Fact check: Have any individuals been charged or convicted for threatening Trump?

1. Clear arrests and charges tied to social-media threats — recent federal actions reveal a pattern of enforcement

Federal prosecutors have publicly charged and arrested people for making threats against President Trump, citing investigations led by the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Offices; a notable recent example is Derek Lopez of Illinois, who was arrested and federally charged after allegedly making violent threats against Trump and reportedly ignoring FBI warnings ^{[2] [5]}. Charging documents allege explicit threats, and federal law makes it a crime to threaten the life of the President, so these actions reflect conventional application of federal statutes rather than new legal theory. Reporting and press releases date from late October 2025 for Lopez and August 2025 for Nathalie Rose Jones, indicating that enforcement activity has continued into 2025 ^{[2] [1]}. The presence of FBI involvement in reported cases underscores that threats to a former or sitting President are being treated as priority federal investigations.

2. Convictions and sentences demonstrate prosecution outcomes — at least one recent conviction produced prison time

Federal courts have not only processed charges but produced convictions and sentences for threats related to President Trump; for example, Richard James Spring of Michigan was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for threatening Trump on social media, showing that prosecutors have secured guilty pleas or convictions resulting in custodial sentences ^[3]. This sentence indicates that courts will impose significant penalties when threats meet the statutory elements of a crime, and it confirms that charges do progress to conviction in some cases rather than being limited to arrests or warnings. The October 2025 reporting on Spring’s sentence situates this enforcement within the same recent period as other charged cases, suggesting a continuity of federal prosecutorial emphasis on violent and credible threats made online.

3. Multiple, independent reports converge — corroboration across DOJ press releases and media outlets

The pattern of charging and prosecution is corroborated across U.S. Attorney press releases and news organizations: DOJ press releases announced charges in Illinois and Indiana, while outlets such as CBS and Fox reported arrests and contextual details like FBI warnings and social-media content ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Convergence across government releases and diverse media outlets strengthens the factual claim that individuals have been charged and convicted for threatening Trump, reducing the likelihood that isolated or misreported incidents drive the narrative. The sources span August through October 2025 for the most recent arrests and sentences, demonstrating that multiple, contemporaneous cases have been publicly documented by both official channels and mainstream media.

4. Wider context: threats to judges and the post-2020 landscape show an elevated threat environment

Reporting going back to 2023–2024 documents a broader surge of threats tied to Trump-related legal matters, including threats against judges and court staff, with federal prosecutions of such threats described as relatively uncommon but persistent; Reuters reported that threats against judges increased markedly and that only a subset led to federal prosecutions ^{[6] [4]}. This broader trend contextualizes threats against Trump within a larger rise in violent rhetoric around high-profile legal and political controversies, and it helps explain why federal law-enforcement agencies have been attentive to social-media posts and other communications that could signal credible danger. The historical reporting explains prosecutorial caution and the selective nature of charges, even amid a rising volume of threats.

5. Competing emphases and potential agendas — enforcement, deterrence, and political framing

Sources emphasize different aspects: U.S. Attorney press releases and DOJ-focused reports stress legal elements, charges, and sentences as neutral law-enforcement actions ^{[1] [2]}, while some media coverage highlights the political context and the potential for partisan framing of threats and enforcement ^{[5] [7]}. Readers should note that law-enforcement communications aim to document prosecutions, while media outlets may highlight elements that fit broader narratives about political violence or judicial risk, and that those narratives can carry agenda-driven emphases. Taken together, the available official documents and reporting establish that individuals have been charged and convicted for threatening Trump, while also situating those prosecutions within a larger pattern of threats related to Trump-era legal disputes ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.