Arrest Zohran Kwame Mamdani. Not because he may have lied on his immigration documents. Not because he’s a self-proclaimed communist set on overthrowing the country. Not because he’s an Israel-hating Islamist hellbent on Sharia Law. He should be arrested because he broke federal law.

Repeatedly, Mamdani has threatened, intimidated, and harassed Benjamin Netanyahu. Let’s go to the videotape:

“Mayor Mamdani, will you welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu to NYC … given the U.S. is not signatory to the IC? Would a Mayor Mamdani welcome Benjamin Netanyahu to the city?”

“No, as Mayor, NYC would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu. This is a city whose values are inline with international law, it’s time our actions are also.”

“Even though the U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC.”

“No, it’s time that we actually step up and make clear what we are willing to do to showcase the leadership that is sorely missing in the federal administration.”

Free speech is not absolute: there are guardrails when speech threatens, intimidates, and harasses, especially when it’s obviously not hyperbolic rhetoric but rather a cold, calculated, consistent, credible, and unmistakable threat. After watching the video, could there be any doubt as to Mamdani’s intent?

SCOTUS has a high bar for criminalizing speech: it must be speech that not only incites violence but must also produce imminent lawless action. However, do not confuse the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard on ordinary speech with threats. Threats need not incite immediate violence. In Virginia v. Black—the cross burning case—the standard was that a threat need only be a true threat: a serious expression of an intent to commit an unlawful act of violence.

However, true threats are not limited to threatening violence. In Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists, “wanted-style” posters targeting abortion doctors were held to be a criminal threat—intimidation itself was enough.

When foreign officials are involved, the same principles apply under 18 U.S.C. §112. Thus, in U.S.A. v. Glenn Glan, which involved throwing containers with paint at ambassadors—to humiliate, not injure—the Second Circuit ruled threats against diplomats were such that, “neither the plain language of §112(a) nor judicial construction of similar assault statutes requires proof of injury or intent to injure.”

Under 18 U.S.C. §112, Mamdani’s hatred for Israel has crossed over from mere rhetoric into criminality. “Whoever willfully intimidates, coerces, threatens, or harasses a foreign official or an official guest or obstructs a foreign official in the performance of his duties...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

Let’s understand why this is so important. In the late 1960s and mid-1970s, terror against diplomats had become the instrument of choice to undermine foreign relations. The Soviet embassy in DC and the Soviet Mission in NY were both bombed. In a synchronized attack, the Yugoslavian embassy in DC, and its consulates in Chicago, NY, and San Francisco, as well as locations in Canada, were all bombed. The Cuban and the Portuguese embassies in DC were both bombed. The Chilean Ambassador was assassinated by a car bomb in DC. Around the world, there were over 50 bombings or attacks on diplomatic missions during this period.

The nations that fell victim to these attacks were livid, claiming the United States had violated Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which the Senate had ratified, making it de facto U.S. law.

Ambassadorial violence ran in the other direction, too. America’s standing in the world was plummeting, as violence abroad soared. U.S. Ambassadors were killed in Guatemala, Argentina, Sudan, Cyprus, and Lebanon.

The need to protect foreign officials was not merely an act of law enforcement; it was a vital geopolitical necessity in an increasingly dangerous world.

Later, Congress was so worried that §112 would not be enforced that it passed 18 U.S.C. §878, which governs “Threats and extortion against foreign officials.” The statute armed Diplomatic Security Service agents and empowered them to make arrests (the DSS language later migrated to 22 U.S.C. §4803).

Clearly, threatening “internationally protected persons” —i.e., Benjamin Netanyahu—is not just against U.S. and international law. It is also an assault on the State Department, destabilizes global international relations, and puts American lives at risk.

The DOJ can get creative here. Mamdani not only threatened Netanyahu but, additionally, to prove it was no slip of the tongue but rather deadly serious—and to ensure Netanyahu saw it—he doubled down and posted the interview to his X account. 18 U.S.C.§875 (Interstate Communication) makes it a crime to threaten to kidnap a person over the internet.

By using the internet to threaten to arrest a foreign head of state without any lawful authority, Mamdani was, in substance, threatening an unlawful seizure and detention. Under federal law, that is indistinguishable from a threat to kidnap. While courts have traditionally limited § 875(c) to threats of physical injury or abduction, the DOJ could reasonably argue that Mamdani’s statements fall within its scope, particularly when paired with §112. Coincidentally, §875(c) comes with a five-year prison term, while the mayorship is four years.

Threats against internationally protected persons are not political theater. They are federal crimes that jeopardize U.S. treaty obligations and global security and must be punished. And the higher the profile of the prosecution, the greater the deterrent effect.

Pam Bondi, call your office.

Image created using AI.

Huck Davenport is a pseudonym.