Fighting Government Weaponization
We fight the weaponization of justice by exposing lawfare abuses and standing with those unjustly targeted, offering support to victims and their families when a politicized system fails them.
Case Snapshot
Full name | Barry Gordon Croft |
|---|---|
Residence | Michigan (supporters state he was living there; federal records identify him as a Delaware resident) |
Federal district | Western District of Michigan, Grand Rapids |
District court case | United States v. Fox et al., 1:20-cr-00183 |
Appellate / Supreme Court | United States v. Fox, Nos. 23-1014/23-1029, 134 F.4th 348 (6th Cir. 2025); Croft v. United States, No. 25-5249 |
Type of case | Criminal / kidnapping conspiracy / weapons-of-mass-destruction conspiracy / unregistered destructive device / alleged entrapment |
Disposition | Convicted on all three counts after retrial; Sixth Circuit affirmed; certiorari denied |
Sentence | 235 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release |
Current custody | Florence ADMAX |
Current status | Direct review concluded; Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 12, 2026 |
Core WW issue | Whether the informant and undercover operation crossed the line from investigation into inducement, and whether evidentiary limits prevented a full entrapment defense |
Case Overview
Federal authorities charged Barry Croft Jr., Adam Fox, and four other men in October 2020 with conspiring to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Supporters state that Croft was living in Michigan at the time, while federal records identify him as a Delaware resident. A superseding indictment later added a conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction count, and Croft also was charged with possessing an unregistered destructive device. The government maintained that Croft and Fox independently developed and advanced a plan to abduct the governor and use explosives to hinder or delay responding law enforcement.
The first federal trial ended with acquittals for Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta and a deadlocked jury as to Croft and Fox. At an August 2022 retrial, Croft was convicted on all three counts. On December 28, 2022, he was sentenced to 235 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release — 43 months longer than Fox, who was convicted on two counts.
Croft challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the handling of an allegedly biased juror, limits on cross-examination, and restrictions on the defense use of government-informant statements. On April 1, 2025, the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court had applied an overly narrow rule to the informant statements, but concluded the error was harmless. Croft then petitioned the Supreme Court, which denied certiorari on January 12, 2026.
Weaponization Watch is examining the case because the scale of the informant operation, the split result at the first trial, the exclusion of evidence offered in support of entrapment, and the severity of the sentence raise broader questions about the limits of federal investigative power and the ability of a defendant to present a complete defense.
Why Weaponization Watch Supports This Case
Confidential informants and undercover agents are lawful investigative tools. But when government actors help connect participants, organize meetings, provide transportation or logistics, and encourage a plan, the boundary between detecting criminal intent and helping create prosecutable conduct becomes a legitimate public-interest concern.
Croft presented an entrapment defense and sought to use a large body of informant statements. The Sixth Circuit acknowledged an overly restrictive admissibility rule, but found the error harmless. Weaponization Watch supports continued review because the acknowledged error, the disputed role of informants, and a 235-month sentence deserve transparent scrutiny. That support does not declare Croft innocent or minimize the convictions.
Key Public-Interest Questions
How many confidential informants and undercover agents participated in the investigation, and what specific roles did each one play?
Did government actors merely observe and record Croft, or did they organize meetings, provide logistics or transportation, and press the group toward a concrete criminal plan?
What evidence of Croft’s predisposition existed before he encountered the informants and undercover agents involved in the investigation?
Did Croft have the independent resources and operational capacity to carry out the alleged plan without government participation, as supporters dispute?
Did limits on the use of 258 proffered informant statements prevent the defense from fully presenting its theory of inducement and entrapment?
What does the first trial — two acquittals and no verdict for Croft and Fox — reveal about how jurors evaluated the same broader investigation?
Was a 235-month sentence proportionate to Croft’s proven conduct, the additional destructive-device conviction, and the identifiable harm?
Case Documentation Note
The federal government maintains that Croft and Fox independently developed and advanced a genuine plan to kidnap Governor Whitmer and use explosives against responding law enforcement. Croft was also convicted of possessing an unregistered destructive device. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions, and the Supreme Court declined review. Weaponization Watch is not declaring Croft innocent or minimizing the seriousness of the allegations. This case file documents the disputed role of informants and undercover agents, the evidentiary limits placed on the defense, and the broader due-process questions raised by the investigation.
Timeline
Date / Period | Event |
|---|---|
Early 2020 | The FBI received information about the Wolverine Watchmen and was also investigating Croft in connection with separate communications and social-media threats. |
June 6, 2020 | Croft and Fox attended a multistate gathering in Dublin, Ohio. A government informant was present and recorded the meeting. |
October 6, 2020 | A federal criminal complaint was filed charging Croft, Fox, and four others with conspiracy to kidnap Governor Whitmer. |
December 16, 2020 | A federal grand jury returned an indictment in the Western District of Michigan. |
April 28, 2021 | A superseding indictment added a conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction count and charged Croft with possessing an unregistered destructive device. |
April 2022 | The first trial ended with acquittals for Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta. The jury could not reach verdicts for Croft and Fox. |
August 23, 2022 | A jury convicted Croft at retrial on kidnapping conspiracy, weapons-of-mass-destruction conspiracy, and possession of an unregistered destructive device. |
December 28, 2022 | Croft was sentenced to 235 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. |
April 1, 2025 | The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence in United States v. Fox, 134 F.4th 348. |
July 29, 2025 | Croft filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, docketed as No. 25-5249. |
January 12, 2026 | The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. |
Current | Croft is incarcerated at Florence ADMAX. |
Key Concerns
Scale of government involvement: Multiple confidential human sources and undercover agents participated in the investigation. Public confidence requires a clear account of who introduced participants, proposed ideas, organized or funded meetings, supplied transportation or equipment, and encouraged each major step.
Operational capacity and government facilitation: Supporters contend that Croft lacked the independent money, resources, and practical ability to turn inflammatory rhetoric into an executable kidnapping plan without extensive government participation. The appellate court, however, found evidence that Croft was an active organizer and was predisposed before key informant contacts.
Inducement versus predisposition: The defense argued that government actors pushed the alleged plot forward. The government maintained that Croft and Fox originated the criminal objectives, and the Sixth Circuit found substantial evidence of predisposition.
Informant statements and the right to present a defense: The defense identified 258 informant statements it sought to use. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court applied an overly narrow admissibility rule, but treated the error as nonconstitutional and harmless.
Mixed first-trial result and juror concerns: The first jury acquitted two defendants and deadlocked as to Croft and Fox. At retrial, Croft also argued that the court should have conducted a fuller hearing into an allegation of juror bias.
Sentence and institutional review: Croft received 235 months and five years of supervised release. The sentence reflects three convictions, including the destructive-device count, but its length makes proportionality and accurate institutional review continuing public-interest concerns.
Why This Case Matters
The Barry Croft case sits at the difficult boundary between legitimate counterterrorism work and the constitutional prohibition against government-manufactured crime. Law enforcement must be able to infiltrate dangerous groups and prevent violence before it occurs. That authority, however, must be paired with meaningful safeguards when government agents and paid sources become deeply involved in the conduct later prosecuted.
The case also raises a narrower but important question about evidence. An entrapment defense can succeed or fail based on what the jury is allowed to hear about the words and actions of informants. When an appellate court identifies an evidentiary error but declares it harmless, the public should be able to understand what was excluded, why it mattered, and how the court reached that conclusion.
This case matters beyond Croft because the rules governing informants, inducement, juror impartiality, evidentiary access, retrials, sentencing, and post-conviction review must protect every American, regardless of ideology or public sympathy.
