A 50-year-old Indiana woman’s social media rants against President Donald Trump have landed her in federal crosshairs. Nathalie Rose Jones, from Lafayette, now faces serious charges for allegedly posting violent threats online. Her case raises questions about free speech versus dangerous rhetoric in a polarized age.
From August 2 to 15, 2025, Jones used Instagram and Facebook to unleash a barrage of threats against Trump, accusing him of being a terrorist and blaming his administration for lives lost during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her posts, under the handles "nath.jones" and "Nath Jones," escalated from fiery criticism to explicit calls for violence. The U.S. Secret Service quickly took notice.
Jones’ Instagram posts, spanning August 2 to 9, labeled Trump’s administration a dictatorship and demanded his removal from office. Her rhetoric wasn’t just hot air—it crossed into threats of bodily harm, prompting federal scrutiny. The Secret Service doesn’t play games when it comes to protecting the president.
On August 6, Jones took her vitriol to Facebook, posting a chilling message about “sacrificially” killing Trump by disemboweling him. “I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS,” she wrote, name-dropping Liz Cheney in a bizarre twist. Such graphic threats aren’t just reckless—they’re a federal crime.
By August 14, Jones was doubling down, demanding Trump’s arrest as a “terrorist” in a public Facebook post aimed at the Secretary of Defense. She even suggested a specific date and time for a White House “removal ceremony.” The audacity of broadcasting such plans online is as baffling as it is bold.
The Secret Service, ever vigilant, tracked Jones’ posts and brought her in for questioning. During her interview, she didn’t back down, calling Trump a “nazi” and admitting she’d kill him with a “bladed object” if given the chance. Her obsession with avenging COVID-19 deaths fueled her dangerous rhetoric.
Jones’s first interview with the Secret Service laid bare her fixation on Trump’s pandemic policies. She claimed her threats were driven by a desire to “avenge” lives lost due to his administration’s vaccination approach. It’s a classic case of personal grievance morphing into public menace.
On August 16, Jones joined a protest circling the White House, amplifying her anti-Trump crusade. The Secret Service interviewed her again that day, and she admitted to her earlier threats. Yet, in a curious pivot, she insisted she no longer wished to harm the president.
Her flip-flopping raises eyebrows—can someone so consumed by rage just switch it off? Jones confirmed she owned the “Nath Jones” Facebook account and authored the threatening posts. Her admissions sealed her fate, leading to federal charges.
Jones now faces charges for threatening to kill, kidnap, or harm the president, alongside charges for transmitting threats across state lines. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro didn’t mince words: “Threatening the life of the President is one of the most serious crimes.” Her promise of “swift and unwavering prosecution” signals a no-nonsense response.
Pirro’s statement reflects a broader truth: the justice system doesn’t tolerate threats against elected leaders, no matter how unpopular they are. The Secret Service’s rapid response underscores its commitment to neutralizing risks. “Protecting the President is our highest priority,” said Special Agent Matt McCool.
Jones’ case isn’t just about one woman’s meltdown—it’s a warning about the perils of unchecked online vitriol. Social media amplifies emotions, but it also amplifies accountability. Her posts, once just digital noise, now carry real-world consequences.
The Secret Service’s diligence earned praise from Pirro, who thanked agents for their “tireless commitment” to national security. Their work highlights the thin line between free speech and criminal threats. Jones crossed that line with reckless abandon.
This saga exposes the toxic underbelly of political discourse in 2025. Jones’ fixation on COVID-era grievances mirrors a broader progressive obsession with rewriting history to vilify Trump. Yet, her methods—violent threats cloaked in righteous fury—undermine any legitimate critique.
While Jones’ anger may resonate with some, her actions serve as a cautionary tale. Passion for justice doesn’t justify calls to violence, especially against a sitting president. Her case reminds us that words have weight, and the law is watching.
