A 35-year-old federal contractor who worked for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), according to this press release from the Department of Justice, has been charged with making interstate threats against President Donald J. Trump. While the press release states that the person making the threat was a federal employee, other reports indicate he was a federal contractor employed as a mechanical engineer and working for the agency.
That is a distinction that will probably not make much of a difference in what the future holds for the person who used a government computer to outline a possible strategy for threatening the President of the United States.
Just days before this charge was filed, an armed suspect exchanged gunfire with U.S. Secret Service near the White House, triggering a lockdown, and a separate incident involved a gunman attempting to reach the president at a high-profile event. In that context, even a single emailed threat is not viewed in isolation but part of a broader pattern of escalating threats that federal authorities are actively trying to deter before they turn into real-world violence.
Dean DelleChiaie was charged by criminal complaint on May 1, 2026, with one count of interstate communication of a threat against the President in violation of federal law. He was arrested on May 4 and made his initial court appearance on May 5.
According to the complaint, the case began in late January 2026 when DelleChiaie allegedly used an FAA computer to conduct internet searches on topics including “how to get a gun into a federal facility,” prior assassination attempts against the President, the percentage of the U.S. population that wants the President dead, and the exact phrase “I am going to kill Donald John Trump.”
A casual observer familiar with government operations may wonder about the mental capacity of the person who made the threat, as he also took his FAA work computer to the FAA’s Information Technology (IT) department for assistance. While visiting the IT department, he reportedly requested the IT office to delete his search history, according to the complaint, which noted that the IT department reported the “concerning searches,” which then elevated them to the U.S. Secret Service.
U.S. Secret Service agents interviewed him in February. He admitted to making the computer searches and disclosed that he owned three firearms, including a handgun stored in a safe at his home.
The alleged threat occurred on April 21, 2026, when DelleChiaie used his personal email account to send a message to the White House’s public email address. The subject line read “Contact the President,” and the body stated: “I, Dean DelleChiaie, am going neutralize/kill you – Donald John Trump – because you decided to kill kids – and say that it was War – when in reality – it is terrorism. God knows your actions and where you belong.”
So, in addition to displaying significant naivety in his actions threatening President Trump, DelleChiaie also had the bad luck of doing this at a time when there have been nationwide headlines about a gunman threatening the President in a hotel just a short distance from where the President was in attendance. That led to closer scrutiny of the Secret Service just as this case was about to be filed, underscoring why these threats must be taken seriously.
If convicted, DelleChiaie faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The Secret Service led the investigation with assistance from the Nashua Police Department. As is the usual practice in federal charging documents, the press release emphasizes allegations are not proof of guilt and that DelleChiaie is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Contractor or Federal Employee—Is There a Difference?
The criminal charge—interstate transmission of a threat to kill or harm the President—applies equally to any person under federal law, regardless of employment. The statute requires only that the threat be made “knowingly and willfully”; prosecutors need not prove the defendant actually intended to carry it out or had the means to do so.
Whether he’s a federal employee or a contractor, the charge—threatening the president under federal law—is the same. The reality is the same statute applies, there is the same burden of proof required to convict him, and the penalty for violating the statute is the same (up to five years).
His employment status does not change how prosecutors are likely to bring the case.
There is a subtle difference in how an agency will react in a case like this depending on whether the person is a federal employee or a contractor:
- If it is a federal employee, it raises internal workforce and vetting concerns
- If it is a contractor, it raises questions about contract oversight and screening of vendor personnel
An agency will be under pressure in either case, but contractor cases often lead to scrutiny of procurement practices and the reliability of a company and the agency’s procurement process.
However, DelleChiaie’s position working at the FAA introduces aggravating factors that are likely to be weighed in this case:
- Use of government resources for preparation: Allegedly conducting targeted searches on a work computer creates a digital trail. This makes it easier for law enforcement to discover and document a person’s actions. His actions in this case, as outlined by the complaint, also suggest premeditation and deliberation, which can support sentencing enhancements under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Courts have applied upward adjustments (potentially +6 offense levels) when a defendant’s conduct shows “intent to carry out the threat,” such as researching assassinations, firearms access, or security procedures.
- Abuse of a position of public trust: While it may have been convenient, using a government computer to research threats against the President is obviously a bad idea. Asking the IT department for help to erase the searches probably indicates an unusual level of naivety.
- Sentencing impact: Federal guidelines already add a +6 level enhancement because the victim is the President. Additional points can apply for more than one threat, substantial disruption to government functions, or evidence of planning. Working at a federal agency can also support arguments for an “abuse of position of trust” enhancement.
- Broader security and public-confidence concerns: The FAA plays a critical role in public transportation safety that sometimes intersects with secure facilities and operations. Threats originating from within a federal agency, even if unrelated to aviation duties, are likely to receive priority attention from the Secret Service and Justice Department because they raise questions about insider risks.
These elements typically make such cases more serious in the eyes of prosecutors and judges, often resulting in stronger calls for incarceration rather than probation and increasing the likelihood of career-ending collateral consequences at the FAA. The case remains pending.
