A 63-year-old former Coast Guard officer is facing serious legal consequences after allegedly making numerous threats against President Donald Trump on social media platforms. A federal judge has ordered Peter Stinson to home detention with GPS monitoring following a hearing that examined years of concerning online activity.

According to Fox News, Judge Ivan Davis ruled Wednesday that Stinson could be released to home detention without posing a threat to the community, provided he adheres to strict monitoring conditions. The decision came after prosecutors and defense attorneys clashed over the nature of Stinson's social media posts and whether they constituted actual threats.

Stinson, who appeared in court wearing a green prison jumpsuit, served as a Coast Guard officer from 1988 to 2021. During his military career, he reportedly received expert marksman ribbons and worked as a FEMA instructor, qualifications that prosecutors highlighted as particularly concerning given the nature of his alleged threats.

Military Background Raises Prosecution Concerns

Prosecutors from the Department of Justice presented evidence that Stinson had made multiple threatening statements against Trump across various social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, and Bluesky. They emphasized his military background and shooting expertise as factors that made his alleged threats more credible.

The investigation revealed that Stinson allegedly referenced the need for Trump to be "Luigied" – an apparent reference to Luigi Mangione, who is accused of killing United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson last year. This post appeared on May 9, among numerous other concerning messages collected by investigators.

Stinson's public defender pushed back against the prosecution's characterization, noting that some of Stinson's posts included statements like "Someone should take the shot...he said I can't shoot but I can drive. I'd take the shot, but I'm a lousy shot, so it would be a waste." The defense argued that such language represented protected political hyperbole rather than actual threats.

First Amendment Questions Complicate Case

Judge Davis appeared sympathetic to the defense's First Amendment arguments, as prosecutors struggled to establish probable cause during the hearing. The judge ultimately gave prosecutors until next Wednesday to submit additional written briefs supporting their position.

The case highlights the ongoing tension between protected political speech and genuine threats. Stinson's defense team emphasized that the statute in question requires specific threatening language and that hyperbolic political statements are protected under the Constitution, even when extreme.

Investigators noted that Stinson had self-identified as a member of ANTIFA in his online postings. In one February post on X, he allegedly wrote: "Sure. This is war. Sides will be drawn. Antifa always wins in the end. Violence is inherently necessary."

Concerning Pattern Of Online Activity

FBI task force documents revealed that Stinson had made references to "8647" in his posts, which investigators believe relates to a controversial Instagram post made by former FBI Director James Comey. The numerical reference has become a coded message in some political circles.

The investigation uncovered a pattern of increasingly graphic threats allegedly made by Stinson across multiple platforms. These included references to various methods of harm, despite his claims of lacking "necessary skills" to carry out such actions – statements that investigators found particularly concerning given his military training.

As recently as June 11, Stinson allegedly posted on BlueSky: "When he dies, the party is going to be yuge," in what appeared to be a mocking reference to President Trump's speaking style while making another threatening statement.

Why This Story Matters

This case raises important questions about the intersection of free speech and public safety in a digital age. The ability of authorities to respond to online threats depends on clear legal standards and careful analysis. The story also reminds us how quickly social media activity can escalate into federal legal action, especially when violent rhetoric is involved.

Conclusion

Peter Stinson, a retired U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant, faces accusations of repeatedly threatening former President Donald Trump across several social media platforms over the past five years. Despite his background as a sharpshooter and FEMA instructor, a federal judge ordered his release under GPS-monitored home detention.

Questions about First Amendment protections, the intent behind his words, and the seriousness of his posts remain central to the case, which continues to unfold as prosecutors work to strengthen their arguments.