Threatening the President of the United States has always been considered one of the most serious crimes in the federal system — a bright red line no one is supposed to cross. Yet in today’s political climate, even that line seems to blur when partisan considerations creep in.
Take the case of Nathalie Rose Jones, a 50-year-old New Yorker who spent much of August unleashing a torrent of unhinged social media posts explicitly threatening to murder President Donald Trump.
These weren’t vague ramblings; they were graphic, violent declarations. On Aug. 6, she allegedly wrote that she was willing to “sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea,” even tagging federal agencies to make sure her threats were noticed. She later told Secret Service agents she would carry out her plan with a “bladed object” if given the chance.
Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya initially recognized the danger and denied her bond. But less than two weeks later, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — an Obama appointee — quietly reversed course, releasing Jones under electronic monitoring and requiring her only to see a psychiatrist.
This is extraordinary. Federal law treats presidential threats as felonies because even unstable individuals have proven capable of turning words into violent action. That’s why prosecutions in these cases are typically aggressive and detention is the norm.
Yet here, a woman who openly confessed her willingness to assassinate the sitting President is now back at home, free to post again, with only a GPS bracelet to mark her confinement.
Contrast that with how January 6 defendants or even pro-life activists have been treated — subject to pre-dawn FBI raids, denied bail, and held in pretrial detention for months or years over far less direct offenses. The double standard is glaring.
Friends of Jones told the court she suffers from schizophrenia and has never acted violently. But history shows that mental illness doesn’t erase the danger of threats; in fact, it often amplifies it. The system’s job is to protect the President, not gamble on whether a would-be attacker will follow through.
Newly installed DC U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has vowed that Jones will face prosecution, reminding the public that “justice will be served.” That reassurance may be welcome, but the judge’s decision has already undermined confidence. If threatening to disembowel the Commander-in-Chief is not enough to keep a person behind bars pending trial, what is?
