A Pennsylvania man who made online threats against Donald Trump shortly before the president’s second inauguration will avoid prison time after pleading guilty in federal court.
Jacob Buckley, 23, was sentenced to one year of probation and fined $500 by Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The decision came months after Buckley admitted to posting threats against Trump on TikTok in January 2025.
The case has drawn attention because prosecutors had requested a prison sentence, arguing that threats against a president-elect should be taken seriously. However, the judge ultimately decided that probation, mental health treatment, and monitoring were more appropriate based on the circumstances of the case.
Quick Summary of the Case
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Defendant | Jacob Buckley |
| Age | 23 |
| Location | Pennsylvania |
| Charges | Threatening Donald Trump online |
| Platform Used | TikTok |
| Sentence | One year probation and $500 fine |
| Additional Conditions | Mental health treatment and medication compliance |
| Prosecutors’ Request | One year in prison |
What Jacob Buckley Posted Online
According to court records, Buckley made several threatening comments on TikTok just days before Donald Trump was set to return to the White House.
On Jan. 16, 2025, Buckley allegedly commented during a livestream, “I hate MAGA republicans bro on god I’ll kill all of them.” In another post made the same day, he reportedly wrote, “I’m going to kill Trump.”
Court filings also showed another message in which Buckley stated, “Bro we going into a literal oligarchy in 4 days and im going to kill Trump.”
Authorities said the posts were made using a TikTok account connected to Buckley’s real name, which helped investigators quickly identify him.
Federal officials treated the threats seriously because they targeted the incoming president during a sensitive political period leading up to inauguration day.
Judge Decides Against Prison Time
Although prosecutors asked the court to sentence Buckley to one year in prison, Judge Matthew Brann chose a less severe punishment.
During the sentencing hearing, Buckley reportedly apologized for his actions and admitted there was “no excuse” for the threats. He also told the court that he wished he could take the statements back.
The judge noted that Buckley had no prior criminal record and that investigators found no evidence suggesting he had an actual plan to carry out the threats.
Instead of prison, the court ordered Buckley to complete one year of probation. He must also participate in a mental health treatment program and continue taking any prescribed medications as part of the sentence.
The decision reflects how courts sometimes consider mental health history, criminal background, and the likelihood of actual violence when determining punishment in threat-related cases.
How Similar Trump Threat Cases Have Been Handled
Buckley’s sentence stands out because other people convicted of threatening Donald Trump have received significantly harsher punishments.
In February, a 32-year-old Florida man was sentenced to more than two years in federal prison after threatening what prosecutors described as the “greatest” and “most daring Presidential assassination” in history.
That same month, a 49-year-old woman from Hawaii received a seven-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release after threatening to “blow up the White House and kill the president.”
Those cases involved more severe language and, according to prosecutors, raised stronger concerns about possible violent intent.
Legal experts often note that federal judges have broad discretion when sentencing individuals convicted of making threats online. Factors such as criminal history, mental health evaluations, remorse, and evidence of planning can all influence the outcome.
Online Threats Against Public Officials Continue to Rise
The Buckley case is part of a growing trend involving threats against political leaders on social media platforms.
Federal law enforcement agencies have repeatedly warned that online threats can escalate quickly, especially during periods of political tension. Authorities now closely monitor social media posts involving threats toward public officials, government institutions, and political events.
Even when individuals claim they were joking or venting frustration, prosecutors often argue that such statements can create fear, disrupt public safety operations, and encourage extremist behavior.
The increasing use of platforms like TikTok, X, and other social media apps has also made it easier for law enforcement agencies to trace threatening posts back to users.
In recent years, courts across the United States have handled a growing number of cases involving threats directed at presidents, lawmakers, judges, and election officials.
Mental Health Became a Key Factor in the Case
Mental health appeared to play a major role in Buckley’s sentencing outcome.
Judge Brann emphasized that there was no evidence Buckley intended to follow through on his statements. Instead, the court focused heavily on treatment and supervision rather than incarceration.
The requirement that Buckley continue prescribed medication and mental health treatment suggests the court viewed rehabilitation as more appropriate than prison in this situation.
Still, the case highlights the legal risks of making violent statements online, even if no direct action is taken afterward.
Federal authorities continue to stress that threats against elected officials are treated seriously regardless of whether they are made during livestreams, comment sections, or private online conversations.
