Listen to the article
Wisconsin Man Pleads No Contest to Arson at Congressman’s Office Over TikTok Ban
A 20-year-old Wisconsin man has entered a no contest plea to felony arson charges after allegedly attempting to burn down the office of Republican U.S. Representative Glenn Grothman earlier this year, according to court records.
Caiden Stachowicz of Menasha appeared in Fond du Lac County Circuit Court on Monday where he entered the plea. While a no contest plea does not admit guilt, it indicates the defendant will no longer fight the charges against them.
As part of a plea agreement, District Attorney Eric Toney agreed to drop additional burglary and property damage charges. Stachowicz now faces up to 40 years in the state prison system, with sentencing scheduled for March 5.
According to the criminal complaint, the incident occurred around 1 a.m. on January 19 when a police officer responded to reports of a fire outside Grothman’s Fond du Lac office. Upon arrival, the officer found Stachowicz standing nearby.
Court documents reveal that Stachowicz told the responding officer he started the fire because of his dislike for Grothman. He reportedly admitted to initially planning to break into the office to start the fire inside but changed plans when he couldn’t break the window. Instead, Stachowicz poured gasoline on an electrical box at the rear of the building and around its front before lighting a match and watching it burn.
Stachowicz’s motivation reportedly stemmed from his opposition to the federal government’s actions against TikTok, which he viewed as a violation of his constitutional rights. He specifically cited Grothman’s vote in favor of legislation targeting the social media platform, though he claimed he didn’t intend to harm the congressman personally.
The incident comes amid ongoing tensions surrounding TikTok’s future in the United States. Rep. Grothman had voted for legislation in April 2024 that would force ByteDance, TikTok’s China-based parent company, to sell its U.S. operations. The initial deadline for this divestiture was set for January 19—coincidentally the same day as the arson attempt.
The TikTok legislation has been a flashpoint in U.S.-China relations and sparked significant debate about digital sovereignty, free speech, and national security concerns. The social media platform has more than 170 million American users, many of whom are young adults and teenagers who have expressed concern about potentially losing access to the app.
While the January deadline was technically in effect at the time of the incident, former President Donald Trump’s administration had issued multiple executive orders extending the timeline. Trump’s team has been engaged in negotiations with Chinese officials regarding TikTok’s continued operation in the United States, although no definitive agreement has been publicly announced.
The case highlights the sometimes volatile intersection between technology policy, international relations, and domestic politics. Social media platforms like TikTok have become increasingly central to political discourse, particularly among younger voters, making regulatory decisions about these platforms politically sensitive.
Attempts to reach Representative Grothman’s Washington, D.C. office for comment on the case were unsuccessful. Stachowicz’s attorney, Timothy Edward Hogan, has not responded to requests for comment regarding the plea agreement or the upcoming sentencing.
Law enforcement officials have not reported any significant damage to the congressional office, and no injuries were reported in connection with the incident. Local authorities continue to monitor security at congressional offices throughout the state in light of increasing threats against elected officials nationwide.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
This seems like a concerning case of political violence. While I don’t condone the alleged arson, I’m curious to learn more about the motives behind the accused’s actions. Resorting to such extreme measures rarely leads to positive change.
Agreed. Political disagreements should never escalate to property damage or arson. I hope the legal process provides a fair and just outcome in this case.
While the alleged arson is concerning, I’m hesitant to rush to judgment without understanding the full context and motivations behind the accused’s actions. Political tensions can sometimes lead people to make poor choices, but that doesn’t excuse criminal behavior. I’ll be watching this case closely to see how it unfolds.
It’s troubling to see someone allegedly resorting to arson over a TikTok ban. I understand political passions can run high, but this seems like an overreaction. Damaging property is not an appropriate way to express dissent.
Exactly. There are always better ways to voice concerns and enact change, even for controversial issues, without resorting to criminal acts. I hope this serves as a wake-up call for more constructive political engagement.
Resorting to arson over a TikTok ban seems like an extreme and misguided reaction. I hope the courts are able to address the root causes behind this incident and encourage more peaceful, democratic forms of political expression.
Agreed. Damaging property is never the answer, no matter how strongly one feels about an issue. Hopefully this case can serve as a learning moment about the importance of civil discourse and nonviolent activism.
This is a concerning incident that highlights the need for better political dialogue and conflict resolution. While I don’t condone the alleged arson, I’m curious to understand the accused’s motivations and whether there were any underlying issues that contributed to this escalation.
While I’m not familiar with the specifics of this case, setting fire to a congressman’s office is a very serious offense. I’ll be curious to see how the courts handle this and whether the accused faces substantial penalties for the alleged arson.
Arson is a very serious crime, and I hope the courts hand down an appropriate sentence if the accused is found guilty. At the same time, I’m curious to learn more about the specific circumstances and what may have driven the alleged actions. Political disagreements should never lead to violence or property damage.
Well said. Even in the face of political disagreements, there are always better ways to effect change than resorting to criminal behavior. Hopefully this case can serve as a reminder of the importance of civil discourse and nonviolent activism.