Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What were the charges against the men accused of plotting to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer?
Executive Summary
Two federal convictions were upheld in 2025 of men who led a 2020 plot to abduct Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer; the principal charges included conspiracy to kidnap and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, with at least one defendant convicted on an unregistered destructive-device charge [1]. Related defendants pleaded guilty to terrorism-support counts and received varying sentences in 2023; reporting and document releases have kept debate active over FBI informant involvement and prosecutorial choices [2] [3].
1. How prosecutors framed the crime: kidnapping and weapons charges that shocked prosecutors and the public
Federal prosecutors charged a core group with conspiracy to commit kidnapping and related weapons offenses after an alleged 2020 plan to abduct Gov. Whitmer from her vacation home. The indictment named Adam Fox, Ty Garbin, Barry Croft, Kaleb Franks, Daniel Harris, and Brandon Caserta as principal defendants, alleging coordinated planning and readiness to use violence to seize the governor [4]. Two leaders, Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr., were tried and convicted on counts including conspiracy to kidnap and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, signaling prosecutors viewed the plot as both a kidnapping and a broader violent-threat scheme [1].
2. What the appellate rulings confirmed about the convictions and evidence
In April 2025 an appeals court affirmed convictions for Fox and Croft, concluding any trial errors were harmless because juries saw testimony and materials showing promises of violence and plotting of abduction. The court’s decision left intact convictions for conspiracy and related weapons counts, reinforcing the trial court’s findings that the defendants’ conduct went beyond talk and into operational steps toward violence [5] [1]. The appellate rulings underscore judicial acceptance of the prosecution’s narrative and of the evidentiary weight of recorded communications and physical preparations presented at trial [5].
3. Additional criminal counts and convictions among co-defendants: incendiary and support charges
Beyond the central conspiracy counts, other defendants faced or admitted to separate federal crimes. Barry Croft was additionally convicted of possession of an unregistered destructive device, reflecting an allegation of concrete weapon acquisition and storage [1]. Two other participants, Brian Higgins and Shawn Fix, admitted guilt in 2023 to terrorism-related support charges—Higgins pleaded to attempting to provide material support for terrorism and received probation, while Fix pleaded to providing material support for a terroristic act and received a lengthy federal sentence—demonstrating varied prosecutorial outcomes across the co-defendant pool [2].
4. Who was charged and where they came from: a geographically mixed conspiracy
The federal indictment identified six accused conspirators by name—Adam Fox, Ty Garbin, Barry Croft, Kaleb Franks, Daniel Harris, and Brandon Caserta—with five from Michigan and Croft from Delaware, illustrating a mix of local and out-of-state involvement [4]. The distribution of residences mattered in investigation and jurisdictional decisions, and prosecutors emphasized coordination across locations in alleging a planned cross-jurisdictional abduction. The geographic facts buttressed the federal interest in charging and trying these cases in federal court, where interstate or national security dimensions receive broader scrutiny [4].
5. How plea deals and sentences shaped the record: cooperation, punishment, and public messaging
Several defendants took plea deals or received sentences that diverged significantly, reflecting prosecutorial strategies and the strength of evidence against each defendant. Brian Higgins’s March 2023 guilty plea to attempting to provide material support for terrorism resulted in 36 months’ probation with credit for jail time, while Shawn Fix’s June 2023 plea produced a much longer term of incarceration, highlighting prosecutorial discretion and differing levels of culpability or cooperation [2]. These sentences were framed publicly by officials as accountability for attempts to inflict violence on the public and the governor, reinforcing the government’s interest in deterrence [2].
6. Reporting and controversies: informants, tapes, and political fallout
Investigative reporting and released FBI materials renewed public debate over the case’s contours, with outlets reporting hours of secret FBI tapes and questioning the role of agents and informants in facilitating or monitoring the plot, thereby making the case a political lightning rod [3]. While appellate courts have sustained convictions, the media disclosures prompted scrutiny of investigative tactics and amplified partisan narratives about law enforcement’s role—coverage that influenced public perception even as courts ruled on legal sufficiency and trial fairness [3] [5].
7. The big picture: legal outcomes, public safety, and lingering questions
The consolidated record shows federal courts upheld convictions for leading conspirators and that several participants pleaded guilty to terrorism-support charges, producing a mix of custodial and noncustodial sentences and affirming the gravity of the alleged plot [1] [2]. Yet released documents and investigative reporting leave unresolved policy questions about informant handling, prosecutorial charging decisions, and how to balance preventive policing with civil liberties—questions that remain part of the broader debate even after appellate affirmations and sentencing [3] [5].