Federal Judge Ivan Davis has imposed home detention and GPS monitoring on Peter Andrew Stinson, a former U.S. Coast Guard officer accused of threatening President Donald Trump. The 63-year-old Virginia resident allegedly posted violent threats on social media platforms over five years, including references to assassination and political violence. How can Stinson’s statements prove to be political hyperbole and not legitimate threats?
Former Coast Guard Officer’s Threats Lead to Court Action
Peter Andrew Stinson, a 63-year-old Oakton, Virginia, resident who served in the U.S. Coast Guard from 1988 to 2021, now faces serious charges for allegedly threatening to assassinate President Donald Trump. Federal authorities arrested Stinson following an investigation that linked him to numerous threatening social media posts spanning five years on platforms including X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, and Bluesky.
According to court documents, Stinson’s alarming statements included direct references to violence, such as “Yes, I would pull the trigger. Would you?” in 2020 and “If you’re going to do something big, get it right” in 2024 following an attack on Trump. The self-identified Antifa member allegedly founded the “Mayday Movement,” which has advocated for Trump’s impeachment while making increasingly violent suggestions about presidential assassination.
Former Coast Guard officer, sharpshooter as well a FEMA instructor – Virginia resident Peter Stinson was arrested after threatening to assassinate Trump
Stinson allegedly made graphic threats against Trump involving guns, poisoning, and even knives on multiple social media… pic.twitter.com/JCkaYyAVIN
— Steve Gruber (@stevegrubershow) June 17, 2025
Legal Battle Over Free Speech vs. Legitimate Threats
During court proceedings, prosecutors emphasized Stinson’s military background as an expert marksman, directly contradicting his online claims of being a “lousy shot” when discussing potential violence. They argued his extensive firearms training and experience as a FEMA instructor made his threats particularly credible and concerning to authorities investigating the case.
Stinson’s public defender countered by framing the statements as political hyperbole fully protected under the First Amendment rather than legitimate threats. Hannah Marcley, identified as a spokesperson for Stinson’s group, similarly defended him, stating: “Peter said some angry things online, and I’m not going to speculate as to whether or not those were even all him. It’s the prosecution’s job to prove that he said those things and that they were illegal.”
Peter Stinson, a self-identified Antifa member from Virginia and May Day riot organizer, has been charged for allegedly making threats to m—rder the president. Read: https://t.co/jPzi8i3FqH
— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) June 17, 2025
Judge Questions Evidence While Imposing Restrictions
Federal Judge Ivan Davis appeared skeptical about the strength of evidence establishing probable cause, giving prosecutors until the following Wednesday to file additional briefs supporting their case. Despite these reservations, the judge determined that home detention with GPS monitoring would adequately address any potential threat Stinson might pose to the community.
An FBI affidavit detailed Stinson’s alleged threats, which included references to “8647” (linked to a controversial Instagram post by former FBI Director James Comey) and statements like “Sure. This is war. Sides will be drawn. Antifa always wins in the end. Violence is inherently necessary.” The investigation also uncovered a particularly disturbing post from March 2025 suggesting assassination as a means of social justice, further complicating Stinson’s legal defense against charges of threatening the president.