Political Figure International Legal Call

Photo: Wikimedia Commons. The ICC is where individuals accused of the most serious international crimes are tried.

A prominent far-right political figure, Pete Santilli, has sparked global outrage after publicly calling for the mass execution of several U.S. government leaders, allegedly urging his followers to “kill them all.” The incendiary remarks, circulated via social media and news outlets, prompted human rights groups and legal experts to condemn the rhetoric as incitement to violence. Some have even advocated that Santilli should be prosecuted under international law in The Hague, drawing parallels to war crimes tribunals. This report examines the incident, the domestic and international reactions, and the feasibility of a trial for international crimes.

The Controversial Remarks

In a video clip from a late March 2023 episode of The Pete Santilli Show, host Pete Santilli unleashed a fiery tirade in response to news about former U.S. President Donald Trump’s then-impending indictment. Santilli, a right-wing commentator known for promoting conspiracy theories, was heard advocating extreme violence against high-ranking U.S. officials.

“We need to go take them out, ten of them, at least,” Santilli ranted, according to a video excerpt posted by Right Wing Watch. “If you want to save this country, it’s time to kill them all because they are orchestrating this destruction… They need to be dealt with like war criminals.”

The footage of Santilli passionately delivering the violent exhortation quickly went viral on social media platforms, drawing millions of views and widespread condemnation. The phrase “kill them all” trended on Twitter, accompanied by calls for action against Santilli.

Who is Pete Santilli?

Pete Santilli is an American right-wing media personality and political activist. A former U.S. Marine, he first gained national attention for live-streaming the 2014 Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada. He was later involved in the 2016 Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation in Oregon, where he was arrested and charged for his role.

Although federal charges related to the Malheur incident were eventually dropped as part of a plea deal, he spent over a year in detention. Santilli has since repositioned himself on alternative platforms like Rumble, promoting far-right conspiracy theories and anti-government sentiment. This is not his first brush with controversy; in 2013, he declared that Hillary Clinton should be "shot in the vagina" for her handling of the 2012 Benghazi attack.

Domestic Fallout: Condemnation and Calls for Investigation

Santilli’s remarks came as former President Trump was indicted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on charges related to hush-money payments. While Trump's supporters were inflamed, Santilli’s statements explicitly urged deadly force against political opponents.

The non-profit Right Wing Watch, which first published the clip, warned that such rhetoric could inspire real-world violence. Many social media users tagged the FBI and Secret Service, urging investigations. American law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 879, prohibits threats against the President and other protected officials.

However, U.S. free speech protections set a high bar for prosecution. Under the landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, speech is protected unless it is directed to inciting “imminent lawless action.” Critics argue Santilli’s words cross the line into stochastic terrorism—public demonization that incites random followers to commit violence.

The Secret Service stated that "all threats of this nature are taken seriously and fully investigated," but no public announcement of an investigation has been made.

International Reactions: Calls for an ICC Investigation

The severity of Santilli's words drew international attention, with some commentators arguing that such calls for mass violence mirror rhetoric that has preceded genocides and crimes against humanity. Headlines appeared suggesting Santilli should face trial in The Hague, the seat of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

International legal specialists note that direct and public incitement to commit genocide is a crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention. While Santilli targeted political leaders, not a protected ethnic or religious group, some argue the rhetoric could fall under the category of crimes against humanity.

What “Going to The Hague” Would Mean

"Going to The Hague" refers to being tried at an international tribunal for war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity. The ICC has prosecuted influential figures for such crimes. For instance, following the Rwandan genocide, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted media executives for inciting genocide through hateful broadcasts.

However, bringing a U.S. citizen before the ICC faces significant hurdles. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. The U.S. has historically objected to ICC jurisdiction over its citizens, even passing the American Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2002 to restrict cooperation. It is therefore highly unlikely the ICC could directly intervene.

Could “Incitement to Violence” be Prosecuted as an International Crime?

The calls for Santilli to face justice in The Hague raise complex questions. The ICC’s jurisdiction covers genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. Incitement is explicitly criminalized under genocide law.

The landmark "Media Trial" at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) convicted media executives for using radio and newspapers to fuel the genocide. The judges famously wrote, “Without a firearm, machete or any physical weapon, you caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.”

Legal scholars, however, distinguish Santilli’s case. The U.S. is not in a state of armed conflict targeting an identifiable group, and its non-membership in the ICC presents a major jurisdictional barrier. Still, some experts argue his rhetoric may violate international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the U.S. has ratified, obligates countries to ban advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to violence.

A Rallying Cry for Accountability

The phrase “Go to The Hague” has become a rallying cry for accountability in global conflicts. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky demanded that Vladimir Putin face a war crimes tribunal. In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin for alleged war crimes.

During the Israel-Hamas conflict, international law experts have also scrutinized inflammatory statements from both sides. The UN warned about the dangers of dehumanizing language, cautioning that such rhetoric could create an environment permissive of atrocity crimes. These events highlight a growing recognition that violent speech by influential figures can be a precursor to mass violence.

The Bigger Picture: Political Rhetoric and International Law

The incident has reignited debates about free speech versus hate speech. European countries generally have stricter laws. In Germany, denying the Holocaust or inciting hatred is a criminal offense. In the UK, laws against incitement to violence or hatred can lead to prosecution.

The U.S., by contrast, has a broader interpretation of free speech. This divergence sometimes causes friction with international norms. The calls to send Santilli to The Hague, while largely symbolic, underscore a sense that national laws may be inadequate to address extreme speech with global repercussions.

What Happens Next?

Pete Santilli remains free and continues to host his online show, claiming his words were taken out of context and meant "metaphorically." While the FBI reportedly visited Santilli for a "warning conversation," no charges have been filed.

The ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor has a policy of intervening only when national authorities are unwilling or unable to act. A spokesperson for the ICC reiterated that incitement to genocide is criminalized under the Rome Statute but declined to comment on Santilli's case.

For now, the calls to send Santilli to an international tribunal remain a symbolic expression of outrage. The debate touches on core issues of free speech, the limits of political discourse, and how the international community should respond when influential figures appear to advocate mass violence.