A federal judge has ordered former U.S. Coast Guard officer Peter Stinson to home detention with GPS monitoring after prosecutors alleged he made multiple threats against President Donald Trump on social media platforms including X, Reddit, and Bluesky over the past five years. While the government’s claims that Stinson’s statements were not just hyperbolic but indicative of a real threat, the judge found that the conditions of home detention posed no risk to the community. The judge gave prosecutors until next Wednesday to file additional briefs as the case continues to develop.
The 63-year-old Virginia resident, who served in the Coast Guard from 1988 to 2021, became a sharpshooter and served as a FEMA instructor during his tenure. Stinson, who wore a green prison jumpsuit to the hearing, was seen speaking with his attorneys and seemed to be cooperative with the process. His public defender argued that the threats were political hyperbole protected under the First Amendment, while prosecutors countered that the nature of the threats was serious and required immediate action.
In an affidavit filed by the FBI, details were revealed about the myriads of online threats Stinson allegedly made. One instance included a post where he wrote that Trump needed to be ‘Luigied,’ referencing Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The document also alleged that Stinson made graphic threats involving guns, poisoning, and knives, and referenced the number 8647, which government officials believe is linked to an Instagram post by former FBI Director James Comey. Additionally, the document states that Stinson self-identified as a member of ANTIFA, further complicating the legal and political dimensions of the case.
The case highlights the ongoing tensions surrounding threats against political figures, the role of social media in amplifying such threats, and the challenges of balancing free speech with public safety. As the FBI continues its investigation and prosecutors prepare to file additional briefs, the outcome of this case could have significant implications for how such threats are addressed in the future.