BREAKING: Roger Stone says that Senator Van Hollen violated the Logan Act with his trip to El Salvador today. “It’s illegal to conduct your own foreign policy.” LOCK HIM UP! HT Ian Jaeger
A new political storm is brewing in Washington following sharp accusations from longtime political operative Roger Stone, who alleged that Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen violated the Logan Act during his recent trip to El Salvador. The accusation, which rapidly gained traction on social media after being amplified by conservative commentator Ian Jaeger, hinges on the claim that Van Hollen engaged in unauthorized foreign policy discussions during his diplomatic visit, an act Stone says is illegal and worthy of prosecution.
The Logan Act, a rarely enforced law dating back to 1799, prohibits unauthorized American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments that are in dispute with the United States. Its original intent was to prevent private individuals from interfering in foreign policy, especially in ways that could undermine official U.S. government positions. Although the law remains on the books, no one has ever been successfully prosecuted under it in the more than two centuries since its passage. Still, it has often been invoked as a political talking point during periods of international controversy.
Roger Stone’s remarks, delivered in a typically fiery tone, accused Van Hollen of overstepping his authority by holding discussions with Salvadoran officials that allegedly contradicted or undermined current U.S. foreign policy. “It’s illegal to conduct your own foreign policy,” Stone declared in a statement posted to social media. “Van Hollen’s actions are a direct violation of the Logan Act. LOCK HIM UP!”
The senator’s office has not yet released a detailed response to the allegations, but aides familiar with the trip insist that Van Hollen was acting well within his responsibilities as a member of Congress. They argue that congressional delegations (often referred to as CODELs) are common practice, allowing elected officials to meet with foreign leaders to discuss international aid, human rights, and bilateral relations—especially when such issues intersect with ongoing legislative concerns.
Indeed, members of both parties routinely travel abroad for diplomatic meetings, often to assess U.S. foreign aid programs, monitor elections, or discuss regional stability. These visits are typically coordinated with the State Department, and there has been no public evidence that Van Hollen acted outside those norms.
Nonetheless, the political optics of the trip have fueled intense debate. Critics of Van Hollen, particularly on the right, argue that Democratic lawmakers have increasingly acted as de facto diplomats, pushing their own agendas overseas without regard for the administration’s official policy. Some see the senator’s visit as part of a broader pattern of behavior they say undermines American unity on the global stage.
Supporters of Van Hollen, meanwhile, have dismissed the Logan Act accusations as nothing more than political theater. They note that the law is so vague and outdated that even serious legal scholars view it as largely symbolic. Attempts to invoke it in recent years—such as during investigations into former Trump officials like Michael Flynn—have ultimately gone nowhere, raising questions about its enforceability and relevance in modern diplomacy.
Legal experts are also weighing in on the controversy, with many suggesting that the bar for proving a Logan Act violation is extraordinarily high. To secure a conviction, prosecutors would need to demonstrate that Van Hollen was not only acting without authority, but also actively working against U.S. policy in a way that was both deliberate and harmful. Given the complexity of international diplomacy and the common practice of congressional outreach abroad, such a case would be extremely difficult to make.
Still, the incident underscores the heightened tensions in American politics, where every action by a public official is subject to intense scrutiny—and where legal arguments are often used to drive political narratives. Whether or not anything comes of the allegations, Stone’s comments have once again put a little-known law at the center of public debate and ignited another round of partisan conflict.
As the dust settles from this latest clash, it remains to be seen whether the accusations will spark a formal investigation or fade into the background noise of political posturing. One thing is certain: in today’s hypercharged environment, the line between diplomacy and politics continues to blur—and every move on the international stage is now a potential flashpoint at home.
