Fact Check: Former Coast Guard lieutenant released despite threats to assassinate Trump
What We Know
Peter Stinson, a former U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant, was arrested for allegedly making multiple threats to kill President Donald Trump. According to court documents, Stinson, who served in the Coast Guard from 1988 to 2021 and was recognized for his sharpshooting skills, made a series of violent posts on social media platforms including X (formerly Twitter) and Bluesky from 2020 through 2025. The FBI's affidavit details numerous instances where Stinson suggested using firearms and other means to harm Trump, including statements like, "somebody ought to do more than sue the orange mf's a**" and "I'd be willing to pitch in $100 for a contract" (ABC News, CBS News).
Despite these serious allegations, a federal judge ordered Stinson to home detention with GPS monitoring rather than keeping him in jail. The judge expressed that the conditions of home detention did not pose a threat to the community (Fox News). Stinson's public defender argued that some of his statements were hyperbolic and protected under the First Amendment, while prosecutors countered that Stinson's military background and sharpshooting skills made his threats credible (Fox News, CBS News).
Analysis
The claim that Stinson was released despite making threats is accurate, but it requires context. While he was indeed ordered to home detention, this decision was made after a hearing where the judge weighed the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. The judge's ruling suggests that, at least at that moment, the court did not find sufficient evidence to keep him in jail without bail. This indicates a legal process that considers both the severity of the threats and the rights of the accused.
The sources reporting on this case, such as ABC News and CBS News, are reputable and provide detailed accounts of the allegations, the legal proceedings, and the context surrounding Stinson's threats. However, it is essential to note that the framing of Stinson's release can vary depending on the outlet's perspective, which may introduce some bias. For instance, the emphasis on his home detention could be interpreted as leniency or as a reflection of the legal standards regarding threats and free speech.
Conclusion
The claim that a former Coast Guard lieutenant was released despite making threats to assassinate Trump is Partially True. While it is accurate that Stinson was ordered to home detention, this decision was made based on legal considerations and does not negate the seriousness of the threats he allegedly made. The case highlights the complexities of balancing public safety with legal rights, particularly in politically charged situations.
