Pennsylvania Man Charged with Threatening to Kill Trump Before Inauguration
A 22-year-old man from Pennsylvania, Jacob Buckley, has been federally charged for allegedly threatening to kill then-President-elect Donald Trump, the Justice Department announced Wednesday. The threats were made via his TikTok account, where he posted statements expressing hatred toward MAGA Republicans and explicitly stated his intention to kill Trump. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania stated that the charges stem from Buckley’s alleged threats made before Trump’s inauguration, with the investigation conducted by the U.S. Secret Service. This case follows a similar incident in Rhode Island where a man was charged for making threats on Truth Social, underscoring the legal ramifications of expressing violent intentions against public figures. The Justice Department highlighted that the maximum penalty upon conviction could include up to five years in prison, supervised release, fines, and a special assessment. An attorney representing Buckley has declined to, the matter. The FBI previously determined that the Rhode Island man, Carl Montague, did not possess weapons or plans to carry out the threats, indicating that these cases, while serious, are subject to further legal scrutiny and evaluation.
The developments come weeks after a Rhode Island man was charged for allegedly threatening to kill Trump and multiple members of his administration on Truth Social. The Department of Justice said in early July that 37-year-old Carl Montague was charged with threats against the president, interstate threats, threats to assault and kidnap, or murder of a U.S. official, judge, or law enforcement officer. Montague was accused of writing a profanity-laced post on Truth Social on June 27, 2025, threatening to shoot and kill Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. The FBI later said in a criminal complaint that Montague does not own or have access to weapons, nor did he have plans, intentions, or the means to travel to commit such violence.
These cases highlight the growing legal responses to threats against prominent public figures, regardless of the platform used to express them. While both cases involved individuals who have been charged, the outcomes may differ based on the specifics of each situation, including the intent, means, and feasibility of the threats. The Justice Department’s announcement underscores the seriousness with which such threats are treated under federal law. As these cases progress, they may offer insights into how the legal system addresses the intersection of free speech and public safety in the context of potential threats against political leaders.
The FBI’s role in these investigations also raises questions about the balance between individual rights and state interests in preventing violent acts. While the FBI has stated that Montague did not pose an immediate threat, the mere existence of the threats warrants legal action. This may set a precedent for how future cases are handled, emphasizing the importance of taking such threats seriously even when the immediate danger is not evident. The ongoing legal proceedings involving Buckley and Montague serve as a reminder that the law seeks to protect public safety while navigating the complex landscape of free speech and potential criminal behavior.