In Brooklyn federal court on March 5, 2026, defendant Asif Merchant testified that operatives tied to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps pressured him to recruit criminals to carry out attacks on U.S. political figures, naming Donald Trump, Joe Biden and Nikki Haley as possible targets. Merchant, a 47-year-old Pakistani businessman, said he handed what he believed were hired killers $5,000 and expected arrest before any violence, and he was taken into custody on July 12, 2024, after FBI agents posing as hit men engaged with him. Prosecutors say Merchant sketched plans in a New York hotel and communicated with a handler in Iran; Merchant says coercion and threats to relatives drove his actions. Jurors heard his assertion that he intended to cooperate with U.S. authorities but did not secure a formal deal before the case went to trial.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant: Asif Merchant told jurors he was pressured by a Revolutionary Guard intelligence operative he met around late 2022 and trained in countersurveillance techniques.
- Alleged targets: Merchant testified the handler named Donald Trump, Joe Biden and Nikki Haley as possible assassination targets during assignments in 2024.
- Payments and arrest: Merchant paid $5,000 in cash he described as a token to supposed hit men; FBI undercover agents arrested him on July 12, 2024.
- Timeline of contact: Merchant said he traveled periodically to the U.S. for business and first met the handler in Iran; U.S. immigration officials questioned him at Houston in April 2024.
- Prosecutors’ view: Authorities contend Merchant actively sought criminal operatives, sketched attack plans and failed to reveal facts that would support a duress defense during FBI interviews.
- Context of broader violence: The trial is taking place amid an ongoing Iran war that authorities say included the strike killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a development jurors were instructed to ignore for the case.
Background
Merchant, 47, spent roughly two decades in Pakistan’s banking sector before moving into businesses including garments, car sales and exports, and he has family in both Pakistan and Iran. He testified that between late 2022 and 2024 he was introduced to an intelligence operative linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an organization the U.S. designates a foreign terrorist organization. According to Merchant, the relationship began with discussions about hawala money transfers and expanded to training in countersurveillance tactics during the operative’s interest in his U.S. travel for business. U.S. officials say the IRGC has played a central role in Iran’s regional operations under Supreme Leader Khamenei, and recent conflict escalation — including the strike that killed Khamenei — has heightened scrutiny of Iran-linked activity.
U.S. counterterrorism investigators say their probe into Merchant began after surveillance and recorded interactions with people who turned out to be undercover FBI agents posing as criminal operatives. Prosecutors allege Merchant sketched a plot on a napkin in a New York hotel and communicated coded observations back to Iran using intermediaries and shipped materials. Merchant maintains he believed he had no realistic alternative because the handler indicated knowledge of his Iranian relatives’ locations and threatened them. Officials note, however, that Merchant did not seek protective assistance from U.S. law enforcement before his arrest and that his FBI interviews did not emphasize facts that could corroborate a duress defense.
Main Event
On the stand, Merchant described a sequence of tasks assigned by his handler, starting with recruiting U.S. residents willing to work for Iran and expanding to criminal activities that “maybe” could include murder. He acknowledged researching rally locations, sketching a shooting plan for a political event and assembling $5,000 from a relative as an initial payment. Merchant said he believed the men he paid would be Mafia-type criminals; in reality, they were FBI undercover agents who reported the interactions to prosecutors. He told jurors he expected to be apprehended before any attack could be carried out and that he intended to cooperate with authorities in exchange for immigration relief.
Prosecutors pressed Merchant on inconsistencies between his testimony and prior statements to the FBI, arguing he omitted details that might support a claim of coercion. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nina Gupta asked directly about his purpose in traveling to the United States and seeking criminal operatives; Merchant replied in the affirmative that his intent had been to hire killers for a politician. The court record reflects that by the time of his arrest on July 12, 2024, agents had collected a handwritten note containing coded references to plot elements, which prosecutors view as evidence of planning beyond mere coercion. Merchant countered that some reports he sent to Iran were fabricated to satisfy his handler and bought time while he searched for a lawful way out.
The trial is occurring in a politically sensitive environment: the alleged scheme and Merchant’s arrest preceded a separate, unrelated attempt on former President Trump’s life in Butler, Pennsylvania, by one day. Jurors were instructed to set aside contemporaneous news about the broader Iran conflict and any public statements linking the case to the current administration. The Iranian government has publicly denied directing plots against U.S. officials, and the prosecution has not produced classified evidence publicly tying state orders from Tehran to Merchant’s conduct.
Analysis & Implications
The case sits at the intersection of individual criminal responsibility and international influence operations. If prosecutors prove Merchant knowingly conspired to hire killers, the charges will reflect a conventional criminal plot with foreign-directed aims; if the defense establishes duress, the legal outcome could be materially different. The government must show beyond a reasonable doubt that Merchant acted with criminal intent and not solely under a credible and immediate threat to his relatives. Establishing the chain of command between the IRGC and the operative who contacted Merchant would raise the diplomatic stakes and could trigger additional sanctions or law enforcement actions.
Strategically, the allegation that targets spanned the U.S. political spectrum — naming both then-President Biden and former President Trump as well as Nikki Haley — suggests an operational aim to sow fear rather than pursue partisan objectives. That characterization, if supported, could complicate domestic political narratives by removing a simple partisan framing and instead pointing to state-directed destabilization. Internationally, credible proof of IRGC direction would likely prompt coordinated responses from allies, including intelligence-sharing and tightened protections for officials. Without such proof, however, the case may remain primarily a domestic criminal prosecution focused on Merchant’s personal conduct.
For counterterrorism policy, the trial underscores challenges in differentiating coercion, recruitment and voluntary collaboration in transnational plots. The use of undercover operatives and recorded interactions strengthens prosecutorial control over the narrative, but it also places weight on prior interviews and documentary evidence that defense attorneys will scrutinize. Courts must balance the need to protect classified methods and sources with the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and judges commonly use in-camera review or redactions to manage that tension. The outcome could influence how prosecutors approach similar cases, including the thresholds for seeking indictments versus pursuing plea agreements with cooperating defendants.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Merchant’s Account | Prosecutors’ Claim |
|---|---|---|
| First contact with handler | Late 2022 in Iran | Handled by IRGC intelligence operative |
| Payment to operatives | $5,000 in cash | $5,000 to undercover FBI agents |
| Arrest date | July 12, 2024 | July 12, 2024 |
The table highlights points where Merchant’s testimony and the prosecution’s framing overlap and diverge. His account emphasizes coercion and fabricated reporting to his handler, while prosecutors focus on planning activity and omissions during FBI interviews. Quantitative elements — payment amount and arrest date — are uncontested facts in the docket, but interpretations of intent and threat remain central to the jury’s deliberations.
Reactions & Quotes
Merchant’s own testimony aimed to humanize his choices and explain the claimed motive of protecting family members in Iran.
“My family was under threat, and I had to do this. I was not wanting to do this so willingly.”
Asif Merchant (testimony)
Prosecutors countered that Merchant’s actions showed planning and omission rather than a clear, contemporaneous report of coercion to U.S. officials.
“You traveled to the United States for the purpose of hiring Mafia members to kill a politician, correct?”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Nina Gupta (court questioning)
Outside the courtroom, Iranian officials have publicly denied directing assassination plots; U.S. authorities have emphasized the role of undercover work in preventing potential violence while continuing to investigate any broader links to state actors.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the IRGC leadership in Tehran directly ordered or coordinated Merchant’s alleged assignments remains unproven in court at this time.
- Merchant’s claim that relatives in Iran were under immediate and credible threat has not been independently verified in public filings.
- Any communications between Merchant and other U.S.-based actors about operational planning beyond what prosecutors have disclosed are not corroborated publicly.
Bottom Line
This trial centers on whether Asif Merchant acted as a coerced intermediary under credible threats or as an active conspirator who sought criminal operatives to carry out violence in the United States. Concrete facts—$5,000 payment, July 12, 2024 arrest, and the naming of three high-profile figures as targets—anchor the case, but interpretations of intent and coercion are the decisive issues for jurors. The presence or absence of evidence linking the plot operationally to the IRGC will determine whether the case has broader diplomatic and national-security implications beyond a criminal prosecution.
Observers should watch the trial record for documentary evidence, the credibility assessments of Merchant and law enforcement witnesses, and any disclosure about communications with Iran. Those elements will shape not only the verdict but also possible policy responses if a state linkage is substantiated. For now, the proceedings remain a high-profile test of how U.S. courts handle allegations that sit at the intersection of foreign influence and domestic criminal law.
Sources
- CBS News (media: original reporting)
- The Associated Press (media: related coverage)
- U.S. Department of Justice (official: federal law enforcement)