Boston Federal Criminal Defense Attorney
If you are under investigation or have been charged with threats against the President of the United States, you are facing a serious federal criminal allegation with potentially life-changing consequences. Many people do not realize how quickly a statement, post, message, email, voicemail, or heated remark can escalate into a federal investigation. What may have been said in anger, frustration, sarcasm, intoxication, or emotional distreass can be interpreted by federal authorities as a criminal threat.
At Simons Law Office, we defend clients facing serious federal criminal charges in Boston and throughout Massachusetts, including allegations involving threats, false statements, weapons, and other high-stakes federal offenses. If federal agents have contacted you, if you have been arrested, or if you believe you are under investigation for making a threat against the President, you should seek experienced legal representation immediately.
If you are searching for a Boston federal threats defense attorney or a Massachusetts federal criminal defense lawyer near you, Simons Law Office is ready to help.
Understanding 18 U.S.C. § 871
The federal offense commonly referred to as threats against the President is prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 871. In general, this law makes it a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make a threat to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President, or other officials in the order of succession covered by the statute.
These cases are taken seriously by federal law enforcement. Even when the accused person claims the statement was not meant literally, that does not automatically end the investigation. In many cases, the Secret Service or other federal authorities may become involved quickly, and what began as a single statement can turn into a major legal problem.
Federal prosecutors do not have to prove that a person actually intended to carry out the threat. Instead, the legal fight often centers on whether the statement qualifies as a true threat and whether the government can prove the required mental state.
What Counts as a Threat Against the President?
A threat against the President can take many forms. It does not have to be delivered in person. The government may investigate or charge based on an alleged threat communicated through:
- Spoken statements
- Written messages
- Text messages
- Emails
- Social media posts
- Direct messages
- Voicemails
- Letters
- Recorded videos
- Online comments
This is one reason these cases can arise unexpectedly. A person may post something online without realizing the legal consequences that can follow. In other cases, a statement made during an argument, mental health crisis, or emotional breakdown may be reported by someone else and treated as a federal threat.
The specific words used matter, but context matters too. A statement may sound serious in isolation but look very different when examined in full context.
What the Government Must Prove
To convict a person of making a threat against the President under federal law, the government must prove specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the exact phrasing may vary in court, the prosecution generally must establish the following:
1. The Defendant Communicated a Threat
The government must show that the defendant communicated a statement that allegedly expressed an intent to kill, kidnap, or injure the President or another protected official.
This communication can be verbal, written, or electronic. It does not matter whether the statement was made face-to-face or through a device or platform.
2. The Statement Was a True Threat
Not every offensive, controversial, angry, or reckless statement is a criminal threat. The government must prove that the statement was understood and intended as a true threat, not simply a joke, exaggerated political talk, rhetorical hyperbole, or emotional outburst.
This is often one of the most important issues in the case.
3. The Defendant Acted Knowingly and Willfully
The government must also prove that the statement was made knowingly and willfully. In other words, the conduct must have been intentional, not accidental, mistaken, or the result of misunderstanding.
This does not necessarily mean the defendant intended to carry out the threat, but it does mean the prosecution must establish more than mere carelessness.
Why These Cases Are So Serious
Threat cases involving the President are taken very seriously because they involve national security, public officials, and federal protective responsibilities. The involvement of federal agencies can make these cases intimidating from the start.
If you are being investigated, you may encounter:
- Contact from federal agents
- Questions from the Secret Service
- Search warrants
- Seizure of phones, computers, or online account data
- Subpoenas
- Review of your digital history, messages, and social media activity
Federal authorities may look beyond the alleged statement itself and examine:
- Your online activity
- Prior communications
- Mental health history if relevant
- Firearm access
- Recent travel or purchases
- Witness statements
- Context surrounding the remark
That means even a case based on a single statement may quickly grow into a broader federal investigation.
Potential Penalties for a Conviction
A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 871 can carry severe penalties, including:
- Up to 5 years in federal prison
- A fine of up to $250,000
- A permanent felony record
- Loss of firearm rights
- Serious employment consequences
- Difficulty obtaining housing or professional opportunities
- Immigration consequences for non-citizens
Even beyond the legal sentence, a federal threat conviction can follow a person for years. A felony record tied to threats against the President can create enormous personal and professional harm.
Common Situations That Lead to Charges
Although every case is different, federal threat allegations often arise from situations like:
- Angry political social media posts
- Heated messages sent during personal crises
- Intoxicated or impulsive statements
- Online comments made without thinking through the consequences
- Statements made during mental health episodes
- Workplace or school incidents where someone reports a threat
- Repeated online postings that attract law enforcement attention
One of the biggest misconceptions is that only carefully planned or direct assassination threats lead to charges. In reality, federal investigations can begin based on statements that the speaker never expected anyone to treat as literal.
That is why it is dangerous to assume that “I didn’t really mean it” will automatically end the matter.
Defenses to Threats Against the President Charges
Just because you have been accused does not mean you are guilty. These cases are often highly defensible because the prosecution still must prove intent, context, and the legal meaning of the statement.
At Simons Law Office, defense strategy may include several different angles depending on the facts.
Lack of Intent
If the statement was not intended as a serious threat, that can be central to the defense. The government must prove the required mental state. A reckless, emotional, or impulsive statement is not automatically enough.
First Amendment Issues
Not all offensive or disturbing speech is criminal. The First Amendment protects a wide range of expression, including harsh political speech, controversial opinions, and emotionally charged statements. The legal question is whether the statement crossed the line into a true threat.
Context Matters
Context can completely change how a statement should be understood. A remark made as sarcasm, satire, political venting, quoting lyrics, joking with friends, or in the middle of an online argument may not meet the legal standard of a true threat.
Federal prosecutors may try to isolate a sentence or phrase. The defense may show that when the statement is viewed in its full context, it does not support a criminal conviction.
Insufficient Evidence
The prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. In some cases, the government may have weak evidence about who actually made the statement, what exactly was meant, or whether the communication was serious.
Mental State and Personal Circumstances
In some cases, a person’s emotional state, mental health condition, intoxication, or impaired judgment may be relevant to the defense or to mitigation. These issues must be handled carefully and strategically.
Why You Should Not Speak to Federal Agents Without a Lawyer
If federal agents contact you about an alleged threat, do not try to explain the situation on your own. Many people make their case worse by speaking informally and assuming that if they “clear things up,” the matter will go away.
That is often not what happens.
Federal agents may already have evidence before they speak with you. What you say can be:
- Misunderstood
- Taken out of context
- Used to establish intent
- Used to support other charges, including false statements
Before answering questions, speaking by phone, or consenting to an interview, you should speak with a federal defense attorney.
How Simons Law Office Can Help
At Simons Law Office, we understand that federal threat cases move quickly and carry serious consequences. These cases often require immediate legal intervention, careful review of digital evidence, and a defense strategy built around context, intent, and constitutional protections.
Our approach may include:
- Evaluating the alleged statement in full context
- Reviewing social media, texts, emails, or recordings
- Analyzing whether the statement qualifies as a true threat
- Challenging weak or misleading interpretations
- Protecting you during federal interviews and investigation stages
- Working to avoid additional damaging statements or evidence
- Preparing for litigation, negotiation, or trial as needed
No two cases are the same. A statement that looks bad at first glance may have significant defenses once the surrounding facts are fully understood.
Why Early Action Matters
The earlier a defense attorney gets involved, the better. In federal cases, early intervention may help:
- Prevent self-incrimination
- Control communication with investigators
- Preserve helpful digital evidence
- Develop context before the government shapes the entire narrative
- Position the case for the best possible outcome
Waiting too long can make it harder to contain the damage.
