Grand juries in Washington, D.C. have declined to charge two individuals accused of threatening the life of President Donald Trump, sparking allegations of political bias within the judicial system. The first case involves Nathalie Rose Jones, a woman who allegedly posted online threats to assassinate Trump and later confirmed these statements to Secret Service agents during an interview. Prosecutors have called the decision to reject indictment for Jones a clear sign that the system in the nation’s capital is failing to protect the chief executive. In a separate case, Edward Alexander Dana, who allegedly threatened Trump while being arrested for vandalism in Northwest D.C., was also not charged. Both cases were dismissed by grand juries, leading prosecutors to accuse the process of being influenced by politics rather than law. U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., Jeanine Pirro, who had pushed for the charges, described the juries as acting ‘politically motivated’ and ‘broke,’ with her claiming that the system is failing to provide justice for threats against the president. She criticized the decisions as a sign that residents of D.C. are ‘so used to crime’ that they refuse to support indictments. This has raised concerns about the fairness and integrity of the grand jury process in the capital, with critics questioning whether the system is being manipulated to avoid holding violent or threatening defendants accountable.