E-mail us
When Political Supporters Become the Threat
Threats Against Former Allies
Eric Deters, Former Political Allies, and the Danger of Being Called a Traitor
By Matthew C. Parker
Independent Security Advisors LLC | EPTraining.us
Defending Democracy Initiative | October 20, 2026
Abstract
What happens when someone who has spent years supporting a political party or political leader suddenly turns against that leader or the people surrounding him? More importantly, what happens when other supporters decide that person is a traitor?
That is the question I want to examine in the growing controversy involving Kentucky businessman Eric Deters. Deters has publicly accused former Ambassador Kimberly Guilfoyle of improper conduct, challenged people associated with the administration, and suggested that he possesses additional information concerning senior officials. His accusations are disputed, and I am not attempting to decide whether they are true. My concern is what happens when someone who once supported the administration begins publicly challenging it.
We have seen this happen before. Donald Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen became one of his most vocal critics and testified against him. Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham publicly broke with the administration and reported receiving death threats. Former White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin also received death threats after speaking out.
Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger received threats against himself, his wife, and their infant child. Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his family were threatened after he refused to change the certified election results.
Then there is Mike Pence. The former vice president spent four years supporting the president, only to find himself the target of a violent crowd on January 6, 2021, after refusing to interfere with the certification of the election. Some members of that crowd were calling for him to be hanged. His Secret Service detail had to move him and his family to safety.
And if someone thinks this is a new American political problem, I would suggest looking back to 1881. President James A. Garfield was shot by Charles Guiteau, a man who had supported his election but believed the Republican administration owed him a government appointment. Guiteau became angry when he was turned away and convinced himself that killing Garfield would save the Republican Party.
These cases deserve examination because the danger did not always come from the opposing political party. Sometimes it came from people who believed they were defending their own political side.
Bottom Line Up Front
The threat to a person involved in a political dispute may not come from a politician. It may come from an individual who decides, on their own, to threaten or harm someone they see as a political enemy.
That does not mean everyone who strongly supports a political leader is a potential attacker. Millions of Americans support politicians, attend rallies, display campaign signs, argue on social media, and say things about the opposition that they probably would not repeat at Thanksgiving dinner. Most never threaten anyone. Strong political opinions are not evidence of an intention to commit violence, and I would be deeply concerned about any security professional who failed to understand that distinction.
The cases examined here involve individuals whose behavior progressed well beyond ordinary political activity. They researched targets, made threats, obtained weapons or explosive devices, planned attacks, approached protected locations, or carried out violence. Those are the actions that distinguish a political grievance from a potential protective-security problem. The job of an executive protection professional is to recognize concerning behavior, evaluate its significance, and recommend a response supported by the evidence.
As Eric Deters continues making accusations and releasing information, more people are hearing his story. Some may agree with him. Others may begin to see him as a man who has turned against the political movement he once supported. The concern is whether someone will take that anger beyond words.
Readers’ Navigation
- Why Eric Deters Is the Subject of This Article
- When a Political Ally Becomes a Traitor
- Michael Cohen: From Trusted Attorney to Public Enemy—and Back
- Stephanie Grisham: A Former Press Secretary Receives Death Threats
- Alyssa Farah Griffin: From the White House to Threats Against Her Life
- Adam Kinzinger: Threats Against a Republican and His Infant Child
- Brad Raffensperger: When Political Threats Reach the Family
- Mike Pence: The Vice President Who Became the Enemy
- John Fetterman: A Democrat Called a Traitor by Democrats
- President Garfield: Assassinated by a Disappointed Supporter
- When Ordinary Americans Turn to Violence
- Cesar Sayoc: When Political Anger Becomes a Mail-Bomb Campaign
- David DePape: When a Political Grievance Reaches the Family Home
- What These Cases Tell Us About Political Loyalty
- Applying the Evidence to Eric Deters
- Conclusion
- Frequently Asked Questions
- A Note to Eric Deters
- Related ISA Articles
- Sources and References
- About the Author
Why Eric Deters Is the Subject of This Article
In October 2026, Eric Deters became the subject of national reporting after accusing Kimberly Guilfoyle, then serving as United States ambassador to Greece, of requesting $100,000 to pay an American Express bill. Deters alleged that the request was connected to promises of assistance and access to people associated with the administration. He provided journalists with communications he said supported his allegations, and CBS News reported examining a 292-page collection of material that included messages, photographs, and complaints about people Deters had contacted.
Guilfoyle disputed the allegations. Her representatives questioned the authenticity and interpretation of the communications and maintained that she was seeking payment for legitimate professional services. Deters denied that explanation. The material made public through news reporting does not establish that every allegation made by Deters is accurate. Their meaning, authenticity, and any possible wrongdoing are separate matters requiring evidence.
Deters’ involvement with Guilfoyle was part of a larger effort to obtain assistance concerning Dr. Abubakar Atiq Durrani, a former Ohio surgeon who fled the United States while facing criminal proceedings. Deters has advocated on behalf of people who allege they were harmed by Durrani’s medical practices, and he has described his frustration with people he had contacted. He has also discussed money he previously paid for appearances and related services involving people associated with the president’s political circle.
That history is important because Deters was not someone who had spent years campaigning against the president. He was a supporter who sought help from people he believed had influence. His current public dispute illustrates a particular problem: a person who once supported a political movement may later find himself criticizing its most prominent representatives. Some supporters may agree with the criticism, others may ignore it, and others may regard the critic as disloyal.
On October 13, Guilfoyle announced her resignation after the president asked her to leave the ambassadorship. She denied wrongdoing and said she intended to defend her reputation. The president subsequently minimized her previous relationship with his family, despite her prominent participation in Republican political activities and her former engagement to his son.
The public distancing may change how some people view the dispute. Someone who previously supported Guilfoyle because of her association with the president may no longer feel a reason to defend her. Others may continue to support her personally. Still others may have little interest in Guilfoyle but object strongly to Deters’ criticism of the administration.
The controversy continued after Guilfoyle’s resignation. On October 15, Deters filed a defamation lawsuit against Guilfoyle and members of her legal team. On October 16, he released a recording of a conversation with Jonathan Constantine, head of the Republicans Overseas Hellenic Chapter. Constantine made further accusations concerning Guilfoyle’s activities in Greece. Those accusations remain disputed.
On October 17, Deters publicly challenged his critics on Facebook, including people he described as “Trump cultists.” He defended his continued efforts concerning the Durrani case and questioned why the administration had not provided the assistance he sought. His comments expanded the public argument beyond Guilfoyle to include people who continue supporting the administration.
During an October 14 interview with The Daily Beast, Deters said he believed national and international publicity provided him protection. I understand why someone might believe that. Public attention can discourage certain forms of misconduct and make intimidation more visible. But publicity is not the same as personal protection. It also introduces a controversy to people who previously knew nothing about it.
I am not particularly interested in whether Deters once paid to attend a political event, whether somebody promised him a telephone call, or who may owe whom money. If the parties have a contractual dispute, there are courts and attorneys available to sort that out. My concern is what happens after a dispute becomes national news and strangers begin forming opinions about the people involved. In executive protection, the individual who eventually causes a problem may have no connection whatsoever with the original disagreement.
Sources: CBS News — Guilfoyle and Deters; CBS News — Deters files defamation lawsuit; Mediaite — Constantine recording and Deters’ October 17 statements; The Daily Beast — Deters interview.
When a Political Ally Becomes a Traitor
Political disagreements are nothing new. Americans have argued about presidents, governors, members of Congress, and elections since the country was founded. Most of us have disagreed with someone about politics, sometimes quite strongly. I have also known people who became so enthusiastic about a candidate that nearly every conversation eventually returned to that politician. I generally try to find another subject before someone starts explaining why every problem in the world can be traced to the last election.
But something different happens when a person begins treating political loyalty as a personal obligation. The candidate is no longer simply someone whose policies the person supports. Criticism of that candidate becomes a personal insult, and someone who changes sides may be regarded as a traitor rather than another American exercising the right to disagree.
A Republican who criticizes a Democrat is doing something people expect. A Republican who served a Republican president, defended him publicly, and then accuses him or his administration of wrongdoing may draw a different reaction from some former allies. The person is no longer simply an opponent. The person is accused of betraying the people who once trusted him.
The same problem can exist within the Democratic Party or any other political movement. It does not take a particular party affiliation to confuse loyalty with personal allegiance. What matters is whether the individual begins to believe that someone who changed positions deserves to be punished.
I am not suggesting that a disappointed supporter is necessarily dangerous. People change political views every day without anyone being threatened. The concern begins when someone moves from disagreement and anger to threats, harassment, unwanted approaches, or violence.
That distinction is why the following cases matter. We are not simply examining people who were criticized after leaving an administration. We are examining people who reported or experienced threats after publicly breaking with their former political allies.
Michael Cohen: From Trusted Attorney to Public Enemy—and Back
Michael Cohen is one of the closest comparisons to Eric Deters because of his previous relationship with Donald Trump. Cohen worked for Trump for approximately ten years as his personal attorney and trusted problem solver. He defended Trump in public, handled difficult legal and personal matters, and became known for his willingness to confront people who challenged his employer.
Cohen was not merely someone who attended a fundraiser and shook the candidate’s hand. He was part of Trump’s inner circle. During his employment, Cohen publicly defended Trump and later acknowledged that he had threatened people with litigation and other legal pressure on Trump’s behalf. He became deeply involved in the controversy over payments made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.
Their relationship eventually collapsed. Cohen pleaded guilty to federal offenses, including campaign finance violations and lying to Congress, and later testified against Trump. In February 2019, he appeared before the House Oversight Committee and made serious accusations concerning his former employer. He described the personal and legal consequences of his years of loyalty and explained why he had decided to cooperate with investigators.
The reaction to Cohen’s break was immediate and public. Trump called him a rat and challenged his credibility. Cohen said he feared for his family’s safety and accused Trump and attorney Rudy Giuliani of making statements intended to intimidate him. In January 2019, Cohen postponed planned congressional testimony, with his attorney citing threats against Cohen’s family and concerns about his safety.
The legal record provides another important fact. In 2020, a federal judge found that Cohen had been returned to prison in retaliation for his efforts to publish a book critical of the president. That was an actual court finding, not simply Cohen’s opinion about how he had been treated.
For several years, Cohen became one of Trump’s most outspoken critics. He wrote books, gave interviews, testified in court, and repeatedly challenged his former employer. If we were examining the situation in 2024, we could fairly describe Cohen as a former loyalist who had become a persistent public opponent.
Stephanie Grisham: A Former Press Secretary Receives Death Threats
Stephanie Grisham presents an even more direct comparison. She served as White House press secretary and communications director, and she also worked closely with First Lady Melania Trump. In other words, she was not standing outside the White House criticizing people she had never met. She worked for the administration and was part of its communications operation.
Grisham resigned on January 6, 2021, following the attack on the Capitol. She later published a book discussing her experiences and became a public critic of the president. In August 2024, she spoke at the Democratic National Convention and described herself as someone who had once been a true believer and a close adviser.
Following her convention appearance, Grisham told Scripps News that she had received death threats from Trump supporters. She also said she expected more threats because of her decision to speak publicly. That is a significant statement from a woman who had served as the administration’s public spokesperson and who understood the attention that follows political controversy.
I consider this particularly relevant to Deters because Grisham’s former position made her criticism more personal to some supporters. She was not an ordinary political opponent. She had worked inside the administration, defended its policies, and spoken on its behalf. When she later criticized the president, some people considered her actions a betrayal.
The important question is not whether those people agreed with her account. They had every right to challenge her statements, criticize her book, and reject her conclusions. What they did not have was a right to threaten her life because she chose to speak publicly.
Source: Scripps News — Stephanie Grisham reports death threats.
Alyssa Farah Griffin: From the White House to Threats Against Her Life
Alyssa Farah Griffin provides another example involving someone who had worked in the administration’s communications operation. She served as press secretary for Vice President Mike Pence and later became White House communications director. Her professional responsibilities placed her inside the administration and brought her into regular contact with its senior officials.
Following the 2020 election, Griffin publicly disagreed with claims that the election had been stolen. After the January 6 attack, she called for the president to resign and became increasingly critical of his conduct. Those statements brought her into conflict with people she had previously worked alongside and with supporters who rejected her account of the election.
During a 2022 interview with PBS FRONTLINE, Griffin described receiving death threats after speaking publicly on January 7, 2021. She said the threats came through several social media platforms and that she had never previously experienced anything similar. She also explained that she needed assistance learning how to report those threats.
The PBS documentary preserved examples of hostile messages directed at her. Some explicitly called her a traitor. Others threatened sexual violence, claimed to know where she lived, or said she deserved to be killed. The documentary placed the threats in the context of her public break with the administration and its supporters.
I believe this is one of the most important comparisons in the article. Griffin had not simply changed her opinion about a tax bill or a trade agreement. She publicly challenged the account of an election that many supporters considered central to the president’s political future. People who had previously regarded her as an ally began treating her as an enemy.
There is also a practical problem when a former official begins receiving threats. Griffin described how strange it felt to seek help reporting death threats when the people she would ordinarily have contacted through her government position were no longer available to her. Leaving an administration can mean losing the professional relationships and resources someone previously relied upon.
That is an issue protective professionals should recognize when assessing former officials, employees, advisers, or public figures who have broken with their previous organizations.
Source: PBS FRONTLINE — Alyssa Farah Griffin interview.
Adam Kinzinger: Threats Against a Republican and His Infant Child
Adam Kinzinger was a Republican congressman who supported conservative policies and served in the United States Air Force. After the 2020 election and the January 6 attack, he became an outspoken critic of the president and served on the House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol.
His criticism made him a target of anger within his own party. Kinzinger and fellow Republican Liz Cheney were repeatedly accused of disloyalty because they refused to accept the claims being made about the election and supported the congressional investigation.
In June 2022, Kinzinger publicly described receiving a letter threatening to execute him, his wife, and their five-month-old child. The letter was sent to his home. He also released recordings of threatening and abusive voicemail messages directed at him and his family.
Some callers specifically accused Kinzinger of betraying Trump. Others directed their anger toward his wife and infant child. In a CNN interview, Kinzinger spoke about the contradiction of people professing Christian beliefs while threatening to kill a six-month-old baby.
I share that concern. I have spent much of my professional life around military personnel, law-enforcement officers, and people who place great importance on patriotism, faith, and the Constitution. I understand that people can hold strong beliefs and still disagree about politics. What I cannot understand is how someone moves from claiming to defend those principles to threatening a man’s wife and infant child because he voted or spoke differently than they wanted.
Kinzinger’s case provides direct evidence of the language of betrayal. He had not abandoned his Republican Party registration and joined an opposing party to campaign for every Democratic policy. He challenged a particular president and participated in an investigation. Some people who previously considered him a fellow Republican responded by threatening him and his family.
That is the point that connects this case to Deters. The person who becomes angry may not consider the former ally an ordinary opponent. The person may believe that someone who once belonged to the political movement has committed a more serious offense by turning against it.
Source: CNN, June 20, 2022 — Kinzinger discusses threats against his family.
Brad Raffensperger: When Political Threats Reach the Family
Brad Raffensperger was Georgia’s Republican secretary of state during the 2020 presidential election. After the election, he defended the state’s results despite pressure from people who disputed the outcome. That placed him in a very unusual political position. He was a Republican elected official being attacked by people who supported the Republican president.
Raffensperger and members of his family subsequently received threatening communications. Reuters reported examining messages sent to his wife, Tricia Raffensperger, including threats to kill members of the family. The messages contained disturbing threats of violence and went well beyond criticism of how the secretary of state performed his duties.
Raffensperger later testified before Congress about the threats against his family. He described the release of his personal contact information, threatening messages sent to his wife, and concerns about his daughter-in-law and grandchildren.
What matters is that threats were directed toward a Republican official and his family because of a dispute over an election involving a Republican president. This was not a Democrat attacking a Republican over a campaign promise. It involved people who considered themselves part of the same political side but disagreed over what the official should do.
I believe the involvement of family members deserves particular attention. A person who has become angry with a public official may direct that anger toward a spouse, child, parent, or other relative. Those family members may have no role in the dispute. They may not even share the official’s political opinions. Nevertheless, their relationship to the person at the center of the controversy can expose them to threats.
For a protection professional, that is a reason to examine the circumstances involving family members when credible threats are received. The appropriate response depends on what has actually happened and what the available information establishes.
Sources: Reuters reporting on threats against election officials; Congressional hearing record.
Mike Pence: The Vice President Who Became the Enemy
If anyone doubts how quickly a trusted political ally can become a political enemy, I suggest examining what happened to Mike Pence on January 6, 2021. Pence had served as vice president for four years. He publicly supported the president, defended administration policies, and campaigned for his reelection. Whatever disagreements they may have had privately, Pence was one of the most visible members of the administration.
The relationship changed when Pence refused to interfere with Congress’s certification of the 2020 election. The president wanted him to take action that Pence concluded he had no constitutional authority to take. Pence refused.
As the crowd approached and then breached the Capitol, some participants called for Pence to be hanged. The January 6 congressional investigation documented threats against the vice president and the concern expressed by members of his Secret Service detail. Agents moved Pence and his family to a secure location as the building was attacked.
I want to emphasize the circumstances. These were not people who had opposed Pence throughout his political career. Many supported the president and vice president as a Republican ticket. They had campaigned for the administration and wanted it to remain in office. Yet when Pence refused to do what they demanded, some turned their anger toward him.
The Secret Service did not have the luxury of debating whether the vice president had been sufficiently loyal to his party. Its responsibility was to protect him and his family. That responsibility remained unchanged regardless of what anyone thought of the election, the president’s demands, or Pence’s decision.
I find this case especially important because it demonstrates that high office and years of political loyalty do not necessarily protect someone from the anger of former allies. Pence had been the vice president. He had worked beside the president. He was still exposed to threats from people who believed he had betrayed the political movement they supported.
The difference between Pence and Deters is considerable. Pence held national office, was involved in the certification of a presidential election, and had Secret Service protection. Deters is a private citizen involved in a dispute over accusations and government assistance. I would not pretend their circumstances are identical.
But the underlying issue is clear. A person who has been accepted as an ally may become the object of anger when supporters decide that person has turned against their cause.
Source: House January 6 Committee Final Report.
John Fetterman: A Democrat Called a Traitor by Democrats
Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania provides another example of what happens when someone’s political positions anger the people who once supported him. Fetterman was elected as a Democrat in 2022. Since taking office, he has broken with his party on several issues, defended some of President Trump’s policies, and worked openly with Republican officials. Some Democrats now accuse him of betraying the voters who elected him. He continues to identify himself as a Democrat and maintains that his positions reflect his responsibility to represent all Pennsylvanians.
In July 2025, Fetterman publicly discussed receiving death threats on social media. His wife, Gisele, separately reported receiving death threats regularly for years. In May 2026, Fetterman wrote that protesters had followed him around Washington and appeared at his home in Braddock, calling him a traitor because of his positions on Israel, immigration, and other issues. A Pennsylvania Democratic organization also publicly called him a traitor and urged voters to replace him in the next election.
I find this particularly relevant to Eric Deters. We have a Democratic senator being accused of betraying the Democratic Party because he works with Republicans and supports certain policies of the Republican president. Deters faces criticism in the opposite direction. He supported the Republican administration and is now publicly challenging people associated with it. In both situations, people who once considered someone an ally may begin treating that person as a political enemy. That is where our concern begins. Political disagreement is one thing. Threatening someone because they no longer agree with you is something entirely different.
Sources: Semafor — Fetterman discusses death threats; KDKA Radio — Gisele Fetterman’s account; The Washington Post — Fetterman’s May 7, 2026 article.
President Garfield: Assassinated by a Disappointed Supporter
We should not assume that political supporters turning against their own leaders is something created by modern social media. The assassination of President James A. Garfield provides an extreme example from American history, long before television, Facebook, or the internet.
Garfield was shot on July 2, 1881, by Charles Guiteau, a man who had supported his election and believed that his political work entitled him to a government appointment. Guiteau wanted a diplomatic position, particularly an appointment in Paris. He repeatedly approached government officials but was rejected.
Guiteau became angry and convinced himself that Garfield was standing in the way of the Republican Party’s future. He believed that removing Garfield would benefit the party and bring Vice President Chester A. Arthur to power. He also claimed that God wanted him to carry out the assassination.
I consider Guiteau particularly relevant because he was not a political opponent from another party who wanted the Republican president removed so a Democrat could take office. He was a disappointed Republican supporter who convinced himself that killing the president would somehow serve the political cause he claimed to support.
There is an obvious difference between Guiteau and the contemporary people discussed in this article. His statements and behavior raised serious questions concerning his mental condition, and his case cannot be used to describe the mental health of ordinary political supporters.
But it demonstrates something that remains important. A person may develop a grievance against someone he previously supported, create his own explanation for why that person deserves punishment, and act without anyone directing him to do so.
We should be able to recognize that possibility without turning every disappointed campaign volunteer into a suspected assassin. The distinction is behavior. Guiteau did not simply complain about being denied a job. He purchased a pistol, followed the president, and shot him.
Source: National Park Service — Charles Guiteau and President Garfield.
When Ordinary Americans Turn to Violence
The preceding cases involve government officials, former White House employees, and a presidential assassination. But I also want readers to understand that physical violence over political disagreement does not always require a complicated plan or someone with a criminal organization behind him.
Consider what has happened at political rallies when someone stands up, boos a candidate, or holds a sign expressing opposition. Other people in the audience may object to the interruption. Some have gone further and physically attacked the person. The individual being attacked may be a complete stranger whose only offense, in the eyes of the attacker, is disagreeing with the candidate.
In March 2016, Rakeem Jones was punched while being escorted out of a Trump rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The attacker, John Franklin McGraw, was a 78-year-old rally attendee. McGraw subsequently pleaded no contest to misdemeanor assault and disorderly conduct. In an interview after the incident, he defended his actions and suggested that Jones might deserve to be killed if they encountered him again.
More recently, on October 12, 2026, a woman protesting at a Trump rally in Youngstown, Ohio, was struck by people in the audience. Video reviewed by news organizations showed the physical confrontation. The president subsequently mocked the woman’s appearance, including her weight, while security personnel removed her from the event.
I do not intend to spend several pages describing each punch or replaying every second of the confrontations. The point is much simpler. Certain individuals were willing to physically attack another American because that person criticized their political candidate.
I am not suggesting that a man who punches a protester at a rally will necessarily become another Cesar Sayoc or David DePape. Those were much more serious crimes, involving extensive preparation and, in DePape’s case, severe injuries. The evidence from one type of incident cannot be used to predict that another will follow.
What these rally incidents demonstrate is something simpler and disturbing enough on its own. Certain individuals were willing to physically attack another American because that person criticized their political candidate. In Fayetteville, the attacker later suggested that the protester might deserve to be killed. In Youngstown, the woman was struck by attendees while the president mocked her from the stage. In Tucson, a man carrying an American flag and a political sign was punched and kicked while being escorted out.
I understand that organizers may remove people who disrupt an event. A political rally is not an unlimited opportunity to interrupt a speaker, and the First Amendment does not give someone the right to disregard every lawful rule governing a venue. But there is an enormous difference between removing someone and allowing members of the audience to assault that person. Disagreement does not provide a legal or moral excuse for violence.
It is also worth remembering that the people committing these assaults did not necessarily know their victims. Jones was a stranger to McGraw. The Tucson protester was a stranger to the man who attacked him. The woman in Youngstown was attacked by people who apparently knew little more about her than that she disagreed with the president. They did not need to investigate her background or determine whether her criticism was accurate before deciding she deserved physical punishment.
Now consider someone like Eric Deters. He has publicly challenged people associated with an administration he once supported, and his statements have received national attention. The incidents demonstrate that some people are willing to attack a stranger simply because they view that person as a political enemy.
That is the concern. A person does not need to be an organized extremist, a trained operative, or someone acting on instructions from a politician to become violent. Sometimes all it takes is an individual who decides that someone has insulted the candidate or political movement the individual supports. Most people would argue, walk away, or ignore the protester. A few have demonstrated that they will use their fists.
As an executive protection professional, I cannot ignore that distinction. When someone becomes the subject of a political controversy, we should examine actual threats and behavior, not simply assume that every angry supporter is dangerous. But we should also remember what happened in those crowded arenas. Political violence does not always begin with a secret organization, a complicated plot, or a carefully prepared manifesto. Sometimes an individual sees someone they regard as a political enemy and decides to attack.
And for all the talk about patriotism, Christianity, the Constitution, and freedom of speech, I have yet to find a passage in the First Amendment that says you may punch another American for disagreeing with your candidate.
Sources: CBS News/AP — Fayetteville assault and court disposition; ABC News — Tucson rally assault; People — Youngstown confrontation.
Cesar Sayoc: When Political Anger Becomes a Mail-Bomb Campaign
In October 2018, Cesar Sayoc mailed 16 improvised explosive devices to 13 targets across the country. They included former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Vice President Joe Biden, other Democratic officials, CNN, and people Sayoc regarded as political opponents. Federal prosecutors described his actions as domestic terrorism. He pleaded guilty to 65 felony counts and was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison.
Sayoc was a vocal supporter of President Trump. His van was covered with political images and messages, including attacks on prominent Democrats. That matters because his intended victims were not people with whom he had a personal dispute over a business agreement or a government appointment. He had come to regard public figures and organizations as enemies and decided to send them explosive devices. No one was injured by the devices, but the absence of injuries does not make his conduct any less serious.
I am not suggesting that Sayoc’s crimes were ordered by the president or that his actions describe the millions of people who supported the same candidate. Sayoc was responsible for his own decisions. That is precisely why his case belongs in this article. A person can act without receiving instructions from the politician he admires. He can select targets, prepare an attack, and carry it out because he has decided those people are political enemies.
There is also an important difference between Sayoc and the former political allies discussed earlier. Sayoc attacked people he already viewed as opponents. Eric Deters, by contrast, once supported the administration he is now criticizing. The comparison is not about identical political relationships. It is about the possibility that a stranger, motivated by his own political grievances, may decide to act against someone who has attracted public attention. That is a distinction I would expect any protection professional to understand.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice — Cesar Sayoc sentenced for mailing 16 explosive devices.
David DePape: When a Political Grievance Reaches the Family Home
On October 28, 2022, David DePape entered the San Francisco home of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He intended to kidnap her, but she was not home. Her husband, Paul Pelosi, was there. When police arrived, DePape struck Paul Pelosi with a hammer, fracturing his skull. The assault was captured by police body-camera footage, and the injuries were severe. In May 2024, DePape was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for assaulting the family member of a federal official and attempting to kidnap the official.
The evidence presented at trial showed that DePape had researched Nancy Pelosi, collected information about her residence, and brought weapons and restraints. Prosecutors said he intended to hold her hostage and punish her because of her official duties. This was not a spontaneous argument between two people at a political event. DePape had developed a grievance, identified a target, and taken steps to reach that target at home.
For me, one of the most important parts of this case is that the person seriously injured was not the politician DePape intended to confront. It was her husband. We have already discussed threats against the families of Adam Kinzinger and Brad Raffensperger. DePape’s case shows why those concerns cannot simply be dismissed as unpleasant words. Someone pursuing a political grievance may bring violence to a residence and harm a family member who had no part in the dispute.
DePape was not a former member of Pelosi’s political circle who felt betrayed by her. That is why I would not present his case as a direct comparison to the relationship between Deters and his former political allies. It demonstrates a different, equally relevant concern: an individual acting on his own political grievance can turn a public controversy into an attack on a private home. Protective professionals must evaluate actual behavior, including research, preparation, threatening statements, and approaches, rather than assume that a person without a formal connection to a political organization poses no concern.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice — David DePape sentenced for assault and attempted kidnapping.
What These Cases Tell Us About Political Loyalty
When I compare these cases, I am not looking for a particular political party or trying to establish that the average supporter of a president is dangerous. I am looking at what happens when someone becomes convinced that another person has betrayed a cause, leader, or group that means a great deal to them.
Cohen had been a trusted attorney before becoming one of Trump’s most vocal opponents. Grisham and Griffin worked inside the administration before publicly criticizing it. Kinzinger remained a Republican but challenged the president and received threats against his family. Raffensperger was a Republican election official whose family received threats following a dispute over the election. Pence had served as vice president before becoming the target of a crowd that accused him of betraying the president.
Senator Fetterman provides an example from the Democratic Party. He continues identifying himself as a Democrat, but his disagreements with party activists and his willingness to work with Republicans have led some former supporters to call him a traitor. The political circumstances are different, but the language of betrayal is familiar.
The common issue is not that these individuals held different political views. It is that they had once been accepted within a political movement and later became the subjects of hostility because of their disagreement with people they previously supported.
The reaction can be particularly personal when someone believes that loyalty to a political leader is more important than the principles the person claims to support. I have heard plenty of people describe themselves as patriotic Americans who believe strongly in the Constitution and freedom of speech. Yet we have documented incidents in which individuals physically attacked someone for disagreeing with their candidate.
I do not believe that makes every member of the political movement dangerous. It does demonstrate why a person’s political beliefs alone cannot tell us whether that person may become violent. We have to examine behavior, statements, and circumstances.
The United States Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center has repeatedly emphasized the importance of looking at what people actually do, their grievances, and changes in their behavior. That is a far more useful approach than assuming we can identify a dangerous individual by political affiliation or appearance.
For Deters, that distinction is central to the article. As more people become aware of his accusations, some may begin regarding him as a political enemy. Our concern is whether anyone takes that disagreement beyond words.
Applying the Evidence to Eric Deters
We can now return to Eric Deters with a clearer understanding of the problem. The established facts are that he has made public allegations concerning Guilfoyle, supplied material to journalists, become involved in litigation, criticized senior administration officials, released further allegations, and received national publicity. The president publicly distanced himself from Guilfoyle following her departure. Deters has indicated that he intends to continue challenging people associated with the administration.
Those circumstances make the controversy visible and potentially contentious. They do not, by themselves, establish that someone has decided to attack Deters. If I were asked to evaluate the circumstances professionally, I would begin by establishing what threats or incidents had actually occurred. That means distinguishing ordinary criticism and unpleasant comments from communications suggesting an intention to cause harm.
It also means examining whether anyone had engaged in repeated unwanted contact, attempted a physical approach, or demonstrated other concerning behavior. The purpose would be to identify evidence that warrants attention rather than simply measure how many people are angry on social media.
I would also want to know whether the nature of any hostile communications changed following Guilfoyle’s resignation or Deters’ subsequent statements concerning Vance and other officials. Those developments changed the public controversy, but we cannot assume they had a corresponding effect on threatening behavior. Comparing actual incidents over time would provide a more defensible basis for evaluation.
The appropriate protective response depends on what an assessment establishes. Some circumstances may warrant documentation, improved communications with law enforcement, or reasonable personal-security precautions. A more serious pattern of threats or approaching behavior may justify additional investigation and protective resources. Not every controversial public figure needs a permanent armed detail. The availability of trained personnel and an organized response should reflect the seriousness of the evidence.
What concerns me most is the possibility that a public figure or private citizen might dismiss a developing threat because the person responsible appears to have no connection to the political officials involved. That was one of the lessons I drew from the Cesar Sayoc case. The individual who becomes dangerous may be unknown to the people involved in the original dispute. No official appointment, organizational membership, or personal invitation is required for someone to make a terrible decision.
At the same time, we should not allow the possibility of such conduct to become a substitute for evidence. I have spent too much time discussing professional standards, training, and accountability to abandon those principles simply because a political controversy is attracting attention. An assessment must identify what is known, what remains unverified, and what additional information is needed. Otherwise, we are not assessing a threat. We are contributing to the noise surrounding it.
Protective personnel must be able to explain why they recommend a particular action and what evidence supports that recommendation. They must also be prepared to revise an assessment when new information becomes available. A decision made yesterday may no longer fit the circumstances tomorrow, which is one reason a professional protective program needs continuing review.
This has been a central concern of ISA since we began providing dignitary and executive protection training to law-enforcement personnel in 2011. Many local agencies have experienced officers who know their communities and perform difficult law-enforcement duties every day. That does not automatically mean those officers have received specialized instruction in protective operations, advance planning, or organizing a detail. A badge is not a substitute for training, any more than an expensive suit and a pair of sunglasses establish that someone is a qualified executive protection specialist.
For readers interested in how ISA addresses these subjects, additional information about the training program and curriculum is available through EPTraining.us.
Conclusion
The Eric Deters controversy raises a question that is much larger than a former ambassador, a disputed payment, or the next recording someone may release. What happens when a person who once supported a political leader begins publicly challenging that leader’s administration and is then regarded by some supporters as a traitor?
John Fetterman provides a Democratic example. He remains a Democrat, but his disagreements with some party members have led protesters to follow him and appear at his residence calling him a traitor. He has also publicly discussed threats directed toward him on social media.
The assassination of President Garfield reminds us that the danger from a disappointed political supporter is not a modern invention. Charles Guiteau supported Garfield’s election, believed the administration owed him a position, and eventually convinced himself that murdering the president would serve the Republican Party.
Those cases do not establish that Eric Deters will be attacked. They do not establish that the average Republican supporter is dangerous or that officials in the administration are directing violence against critics. They show that a person can become the target of threats or violence after being regarded as an ally, and that the person threatening them may act independently.
But, I am particularly concerned about the way some people confuse loyalty to a political leader with loyalty to the Constitution and the country. Americans have every right to support their preferred candidates. They also have the right to change their minds, criticize those candidates, bring legal actions, and speak publicly about matters they believe deserve attention.
Someone who claims to defend the First Amendment but threatens to kill another American for exercising that right has misunderstood what the amendment protects. Someone who describes himself as patriotic while threatening a politician’s wife or infant child has an equally serious problem understanding what patriotism requires.
I am not suggesting we can eliminate political anger or convince everyone to be polite. Americans have never been particularly good at agreeing about politics, and I doubt that will change anytime soon. But we should be able to disagree without threatening to murder one another.
As Deters continues speaking publicly, the possibility that some people may regard him as a political enemy deserves consideration. The seriousness of any actual threat must be determined from evidence, not speculation or political opinion.
The larger lesson is that protection professionals cannot depend on political labels or assumptions about loyalty to identify a dangerous person. Someone may support a leader without ever becoming violent. Another individual may develop a grievance and take actions that require serious investigation. The difference must be established through behavior and evidence.
We have enough historical examples to understand why a former ally may become a target. What protective professionals need to do is recognize when someone’s anger has become threatening behavior and respond accordingly.
That responsibility remains the same regardless of which political party the individual supports.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why compare Eric Deters with former members of the administration?
Deters previously supported the president and sought assistance from people associated with his administration. He is now publicly challenging some of those people. Former officials such as Stephanie Grisham, Alyssa Farah Griffin, and Mike Pence were also once part of the administration before publicly disagreeing with it. Their experiences provide documented examples of the hostility and threats that can follow a political break.
What has Eric Deters done since the original allegations became public?
On October 15, 2026, Deters filed a defamation lawsuit against Guilfoyle and members of her legal team. The following day, he released a recorded conversation with Jonathan Constantine containing additional allegations concerning Guilfoyle. On October 17, he publicly challenged his critics and continued criticizing the administration’s response to the Durrani matter.
Did Michael Cohen report threats after turning against Trump?
Cohen publicly described threats and intimidation involving himself and his family after becoming a critic and cooperating with investigators. He postponed planned congressional testimony in January 2019, citing concerns about his family’s safety. He and Trump publicly reconciled in August 2026.
Did former White House spokespeople receive death threats?
Yes. Stephanie Grisham told Scripps News that she received death threats from Trump supporters after publicly breaking with the administration. Alyssa Farah Griffin described death threats received after she spoke out following January 6, 2021. Her account was recorded in a PBS FRONTLINE interview.
Was Adam Kinzinger’s family threatened?
Yes. Kinzinger publicly released a letter threatening himself, his wife, and their infant child. He also discussed threatening voicemail messages involving his family. The threats were connected to hostility toward his criticism of the president and his participation in the January 6 investigation.
Were there threats against Republican officials who refused to challenge the 2020 election results?
Yes. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, and members of his family received threatening messages following the election. Reuters reported death threats directed toward his wife. Mike Pence also faced threats during the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
Has Senator John Fetterman reported threats?
Yes. In July 2025, Fetterman discussed death threats directed toward him on social media. His wife, Gisele, separately reported receiving regular death threats. In May 2026, Fetterman wrote that protesters had followed him and appeared at his Braddock residence calling him a traitor because of his political positions.
Did President Garfield’s assassin belong to the same political party?
Charles Guiteau supported Garfield’s election and regarded himself as entitled to an appointment from the Republican administration. He became angry after officials rejected his demands and claimed that killing Garfield would benefit the party. His conduct was extreme and criminal, but it demonstrates how a disappointed supporter may turn against a political leader.
Does increased publicity automatically mean Deters faces a greater threat?
Publicity brings a controversy to more people’s attention, including people who may disagree strongly with the person receiving coverage. Whether any individual develops threatening intentions must be determined from actual conduct and circumstances.
What should executive protection professionals learn from these cases?
Protective personnel must distinguish political disagreement from threatening behavior. They should evaluate credible threats, repeated unwanted contact, concerning approaches, and evidence of preparation. Their conclusions should be based on what individuals actually say and do, not simply which political party they support.
A Note to Eric Deters
If you read this article, I hope you will consider having a qualified professional review your circumstances.
About the Author
Matthew C. Parker is Chief Executive Officer of Independent Security Advisors LLC (ISA) and Director of Training for EPTraining.us. His professional experience includes more than three decades of military service, executive and dignitary protection operations, international security advising, military instruction, and curriculum development.
During his military career, Parker conducted protective operations involving senior U.S. military and Iraqi officials, trained American and Iraqi protective personnel, managed instructional programs, and taught military science at Virginia Tech. His instructional background includes service as an Army Master Instructor and responsibility for the development, management, and evaluation of military training.
Since establishing ISA in 2011, Parker has directed executive protection operations for international officials and trade delegations in the United States, developed protective programs for private clients, and provided training and advisory services involving law-enforcement and private protective personnel. His international experience includes protective operations and security advising in Iraq and training assignments in Ukraine, including work with Ukrainian police and Judicial Protection Service personnel.
Parker established ISA’s Defending Democracy Initiative in 2017 to address threats against elected and appointed officials and the need for properly trained personnel to protect public officials in their home communities. He has written extensively about political violence, executive protection standards, protective training, threats against public officials, and historical protective failures.
Publisher: Independent Security Advisors LLC / EPTraining.us
Series: ISA Defending Democracy Initiative
#ExecutiveProtection #ProtectiveIntelligence #ThreatAssessment #PoliticalViolence #EricDeters #PoliticalIntimidation #DefendingDemocracy #EPTraining
Related ISA Articles
Fear Is Already Here: Why Didn’t You Just Listen? Five Years Later, the Warnings Are Louder examines continuing threats against elected and appointed officials, questions concerning protective preparedness, and the responsibilities of state and local law-enforcement agencies.
Fear Is Already Here: Threats Are Changing How Public Officials Serve—and How Judges Rule considers how threats and intimidation affect public duties, judicial responsibilities, and the ability of officials to serve their communities.
When Incivility Becomes a Call to Kill: The New Hampshire Assassination Posts examines public statements encouraging political violence and the difference between ordinary political disagreement and threats.
Who Should Protect Elected Officials: Police, Private Security, Reserves, or an Integrated Detail? discusses the personnel, qualifications, resources, and coordination required when public officials need protective services.
Executive Protection Standards: What Can Employers Actually Rely On? examines the qualifications and professional capability that employers should expect from executive protection personnel.
Sources and References
The following sources document the incidents, statements, and legal proceedings discussed in this article.
- CBS News, October 9, 2026. Eric Deters’ allegations concerning Kimberly Guilfoyle and the disputed $100,000 request.
- CBS News, October 13, 2026. Kimberly Guilfoyle’s resignation as ambassador to Greece.
- CBS News, October 16, 2026. Eric Deters files a defamation lawsuit against Kimberly Guilfoyle.
- Mediaite, October 17, 2026. Deters releases the Constantine recording and challenges his critics.
- The Daily Beast, October 2026. Deters discusses additional disclosures, litigation, and his belief that publicity provides protection.
- CBS News / Associated Press, August 21, 2026. Trump and Michael Cohen publicly reconcile.
- CBS News, January 23, 2019. Michael Cohen postpones congressional testimony, citing threats and family concerns.
- Associated Press, July 23, 2020. Federal judge orders Michael Cohen released after finding retaliation concerning his book.
- Scripps News, August 2024. Stephanie Grisham discusses her break with the administration and reported death threats.
- PBS FRONTLINE, May 2022. Alyssa Farah Griffin describes receiving death threats after publicly criticizing the president.
- CNN, June 20, 2022. Adam Kinzinger reports death threats against himself, his wife, and their infant child.
- Reuters, June 2021. Threatening messages directed toward Georgia election officials and the Raffensperger family.
- House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack, December 2022. Final Report, Chapter Five.
- House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack, December 2022. Final Report, Chapter Eight, concerning the evacuation of Vice President Pence.
- Semafor, July 16, 2025. Senator John Fetterman discusses death threats on social media.
- KDKA Radio, July 11, 2025. Gisele Fetterman reports receiving regular death threats.
- The Washington Post, May 7, 2026. Senator John Fetterman describes protesters calling him a traitor.
- National Park Service. Stalwarts, Half-Breeds, and Political Assassination: Charles Guiteau and President Garfield.
- CBS News / Associated Press, December 2016. John Franklin McGraw’s court disposition following the assault on Rakeem Jones.
- People, October 13, 2026. Woman punched by attendees during the Youngstown rally.
- U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center, 2023. Mass Attacks in Public Spaces: 2016–2020.