Ohio Democratic AG Candidate Faces Backlash Over Trump ‘Killing’ Post

A Democratic candidate for Ohio attorney general has triggered widespread criticism after posting on social media about his intention to “kill Donald Trump,” a statement he later clarified was referring to legal prosecution rather than physical harm.

Elliot Forhan, a former state representative now seeking the attorney general position, wrote on Facebook Monday: “I want to tell you what I mean when I say that I am going to kill Donald Trump.” He went on to explain that he meant he would “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.”

The provocative post immediately sparked backlash across social media platforms, with critics from both political parties condemning the rhetoric as dangerous and inappropriate. This incident comes amid heightened concerns about political violence following several high-profile incidents, including the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on a college campus in September 2025.

Ohio State Auditor Keith Faber, who is also running for attorney general, called Forhan’s comments “vile” and urged Democratic gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton to denounce the statement. Other Republican officials in Ohio, including treasurer candidate Jay Edwards, criticized Democrats for not immediately distancing themselves from Forhan’s remarks.

“Democrats, your silence is telling,” Edwards posted on social media. “Dr. Amy Acton and Sherrod Brown—disavow this extremist now, or admit you’re okay with this violent hate in your party.”

This is not the first time Forhan has generated controversy with his social media activity. Last year, he faced significant criticism for posting a profanity-laced message about Charlie Kirk shortly after Kirk was murdered. The combination of these incidents has raised questions about Forhan’s judgment and temperament as a candidate for Ohio’s top law enforcement position.

When contacted for comment, Forhan did not retract his statement but instead defended his position, saying he is running for attorney general to “apply the law equally to everyone” including the president. “If Donald Trump tries again to end American democracy, then as Ohio attorney general I will hold him accountable to the fullest extent of the law,” Forhan said in his statement.

Forhan then pivoted to criticizing his Republican opponent, Keith Faber, accusing him of being a “Trump thug” who “does not believe in the truth or the rule of law.” He specifically referenced Faber’s comments about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations and the death of Renee Good, claiming Faber would “let Trump get away with murder.”

The inflammatory rhetoric comes during a period of increased political tension nationwide. A recent study has warned about the rise of what researchers term “assassination culture,” noting a disturbing trend of violent rhetoric entering mainstream political discourse.

Political analysts suggest that such incidents highlight the increasingly polarized nature of American politics, where provocative language and extreme positions have become more common in campaigns at all levels of government. The situation in Ohio mirrors similar controversies in other states, including Virginia, where Democratic attorney general Jay Jones was recently elected despite allegations of using violent rhetoric against political opponents.

As of publication, representatives for Amy Acton’s gubernatorial campaign and Sherrod Brown’s Senate campaign had not responded to requests for comment on Forhan’s statements. Ohio, a key battleground state, continues to see highly competitive races across the ballot, with the attorney general contest drawing particular attention given its role in enforcing state laws and potentially addressing federal issues.

The controversy unfolds as political campaigns nationwide enter their final stages ahead of November’s elections, with both parties sensitive to rhetoric that could either energize their base or alienate moderate voters crucial to winning in competitive states like Ohio.