When a top elected prosecutor stands on the steps of City Hall and vows to hunt you down the way they "hunted down Nazis for decades," those are not casual words. They are not political theater. They are not rhetorical flourishes. They are a threat — directed at a specific group of federal law enforcement officers carrying out lawful duties under the authority of the United States Constitution.
And when that threat comes from a sitting district attorney, it deserves immediate and serious scrutiny.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner made that statement publicly while discussing federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity. His words were not hypothetical. They were not spoken in private. They were delivered on camera, at a press event, and circulated widely. Krasner referred to ICE agents as "wannabe Nazis" and promised to "hunt you down" and "find your identities."
That sounds like a threat — because by any reasonable definition, it is one.
Prosecutors are not pundits. They are not activists. They are sworn officers of the court who take an oath to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law impartially. Their words carry weight. Their statements signal intent. And their rhetoric matters in ways that casual political speech does not.
Let's start with the basics. Immigration enforcement is federal law. Whether one supports or opposes current immigration policy is irrelevant to that fact. Congress passed the statutes. Federal courts have upheld them. And federal officers are lawfully tasked with enforcing them. State and local officials do not get veto power over federal law simply because they dislike it.
The Constitution's Supremacy Clause makes that clear. Federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land," and state officials are bound by it — including district attorneys.
Krasner's defenders will argue that his remarks were rhetorical, symbolic, or meant to energize a political base. But intent does not erase effect. A public vow to "hunt down" federal agents and expose their identities is not abstract speech. It is directed, targeted, and inherently intimidating — especially when spoken by a prosecutor who controls charging decisions and works closely with law enforcement databases and investigatory tools.
Federal law takes threats against federal officers seriously. Under 18 U.S.C. § 111 and related statutes, threats or intimidation against officers engaged in official duties can constitute a crime. The law exists for a reason: to prevent exactly this kind of escalation, intimidation, and politicized targeting of law enforcement.
This is not about whether a federal agent has ever committed wrongdoing. If any law enforcement officer breaks the law, they should be investigated and prosecuted appropriately. That principle applies universally. But promising to "hunt down" officers because of the agency they work for is not accountability — it is retaliation.
And retaliation from a prosecutor is especially dangerous.
Words like Krasner's do not exist in a vacuum. They land in a climate already saturated with hostility toward law enforcement. They embolden activists. They raise the temperature. They send a message that certain officers are enemies, not public servants. History teaches us what happens next when officials normalize that kind of language.
Ironically, the same political class that insists "words are violence" when it suits them suddenly becomes very forgiving when threats are aimed in the right ideological direction. But the law does not recognize ideological exemptions. A threat does not stop being a threat because the speaker believes he is morally justified.
If a private citizen had stood on those same steps and said they intended to "hunt down" federal agents, there would already be an investigation. If a conservative official had used that language toward another arm of government, the outrage would be immediate and deafening.
The rule of law cannot operate on double standards.
If a district attorney uses his platform to threaten federal law enforcement, then federal authorities are well within their rights — and arguably their obligations — to investigate whether that conduct violates federal law. That includes the authority to arrest, indict, and prosecute if the facts support it. No badge, robe, or elected title places someone above the law.
Political debate is healthy. Policy disagreement is essential in a free society. But threats are not debate, and intimidation is not dissent.
Prosecutors, of all people, should know where that line is.
Larry Krasner crossed it.
And if the law means what it says, then the response should be as serious as the statement itself.
Because when a prosecutor threatens law enforcement, and no one responds, the message is clear: the rule of law is optional — and power decides who is protected.
That is not justice.
That is chaos.