A former U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant, accused of making threats against President Donald Trump on social media, was acquitted this week. His defense team successfully argued that his posts were protected under the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga announced the verdict on Wednesday, stating, “Following the jury’s not guilty verdict on October 28, 2025, the defendant is hereby acquitted, discharged, and any bond exonerated.” This decision concluded the case against 63-year-old Peter Stinson, who faced charges of soliciting the president’s assassination. The official court document can be viewed here.

Stinson’s defense team, addressing his house arrest situation, argued that his supposed threats didn’t meet the criteria of specificity, imminence, or likelihood to provoke unlawful action, which would place them outside constitutional protection. They maintained that his statements were within the bounds of protected political discourse.

In a September motion to dismiss the case, which was ultimately denied, Stinson’s lawyers highlighted the “horrific assassination of political organizer Charlie Kirk” as evidence of rising politically-motivated violence in the U.S. They used this context to argue their point further, which you can read here.

The defense emphasized that despite the increase in such violent acts, the First Amendment’s protection of speech remains intact. They insisted that Stinson’s posts did not legally qualify as a genuine or concrete call to assassinate the President.

Federal agents alleged Stinson, who spent 33 years in the Coast Guard and served as an instructor for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was a “self-identified” member of antifa and began threatening violence against Trump in social media posts dating back to early 2020, according to a probable cause affidavit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Investigators said that in online posts and conversations, Stinson often threatened Trump by referring to him through code names, including variations of the word “orange,” “one ear,” “Krasnov,” or simply using the orange emoticon as a stand-in for the president.

For example, in February 2020, Stinson allegedly posted on X, formerly Twitter, that “orange must go,” meaning Trump, “at any cost.” In April of that year, he wrote that Trump “wants us dead” before adding, “I can say the same thing about him,” per the affidavit.

Three days later, he allegedly wrote that somebody “out to do more than sue the orange mf’s ass,” specifying that “It involves a rifle and a scope, but I can’t talk about it here.” Later that day, Stinson allegedly said that he would be “willing to pitch in $100 for a contract,” apparently referring to hiring a hit man to kill the president, a notion he returns to multiple times in the messages provided in the affidavit, saying it would “solve the solvable part of this problem in a crack.”

Stinson on April 6, 2020, allegedly pleaded for someone to “pull the proverbial trigger” on Trump and wrote, “I would do it. I would take the fall to save America. Too bad I don’t have the operational skills to pull it off. I am willing to serve in a support capacity for someone else with the skills to take care of things.”

Other posts from Stinson allegedly include him writing:

• “He’d look and sound better with a big red hole in his orange head,” in February 2025.
• “We know how it ends. In his third term. A couple of rounds to the chest cowering on the floor in the Oval Office,” in March 2025.
• “When he dies, the party is going to be yuge,” in June 2025.

As his case unfolded, Stinson’s lawyers argued that if a person posted on a public site, “Someone should rob the bank on King Street,” such a statement would constitute “abstract advocacy,” according to their motion to dismiss. “On the other hand, if in the midst of a power outage and general looting, a person encouraged a crowd on King Street to break into and steal from a particular bank, such conduct may support a solicitation charge,” the defense said.

Federal prosecutors, in response, stated that “Stinson is correct” and the example he provided was “particularly illustrative of why Stinson’s solicitation that someone ‘Take the shot’ and assassinate President Trump” is criminal.

“Each and every citizen of this country is entitled to his rights to engage in dialogue and express his political beliefs, no matter how vehement such speech may be,” the DOJ said. “However, where speech begins to plunge our society further into the depths of violence by calling for and normalizing political assassinations, it crosses the line.”