Ohio’s Democratic attorney general candidate, Elliot Forhan, has made a public statement saying he intends to “kill Donald Trump” through the legal system by securing a conviction and carrying out capital punishment, comments that raise alarms about political retribution, the misuse of prosecutorial power, and the broader push from some on the left to weaponize government institutions against conservatives.
There is a growing, openly hostile streak in some progressive circles that treats criminal justice as a tool for settling political scores instead of a framework for equal application of the law. That mentality flips the principle of rule of law on its head: justice becomes punishment aimed at rivals rather than neutral adjudication based on evidence. Any prosecutor who frames a criminal case as political retribution invites doubt about their commitment to due process and impartiality.
The candidate in question, Elliot Forhan, is running for Ohio Attorney General and used blunt language to describe his intent toward President Trump. He said he plans to obtain a conviction and seek capital punishment, presenting that as the meaning of his claim that he will “kill Donald Trump.” Those are not offhand remarks; they describe a legal path that would depend on prosecutors, juries, and courts acting in concert. That level of aggression from someone vying to be the state’s chief law enforcement officer is deeply unsettling.
The precise words Forhan used are: “Hi. This is Elliot Forhan, candidate for Ohio Attorney General,” Forhan says. “I want to tell you what I mean when I say that I am going to kill Donald Trump. I mean, I’m going to obtain a conviction rendered by a jury of his peers at a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence presented at a trial conducted in accordance with the requirements of due process, resulting in a sentence, duly executed, of capital punishment. That is what I mean when I say that I am going to kill Donald Trump.”
Hearing a prosecutor-in-waiting spell out a prosecutorial strategy as an act of revenge should make citizens of every political stripe uneasy. Prosecutors hold immense power: they decide who is charged, what charges are filed, and what plea deals are offered. When that power is discussed in terms of targeted punishment for a political opponent, it invites questions about fairness, prosecutorial discretion, and the erosion of constitutional safeguards.
Forhan has also publicly criticized immigration enforcement agencies and expressed hostility toward ICE, rhetoric that fits a broader narrative among some Democrats who favor aggressive political posturing over pragmatic law enforcement. Attacking institutions tasked with upholding federal immigration law signals a willingness to politicize public safety rather than steward it. That alignment further suggests a prosecutorial philosophy shaped more by ideology than by neutral legal judgment.
The candidate did not stop at general hostility; he made pointed comments about conservative figures and commentators, including Charlie Kirk, reflecting a combative posture toward opponents. Those remarks came across as dismissive and lacking the measured temperament voters expect from someone who might oversee statewide prosecutions. When a potential attorney general treats political combat like a public relations campaign, the lines between law and politics become dangerously thin.
Observers are right to worry this kind of talk could presage selective enforcement aimed at political foes rather than impartial application of statutes. Some of the candidate’s other remarks suggest he may be prepping defensive ground or trying to normalize extreme positions. That pattern raises the possibility of prosecutorial decisions driven by headline-seeking or partisan score-settling instead of by evidence and legal standards.
At best, these statements are reckless and inflammatory; at worst, they reveal a readiness to weaponize the justice system against political adversaries. Either way, such rhetoric undermines public confidence in legal institutions, and it invites retaliation dynamics that can hollow out the rule of law. When public officials frame legal outcomes as political victories, trust in impartial justice fades fast.
This episode is part of a larger trend where some on the left openly debate using government mechanisms to punish conservatives after losing elections, turning accountability into retribution. That mindset encourages a tit-for-tat approach to governance, where each transfer of power risks coming with legal vendettas rather than policy debates. A stable republic needs a civic culture that prizes restraint and equal justice, not revenge.
Some commentators now treat ordinary legal processes like impeachment or prosecutions as insufficient and push for escalated measures that read like payback. That escalation threatens to normalize politicized prosecutions as an acceptable response to electoral defeats. If the electorate and legal community accept that as routine, the protective barrier of nonpartisan law enforcement erodes.
Voters, civic institutions, and legal professionals should take these developments seriously because the implications go beyond one campaign or one candidate’s rhetoric. The health of democratic institutions depends on prosecutors who apply the law impartially and respect procedural guarantees. Allowing the narrative of revenge to infiltrate prosecutorial offices risks transforming justice into a partisan weapon.
