice President, Vice President-elect, or the officer next in the presidential line of succession. "Knowingly and willfully" means the defendant must have known the statement would be perceived as a threat — idle or joking remarks, clearly ironic political commentary, and artistic expression can fall outside the statute.

• 18 U.S.C. § 875 — Interstate Communications: Targets threats transmitted through any channel of interstate or foreign commerce — phone calls, emails, texts, social media, or messaging apps. Where the threat involves unauthorized computer access, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act often layers on top. The reach is broad: any electronic communication that crosses state lines qualifies. The statute covers both threats to injure (§ 875(c), 5 years) and extortionate threats connecting injury to a demand for money or value (§ 875(b), 20 years). Courts have held that social media posts directed at specific individuals can qualify even without direct transmission to the victim.

• 18 U.S.C. § 876 — Mailing Threatening Communications: Covers threatening letters, packages, and electronic communications that pass through the U.S. Postal Service or that are deposited in the mail. Raises the penalty to 10 years (from the standard 5) when the target is a federal judge, a federal law enforcement officer, or any other federally protected official. The statute applies even when the sender is anonymous.

• 18 U.S.C. § 878 — Threats Against Foreign Officials and Internationally Protected Persons: Covers threats against foreign government officials, diplomatic personnel, and individuals who receive special international protection (e.g., heads of state visiting the U.S., UN officials). The U.S. can prosecute under this section even when the threatened person is outside the United States, as long as the offender is a U.S. national or the offender is later found in the U.S.

• 18 U.S.C. § 879 — Threats Against Former Presidents and Others: Extends § 871's coverage to former Presidents and their immediate families (spouses and children under 16), the immediate families of current Presidents and Vice Presidents, major presidential and vice-presidential candidates and their families, and anyone under Secret Service protection. "Major candidate" has the meaning given under 18 U.S.C. § 3056 — generally candidates who have qualified for federal matching funds or are otherwise formally recognized.

• 18 U.S.C. § 880 — Receiving Proceeds of Extortion: Targets those who knowingly accept money or property that resulted from extortion offenses in Chapter 41. For the broader federal extortion framework, see Hobbs Act (the chapter containing these threat statutes). Up to 3 years. This closes the loop on extortion schemes where the person receiving the payment is different from the one making the threat.

The "True Threat" Doctrine and the First Amendment

Threat statutes sit at the intersection of criminal law and the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that "true threats" — statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious intent to commit unlawful violence — are not protected speech. But political hyperbole, satire, and angry rhetoric are protected.

The Court's 2023 decision in Counterman v. Colorado clarified the constitutional mens rea requirement: the government must prove at minimum a reckless disregard for whether the statement would be perceived as threatening — i.e., the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that their communication would be received as a threat. Purely negligent threat-making is not sufficient for criminal prosecution.

This matters enormously for online speech. A furious tweet aimed at a public official, an angry comment on a news article, or a heated exchange in a Facebook group can all generate Secret Service or FBI referrals and potentially federal charges. Courts look at context: the platform, the specific words used, whether the message was directed at a specific person, the defendant's history, and whether the recipient was actually placed in fear.

Courts have found § 871 violations for:

• Facebook posts depicting or describing presidential violence
• Letters to the White House describing specific harm
• Voicemails to government offices with explicit death threats
• Social media videos portraying harm to officials

Courts have acquitted or dismissed when statements were clearly political metaphor, literary expression, or when the defendant lacked knowledge that the statement would be perceived as a threat.

Who Investigates and Prosecutes

Secret Service has the primary investigative role for § 871 and § 879 threats against protectees — current and former Presidents, Vice Presidents, candidates, and their families. The Secret Service receives tens of thousands of threat referrals per year and investigates those that meet the true threat threshold.

FBI handles threats under § 875 and § 876 that do not involve Secret Service protectees, including threats against members of Congress, judges, and other federal officials.

U.S. Postal Inspection Service investigates threatening mail (§ 876) and coordinates with FBI and Secret Service.

Prosecution is handled by U.S. Attorneys' offices, sometimes with support from DOJ's National Security Division for threats with terrorism connections.

Penalties and Sentencing

Federal threat convictions result in federal prison time and fines. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines apply — a first-time offender convicted under § 871 or § 875(c) might face 6–24 months depending on criminal history, while enhancements apply for targeting protected officials, using the internet to amplify reach, or combining threats with other criminal conduct (stalking, harassment, actual violence).

Probation and home detention are possible for low-end cases, but sentences of 12–36 months are not unusual for credible, specific threats with no mental health mitigation.

How It Affects You

State Variations

All states have their own threatening communications statutes — typically covering threats to public officials, stalking threats, and general criminal threatening. Federal jurisdiction attaches whenever interstate commerce (phone, email, mail, internet) is involved, which in practice covers virtually every modern threat scenario. Federal and state charges can be filed simultaneously without double jeopardy bar (dual sovereignty doctrine).

Pending Legislation

Online harassment and threats against election officials and poll workers have received increasing legislative attention. Proposals to strengthen § 875 penalties for coordinated online threat campaigns and to expand § 879 to cover state and local election officials have been introduced in recent Congresses, though none have become law as of 2026.

Recent Developments

• 2023: Supreme Court decided Counterman v. Colorado, establishing that at minimum a reckless mens rea standard is required under the First Amendment for true threat prosecutions — overturning a lower standard some circuits had used
• 2024–2026: Significant increase in prosecutions for threats against members of Congress and election officials, driven partly by post-2020 election controversy and the January 6 aftermath
• AI-generated content: DOJ has begun addressing AI-generated threatening content (deepfake videos depicting violence against officials) as potentially falling under § 875 when directed at specific individuals with intent to threaten