The Call to Execute Political Opponents…Again

Call to Execute Political Opponents

Defending Democracy Initiative | Independent Security Advisors LLC | EPTraining.us

By Matthew C. Parker | CEO and Director of Training, Independent Security Advisors LLC

October 2, 2026

Abstract

We recently wrote about an social media account in New Hampshire openly supporting the assassination of elected Democrats. Now we have reporting from Texas about Bo French, a Republican nominee for statewide office, repeatedly calling for public executions of political opponents and government officials.

The circumstances are different. The concern is familiar. Americans are being told that the people on the other side of a political argument deserve to die. We need to pay attention to who is saying it, what they are asking for, and how the people around them respond.

What Bo French Said

Bo French is the Republican nominee for Texas Railroad Commissioner. On September 29, the Houston Chronicle reported on a removed 2020 post in which French suggested executing former President Barack Obama. He wrote:

“The penalty for treason used to be death. Even for a former president. #HangEmHigh.”

The Chronicle’s article followed a CNN KFile investigation into French’s social media history. Houston Chronicle

CNN also documented posts from February 2025 calling for executions of government officials and a response concerning Adam Schiff. One statement was plain enough:

“I want more than perp walks. I want public executions.”

CNN reported that French did not answer its repeated requests for comment. CNN KFile

There is very little to misunderstand about wanting public executions. The discussion has moved to putting people to death. That deserves more attention than another argument over whether a politician’s social media account is offensive.

New Hampshire and Texas

In When Incivility Becomes a Call to Kill, we addressed the September 22 post from the @LPNH account supporting assassination of essentially every elected Democrat in New Hampshire. The organization controlling that account had already been removed as the national Libertarian Party’s state affiliate. NHPR

French is a current Republican nominee seeking a place on the commission that regulates Texas’s oil and gas industry. That puts him in a different position from the disaffiliated New Hampshire organization. He is asking voters to give him public authority. His statements about putting other people to death belong in that decision. CNN

The language differs too. New Hampshire’s account endorsed assassination of elected officials because they were Democrats. French used execution language and accused people of wrongdoing and treason.

We should keep that distinction clear. We should also ask what the accusation is being used to justify. A politician can demand an investigation. He can argue that someone should be prosecuted. Calling someone a traitor does not settle the case against that person, and attaching a demand for death makes the statement far more serious.

An accusation on social media is still an accusation. The public should expect evidence and a lawful process, especially from someone asking to hold office.

These Statements Kept Coming

In both cases, the history matters. The New Hampshire account had previously endorsed killing Kamala Harris and former Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky. French’s reported execution statements appeared in 2020 and again in 2025. NHPR | CNN

When someone keeps returning to killing as an answer to political grievances, the repetition deserves attention. It tells us to look beyond the latest controversy and examine what that person has been telling an audience over time.

We have written about the danger of treating political opponents as enemies. Once people accept that the other side is made up of traitors who deserve to die, every disagreement can be made to sound like a fight for survival. That is our concern here. The language gives anger a target and offers death as an acceptable outcome.

An audience can include people the speaker has never met. The person reading a statement may take it seriously. Deleting the post later cannot retrieve the copies or undo what someone took from it.

What the People Around Them Do Matters

In New Hampshire, Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians condemned the assassination posts. Legislative security was contacted, and the state Department of Justice confirmed that it was aware of them. NH Journal

In Texas, John Cornyn and Karl Rove had already rejected French following his September comments about South Asian students. Those decisions came before the execution-post reporting. The Texas Tribune reported that many other Republican leaders remained unwilling to withdraw support. Texas Tribune

The calls for executions deserve an answer of their own. A statement about racism leaves the question of political killing unanswered.

For ISA’s Defending Democracy Initiative, party affiliation does not change the standard. We expect leaders to reject calls to kill their opponents with the same clarity they would demand if someone said it about them. That includes the people standing beside the speaker, endorsing him, and asking the public to trust his judgment.

The People Named Still Have to Go to Work

Behind these statements are people with offices, families, staff, and public responsibilities. They still have to attend meetings, meet constituents, and make decisions that will anger somebody.

For those responsible for their protection, the work starts with the actual statement and its context. Preserve it. Look at the history. Determine who has been identified and whether other behavior raises the concern. Coordinate with the agencies responsible for assessing and responding to it.

The reporting discussed here does not establish an assassination plot. It does give us statements that should be examined. We can take them seriously while assessing what the evidence actually shows.

A press release condemning the words cannot answer every security question. Someone still has to consider the person being named, the audience receiving the message, and what needs to happen so that official can continue serving.

The Standard We Should Expect

Political leaders have influence, and they are responsible for what they do with it. Someone asking for public office should understand the weight of repeatedly telling supporters that political figures deserve execution.

People can argue over the law, demand accountability, and work to defeat an opponent. Those are ordinary parts of public life. Calls for death introduce a different demand, with consequences that can reach well beyond the person who posted them.

New Hampshire and Texas give us different examples of the same concern: political anger being used to justify killing other Americans. The response should be clear enough that nobody has to guess where a party, an agency, or a public official stands.

We can disagree with someone’s politics and still insist that person be able to serve, speak, and return home to their family. That is part of defending democracy.

About the Author

Matthew C. Parker is CEO and Director of Training for Independent Security Advisors LLC and EPTraining.us. He is retired from the U.S. Army after more than 20 years of service. His experience includes executive and dignitary protection, international democracy programs, anti-terrorism, advisory work, and managing security programs in the United States and overseas. eptraining.us

Through ISA, Parker develops and teaches protective-security programs for law enforcement, military personnel, and private security professionals. His writing connects the threats facing public officials with the preparation, training, and protective capability needed to keep them serving their communities.

About the Defending Democracy Initiative

ISA’s Defending Democracy Initiative has addressed political violence, threats against public officials, and the relationship between security and public access since 2017. Its purpose is to help communities understand those threats and prepare a practical response so elected officials can continue doing their jobs and the public can continue participating in government. eptraining.us

The initiative examines political intimidation, dangerous rhetoric, protective intelligence, and the capability needed at the state and local level. The principle is straightforward: Americans should be able to serve in office, challenge their government, and take part in public life without violence deciding who gets to speak or who gets to serve.

Sources and Current Updates

Reporting reviewed through October 2, 2026.

#BoFrench #TexasPolitics #PoliticalViolence #ThreatsAgainstElectedOfficials #PublicOfficialSecurity #PoliticalRhetoric #ProtectiveIntelligence #DefendingDemocracy #IndependentSecurityAdvisors #EPTraining

Bo French and the Call to Execute Political Opponents