Second Woman Arrested for Threatening to Kill Trump and His Family

Donald Trump waving in a red cap — Photo: Joseph Sohm / Shutterstock

Hours before a presidential rally, a 21-year-old Florida woman posted that she would shoot President Trump—and deputies arrested her the next day.

Story Snapshot

Investigators say an Instagram post named Trump, a Glock, and the next day’s Daytona rally.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and United States Secret Service alerted local deputies, who made a quick arrest.
Deputies found no gun; the woman told them it was a joke and she dislikes guns.
Florida prosecutors filed state felony charges for written death threats and using a device to commit a felony.

Specific threat, fast referral, immediate arrest

Volusia County deputies say the written threat hit three red flags at once: a named target, a named weapon, and a date and place. The affidavit quotes the Instagram post: “Going to the Trump rally in my city tmr so I can shoot him with my glock! Wish me luck guys!!” The rally was scheduled for the following day in Daytona Beach. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Secret Service referred the post to the sheriff’s office, which moved at once to locate and arrest the suspect.

Sheriff Mike Chitwood announced the arrest and released a copy of the alleged post. He warned that threats to assassinate a president would not be tolerated. That message matched the duty of the United States Secret Service: identify, assess, and manage threats to protect national leaders before violence can occur. Preventive action is the goal, not after-action regret. When a post lays out who, what, where, and when, the only safe play is to act first.

Charges under state law, not a hold-and-sort stop

Prosecutors filed two Florida felonies. The first is making written threats to kill or do bodily injury, a second-degree felony. The second is using a two-way communications device to commit a felony, a third-degree felony. These are defined charges with clear elements, not a vague detention. That choice signals officials see the statement as more than trash talk. It also shows how states can act while federal statutes for threats to protected persons remain available if needed.

Deputies did not report finding a firearm in the home search. The woman told them she did not own a Glock, did not like guns, and was not going to shoot anyone. She also said the post was a joke. Those details matter for court, where intent and credibility get tested. But they do not erase the written words. Under threat laws, the content, the context, and the timing all carry weight. A joke defense must overcome a post that named a target, weapon, and event on the eve of that event.

Where free speech ends and a true threat begins

Courts draw a hard line between protected speech and a “true threat.” The Supreme Court has said the state must show at least recklessness for threat crimes online, meaning the speaker knew or should have known others would take the words as a serious threat. A post that names a sitting president, a weapon, and a rally the next day puts the reader on high alert. That is why agencies do not wait to see if the author shows up at the metal detectors.

Defense arguments often stress sarcasm, hyperbole, or venting. Some cases succeed when the context clearly points to a joke. But posts that look like a plan force the system to lean on prevention. That aligns with common sense and conservative values: protect life, back the badge, and hold people responsible for words that cross the line into targeted menace. Rights come with duties; free speech does not include staging assassination talk as sport.

Why this case drew attention now

The timing raised the stakes. A president’s visit brings crowds, open spaces, and split attention for officers. After recent attempts on public figures, every credible-sounding threat gets higher priority. Local and federal teams train for this exact pattern: a social post, a near-term event, and a chance to stop harm before it starts. The sheriff’s public warning amplified the message that the county will act quickly when someone names the president as a target.

Florida’s case will turn on evidence that locks the post to the author, shows the timing, and explains how officials read its meaning. The record already points to a specific written statement and a swift, lawful arrest. The court will handle questions about intent and seriousness. The signal to the public is simpler: type a death threat at a named time and place, and expect a knock at your door. That is not censorship. That is protection.