The Virginia attorney general contest erupted into chaos this week after fresh allegations and a resurfacing of violent private messages painted a portrait of a candidate in deep political peril.
Jay Jones, the Democratic frontrunner, finds himself defending both his words and his fitness for office after a former legislative colleague claimed he once suggested that “if a few [police officers] died, that they would move on, not shooting people,” during a 2020 discussion about qualified immunity. Jones has denied making that remark, insisting he never wished harm on law enforcement.
The claim landed on top of an already explosive set of revelations: text messages from 2022 that Jones reportedly sent to then-House Speaker Todd Gilbert, in which he allegedly fantasized about shooting Gilbert and invoked the deaths of Gilbert’s children. Those messages — which included a line reading, “Gilbert gets two bullets to the head” — prompted an immediate and forceful reaction from across Virginia’s political spectrum.
— Virginia FOP (@FopVirginia) October 6, 2025
The Virginia Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) moved swiftly and decisively, demanding Jones withdraw from the race and condemning the violent rhetoric as wholly incompatible with the duties of an attorney general. In a blistering letter, the FOP framed the messages not merely as political missteps but as threats that have “no place in our society or democracy,” adding that Jones was “unfit for the office of Attorney General.”
Republican officials echoed that assessment. Del. Carrie Coyner — the lawmaker who first detailed the 2020 exchange alleging Jones’s comment on police deaths — called the notion that killings could be a policy lever “unacceptable.” Gov. Glenn Youngkin, using blunt language on social media, labeled the texts “beyond disqualifying,” demanding Jones step aside in the wake of language directed at an elected official and his children.
Jones has pushed back. He issued a categorical denial of the newly reported comment about police, reiterating respect for law enforcement and pledging cooperation if elected. Meanwhile, top Democrats have been conspicuously cautious: several high-ranking party officials have not publicly called for his withdrawal, stepping lightly amid accusations that could reshape the attorney general contest.
This controversy touches on several volatile fault lines — public safety, political violence, and the character expected of those who would supervise prosecutions and the rule of law.
For voters and party leaders alike, the central question is whether these alleged private remarks reflect a lapse in judgment, a pattern of dangerous rhetoric, or both — and whether such conduct is disqualifying for an office that demands both legal rigor and public trust.