The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) used its official X account on Saturday to issue a blunt warning to the public: don’t assault federal officers, or face legal consequences. On paper, it’s a standard reminder. In practice, amid the current political climate, the message reads more like a pointed threat.
On Jan. 10, the DHS reminded citizens in the wake of Renee Good’s death: “If you lay a finger on a federal officer or agent, you will face the full extent of the law.” Yet, many of the same officials have spent years excusing, minimizing, and even pardoning violence against law enforcement—particularly when it served Donald Trump, as seen on January 6.
Legally, DHS is referencing statutes covering assault, resistance, obstruction, and interference with federal officers. The key statute, 18 U.S.C. § 111, criminalizes forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with covered federal officers. Courts often make prosecutions under this law easier than many realize.
The Renee Good case highlights potential misuse
Under Supreme Court precedent, a defendant doesn’t need to know the assaulted person is a federal officer to be convicted under §111. Yet, in Good’s case, video shows she neither assaulted, intimidated, nor interfered with agents. She even stated she was “pulling out” from the scene, but officers attempted to force her car door open and order her out. The only potential violation was resisting an officer’s order—but no one is holding the agents accountable for intimidating or assaulting her, ultimately leading to her death.
While the government can lawfully warn citizens against assaulting federal officers, the concern arises when broad, intimidation-flavored messaging is used to chill constitutionally protected activities, like filming, protesting, criticizing, or legally refusing to cooperate.
Double standard emerges in political context
The Constitution protects citizens’ right to protest the government, not to assault officers. Yet DHS’s message has been criticized for implying that any friction with federal agents could be treated as criminal. Social media quickly noted the double standard: where was this strict enforcement when Trump supporters assaulted police on Jan. 6?
Trump issued pardons to roughly 1,500 Jan. 6 participants, reframing the attack. Over 600 were charged with assaulting, resisting, or obstructing law enforcement, and about 175 faced charges for using dangerous weapons or causing serious injury to officers. For them, the law was effectively nullified.
One social media user sarcastically asked about the DHS warning: “So you’re undoing the pardons?” The message highlights the contradiction: violence against federal officers is intolerable—unless committed by the president’s political supporters, in which case it is treated as patriotic and exempt from prosecution.
Leave a Comment