A 29-year-old man from Rome, Georgia, was taken into federal custody after allegedly posting violent threats against President Donald Trump during a livestream on the social media platform TikTok, authorities said.
According to a Justice Department press release, investigators say Jauan Rashun Porter joined a July 26 livestream discussion about the Trump administration’s controversial detention facility for undocumented immigrants — colloquially referred to by critics as “Alligator Alcatraz” — and then repeatedly threatened to kill the president. Prosecutors say Porter’s comments were explicit and sustained, and that the expressed intent prompted immediate law enforcement scrutiny.
On the livestream, Porter is accused of writing statements including, “So there’s only one way to make America great and that is putting a bullet in between Trump’s eyes,” and, “I’m gonna kill Donald Trump. I’m gonna put a 7.62 bullet inside his forehead. I’m gonna watch him bleed out and I’m gonna watch him die. I’m gonna do that.” When other participants in the chat warned Porter that federal agents might respond, the government says he replied on multiple occasions that he would also kill agents.
The remarks, federal prosecutors say, went beyond mere angry rhetoric. Secret Service personnel — who are statutorily responsible for safeguarding the president — worked in coordination with local and state law enforcement to investigate. During a search of Porter’s residence, officers reportedly recovered two metal pipes, pistol ammunition, and a quantity of Tannerite, an explosive compound commonly used in target practice that can be detonated by high-velocity rifle rounds.
Prosecutors highlighted Porter’s criminal history in announcing the arrest. Court records and the Justice Department statement list prior convictions including terroristic threats, influencing a witness, mutiny in a penal institution, drug possession, battery, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and domestic violence. At the time of his arrest, Porter was reportedly serving a probationary term for earlier offenses.
Porter was formally charged in federal court with making threats against the President of the United States, a serious federal crime that triggers prompt investigative and prosecutorial attention. He is scheduled to appear for a detention hearing, according to the DOJ release, which said U.S. Attorney Theodore Hertzberg described the allegations as “serious” and said the swift, collaborative law enforcement response was required given the nature of the threat.
“We do not tolerate threats against public officials or law enforcement officers, and Porter will now face the consequences of his actions,” Hertzberg said in the department statement.
Federal law treats threats against the president as grave because they implicate national security and the integrity of the nation’s highest office. The Secret Service routinely pursues reports of direct threats with investigations that may include searches, interviews, and, when appropriate, arrests. In this case the agency worked alongside local and state authorities to locate and secure potentially dangerous materials and to determine whether the suspect posed an imminent risk.
The arrest prompted renewed discussion of political violence and online radicalization. The alleged threats came just over a year after a widely reported sniper incident in Butler, Pennsylvania, where a shooter positioned on a rooftop fired at President Trump while he was speaking on the campaign trail; the president narrowly escaped serious harm. That event underlined how threats against public officials can materialize into real-world attacks, and officials say such background influences how seriously all threats are treated.
Civil liberties advocates emphasize the need to balance free expression protections with public safety. The First Amendment protects a wide range of speech, including vehement criticism of public figures, but it does not shield true threats or speech that meaningfully facilitates imminent lawless action. Federal prosecutors must therefore show that alleged threats cross that legal line — for example, by demonstrating specificity, intent, or an imminent plan — to secure criminal charges and detention.
Officials also noted the amplifying role social media can play in both spreading violent rhetoric and aiding investigators. Platforms like TikTok are used by millions for everything from entertainment to political discussion. But the immediacy and viral nature of livestreams and chat rooms can accelerate the spread of extremist content, prompt copycat behavior, or provide real-time evidence that agencies can use to identify potential threats.
The Justice Department’s announcement did not indicate whether Porter has retained legal counsel or whether he had any pending immigration or other civil status issues. His detention hearing will assess whether prosecutors have met the legal standard to hold him without bond pending trial — a determination that weighs the person’s danger to the community and risk of flight among other factors.
Local authorities in Rome, Georgia, declined to comment beyond what was included in federal filings. The Secret Service and the U.S. Attorney’s Office typically refrain from commenting on specific investigative tactics, but stressed that cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement was key to the arrest.
The alleged plot — as described by investigators — is one of several high-profile cases in recent years in which individuals made violent threats against public officials online and later faced criminal charges. The pattern has led to increased resources for threat assessment and behavioral analysis at agencies charged with protecting national leaders. Lawmakers also have debated how to deter online vitriol without encroaching on civil liberties, and whether tech companies should do more to moderate content or assist investigators when threats arise.
For families and communities, incidents like this can be jarring. Tension over polarizing policy decisions — from immigration enforcement to the handling of detention centers — occasionally spills into hostile rhetoric. But authorities say most people with political grievances do not act on violent impulses; the criminal justice system exists to separate protected speech from criminal conduct and to hold accountable those who threaten or plan violence.
If prosecutors obtain a conviction on the federal charge of threatening the President, penalties can be severe. Sentences and fines vary depending on the statutory count, the presence of prior convictions, and other aggravating circumstances, such as possession of weapons or explosives. The case will be prosecuted in federal court, where both the government and defense will have an opportunity to present evidence before a judge or jury.
At present, the Justice Department is expected to proceed with the scheduled detention hearing and to continue investigating whether any accomplices or additional criminal activity is linked to the alleged threats. The Secret Service, for its part, reiterated that it treats all threats to protectees seriously and works with its law enforcement partners to mitigate risk and bring suspected offenders to justice.
As the case moves through the federal system, it will be closely watched both for its legal implications and for what it illustrates about the intersection of online speech, political conflict, and public safety in an era of heightened polarization.