Ivan Raiklin is a former U.S. Army reservist and a polarizing figure in the post‑2020 political landscape, known to many for originating the so‑called "Pence card" memo aimed at stopping certification of the 2020 presidential result, and for circulating a disputed "Deep State" target list that prompted bipartisan alarm. His background includes service in Special Forces and time in defense intelligence, and since 2020 he has migrated from military and intelligence circles into high‑profile political activism.
Who is Ivan Raiklin
Ivan Raiklin presents himself as a veteran, former Green Beret and an intelligence professional who later became active in conservative political networks. Public records and reporting show he sought the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Virginia in 2018 but failed to qualify for the primary ballot, then filed suit challenging that exclusion. Since 2020 Raiklin has been visible on social and alternative media, speaking at far‑right events and aligning publicly with figures such as Michael Flynn.
Key claims, actions and public moments
- December 16, 2020: Raiklin tweeted a two‑page memo commonly called the "Pence card," a plan that proposed legal routes for Vice President Mike Pence to reject or delay electoral votes. The idea was widely criticized by legal scholars and later cited in debates around strategies to overturn the election.
- 2018: He attempted a run for U.S. Senate in Virginia, failed to make the primary ballot, and filed a federal lawsuit asserting procedural problems in how his signatures were handled.
- 2024: Raiklin surfaced in investigative reporting as circulating a detailed list of people he calls the "Deep State," which he says should face accountability if his preferred candidate returns to power.
- 2024–2026: He was publicly identified as serving on the board for an organization associated with Michael Flynn, and in January 2026 he drew attention during House hearings when he displayed a sign naming a Capitol Police officer who had been the subject of a separate media accusation.
The "Deep State" target list: what it is and why it mattered
In mid‑2024 reporting, a circulated document and public appearances tied to Raiklin described a list of several hundred individuals labeled the "Deep State target list." The list purportedly named elected officials, intelligence and law enforcement personnel, journalists, and others Raiklin described as culpable for allegedly undermining a political movement.
- Scale: Reporting described Raiklin's list as numbering in the low hundreds, commonly referenced as 350 names in press coverage.
- Proposed tactics: Raiklin discussed plans ranging from public shaming and doxxing, to coordinating with sympathetic local sheriffs, and even the idea of live‑streamed raids framed as "accountability" operations.
These proposals prompted immediate pushback from lawmakers, former law enforcement and civil liberties advocates who warned that rhetoric that targeted identifiable officials and journalists could inspire harassment or violence. Representative Jamie Raskin described the prospect as a "vigilante death warrant," encapsulating the alarm felt across party lines.
"His hit list is a vigilante death warrant for hundreds of Americans," said one critic, capturing the intensity of the concern.
Supporters and associations
Raiklin has positioned himself as a combative defender of a certain nationalist, pro‑Trump constituency. Key sympathetic voices and associations include:
- Public praise and organizational ties with Michael Flynn, whose group added Raiklin to a board listing in mid‑2024.
- A base of supporters on social platforms and within some far‑right media ecosystems who amplify his language about retribution and accountability.
Supporters frame Raiklin's activities as exposing corruption and exacting lawful accountability against what they call entrenched, unaccountable institutions. They portray him as a veteran using his intelligence experience to protect American sovereignty.
Critics and legal, ethical concerns
Critics, including elected officials and journalists, point to several problems:
- The "Pence card" and similar legal theories have been described by legal experts as legally baseless and part of a broader effort to overturn certified results.
- Publicizing lists that identify individuals as enemies raises the risk of harassment, threats, and violent action by third parties, critics say.
- Some local and national officials warned that rhetoric promising deputized forces or live‑streamed raids crosses from political advocacy into incitement.
A table: claims vs. public evidence
Claim | Public evidence or response |
|---|---|
Raiklin authored the "Pence card" memo and pushed it to senior political figures | Social posts and contemporaneous reporting show the memo was circulated to and retweeted by prominent political accounts in December 2020 |
Raiklin compiled a "Deep State" list of hundreds for future accountability actions | Investigative reporting and social posts document a circulated list and public statements describing it, though publishers have largely withheld full lists for safety reasons |
He plans or condones vigilante violence | Raiklin frames actions as lawful accountability; critics point to rhetoric about deputizing forces and public raids as plausibly encouraging illegal acts |
Multiple viewpoints and context
- From Raiklin's perspective and that of supporters, his work is framed as patriotic, a pushback against perceived corruption and as a quest to hold powerful people to account.
- From the perspective of critics, lawmakers and many journalists, Raiklin's tactics blur the line between political agitation and intimidation, and risk normalizing doxxing and targeted harassment of public servants and reporters.
- Legal observers stress that public threats or coordination of illegal activity can cross into prosecutable conduct. Others add that vigorous political advocacy remains protected speech, and the dividing line is conduct, not rhetoric alone.
Public consequences and official responses
- Lawmakers and civil‑service groups publicly condemned the idea of extrajudicial lists and urged bipartisan denouncement of any plot that could enable vigilante actions.
- Some media organizations and named targets increased security measures and reported incidents of harassment to law enforcement.
- Raiklin's public visibility — from the 2020 tweet thread to public events in 2024 and presence at hearings in 2026 — has made him a focal point for debates about democratic norms and political violence.
What to watch next
- Whether any of the individuals or groups Raiklin contacted secure formal meetings with members of Congress or law enforcement that alter the dynamics of his proposals.
- Any legal action that might be brought if specific acts of harassment or illegal operations can be tied to his public advocacy.
- How social platforms and event organizers choose to handle accounts, appearances and content that advocate for lists and public naming of individuals.
A brief technical snapshot (public, verifiable items)
```
{
"PenceCardTweetDate": "2020-12-16",
"NotableListSizeReported": 350,
"2018BallotAccess": "Filed suit May 1, 2018; injunction denied May 9, 2018; case later dismissed",
"BoardAppointmentAnnouncement": "June 27, 2024 (press release)",
"PublicHearingIncident": "January 14, 2026 (sign displayed at public hearing)"
}
```
Assessment
Ivan Raiklin occupies a particular role in the current American political ecosystem — a veteran‑turned‑activist who blends military and intelligence credentials with combative political rhetoric. That mix has won him influence in some conservative circles, and fierce criticism from others who view his public proposals as dangerous.
At the core of the debate are two competing concerns: robust public accountability and the rule of law, versus the very real danger that targeted naming, doxxing and calls for extrajudicial enforcement will spur harassment or violence. The reporting to date documents his public statements, his associations, and the alarm they have raised; it does not show that his plans have moved into lawful, state‑sanctioned action.
If you want, I can
- Pull together a timeline of Raiklin's public appearances and posts with dates and original texts where available,
- Produce a short explainer for a newsroom or briefing memo that summarizes the legal risks attached to the kinds of tactics he has advocated, or
- Monitor and summarize new, breaking coverage about him over the coming weeks.
Which of those would be most useful to you?