DC Grand Jury Refuses to Indict Woman Accused of 'Oddly Specific' Threats Against Trump

It turns out that making “oddly specific” threats against the sitting President of the United States doesn’t carry much consequence in 2025 — provided you have the right judge and jury on your side.

According to multiple reports, D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg declined to hold Nathalie Rose Jones in custody, despite Jones having posted multiple death threats against President Donald Trump on social media.

For context, Trump and Boasberg have long been at odds, with the judge repeatedly intervening in presidential orders throughout Trump’s administration.

As WUSA-TV reported, in late August Boasberg reversed an earlier detention order, allowing Jones to return home while awaiting trial. He admitted Jones had made “oddly specific” threats, including a chilling post in which she actually tagged the FBI while vowing to “disembowel him and cutting out his trachea.”

That release alone sparked outrage among many Trump supporters, who viewed the decision as politically motivated. But what followed has only deepened that anger.

On Tuesday, a Washington grand jury went even further — refusing to indict Jones at all. Her attorney, assistant federal public defender Mary Petras, celebrated the decision:

“A grand jury has now found no probable cause to indict Ms. Jones on the charged offenses. Given that finding, the weight of the evidence is weak. The government may intend to try again to obtain an indictment, but the evidence has not changed and no indictment is likely.”

According to WUSA-TV, the refusal is highly unusual, since grand juries “nearly always return indictments in federal cases because they are tasked with deciding only whether there is a reasonable basis to support charging a crime, a much lower burden than in criminal trials, and because they typically made their decisions after hearing evidence only from the government. Under federal law, an indictment is required within 30 days of arrest for any felony charge prosecutors want to bring.”

Adding to concerns, Jones — a 49-year-old former pharmacist — had reportedly taken her threats beyond social media. In emails sent to military, pharmaceutical, and government employees, she brazenly declared herself “available to kill this man,” referring to Trump.

Boasberg defended his earlier decision to overturn Jones’ detention by pointing to her instability, suggesting her communications were more incoherent than credible.

“Doesn’t that kind of suggest they didn’t take those threats seriously?” Boasberg remarked.

Yet for many Americans, the message is clear: while the justice system routinely throws the book at conservatives for far less, someone openly offering to kill the sitting president walks away untouched.