July 24, 2026 09:00 AM PST
(PenniesToSave.com) – A federal grand jury has returned an indictment against a Florida man who, prosecutors say, put on a Marine officer’s uniform, turned on a camera, and told the public that the president of the United States must be killed. The indictment was filed Wednesday and charges William Lintag Upham, 35, of Jacksonville, a Marine veteran and former state prosecutor, with threatening to kill President Donald Trump in social media videos and in a message sent to a third party [1].
Upham is also a qualified Republican write-in candidate for Congress, and he is presumed innocent. Prosecutors still have to prove every element of the charge in court [2].
What follows is a plain accounting of what the government says happened, how the case started, why the Marine Corps publicly disowned the conduct within days, and where the line sits between political speech that the First Amendment protects and a statement that federal law treats as a true threat.
Quick Links
- What Does the Federal Indictment Actually Charge?
- What Do Prosecutors Say the Videos Show?
- Who Is the Man at the Center of This Case?
- How Did Federal Agents Find Out About the Posts?
- Why Did the Marine Corps Respond So Quickly?
- What Happens Next, and Why Should Anyone Outside Florida Care?
What Does the Federal Indictment Actually Charge?
The indictment was filed Wednesday in the Middle District of Florida, where the United States attorney’s office is prosecuting the case. It carries a single federal offense, threatening to kill the president, which is punishable by a maximum sentence of five years in prison [1].
The legal standard inside that charge matters more than the headline. According to the indictment, prosecutors allege that Upham sent his message with the intent to communicate a true threat, and with recklessness as to whether others would view the statement as a real threat of violence [1]. That language is not decorative. It is the test that separates a crime from protected speech.
Americans are free to call a president corrupt, dangerous, unfit, or worse. That freedom is broad on purpose, and it covers speech that most people would find offensive. What the law does not protect is a statement that a reasonable listener would understand as a genuine intention to commit violence against a specific person. The government’s theory is that these communications crossed that line.
The sequence is straightforward. The indictment alleges the videos were posted between July 13 and July 15. Upham was arrested July 16 and has been ordered detained. The grand jury returned the indictment on July 22 [1]. Until Wednesday, the case had rested on a criminal complaint sworn out by a federal agent, a document that reflects an investigator’s allegations rather than a grand jury’s finding that the evidence justifies a trial [2]. Further proceedings, including arraignment and any trial date, have not been announced [1].
What Do Prosecutors Say the Videos Show?
Two videos sit at the center of the case, and in both of them Upham is wearing his Marine Corps uniform. The indictment says he called the postings a “call to arms” and urged an overthrow of the administration [1].
One of the videos runs nearly seven minutes and begins the way an ordinary campaign message begins. Upham says he entered the race to restore bipartisanship, return power to the working class, and repair what he describes as a broken political system. The tone then changes. He cites scripture, invokes the oath he swore as a commissioned Marine officer to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and says the country is led by a president who is an enemy of God [3].
From there, prosecutors say, he told viewers there was no doubt in his mind that the president is the Antichrist, described him as a “false Messiah” and an enemy, and said he “must be killed” [4].
The second video is the one that moves the case from rhetoric toward instruction. Prosecutors say Upham turned to combat tactics and offered military instruction on overthrowing the administration, recommending a semi-automatic rifle such as an AR-15 [3] and describing a shooting method of two shots to the chest followed by one shot to the head [4].
Investigators also point to an email. After a reporter contacted him about the videos on July 15, Upham allegedly replied that he had made the video in uniform to declare war on behalf of God, and that he “will kill President Trump at the time that God chooses, not when I choose” [4]. Investigators say the sending address matched the address listed on his Florida Bar profile [2].
That progression, from opinion to method to a stated commitment to act, is precisely what prosecutors will argue takes the communications outside the First Amendment’s protection.
Who Is the Man at the Center of This Case?
Upham is 35 and lives in Jacksonville. He is a former state prosecutor and a Marine veteran [1]. Military records show he entered the Marine Corps in June 2021, reached the rank of first lieutenant, and served as a student judge advocate. His record listed no deployments and no awards, and his final assignment was Wounded Warrior Battalion West at Camp Pendleton in California. He received a medical discharge on May 30, 2025, and the publicly released Marine Corps statement did not identify the medical basis for it [2].
He is also a candidate. Florida election records identify him as a qualified Republican write-in candidate for the United States House in Florida’s 5th Congressional District. He filed his candidacy on April 28 and qualified on June 9 for the November 3 general election [2]. The district covers portions of Northeast Florida, including parts of Jacksonville, Ponte Vedra Beach, and St. Augustine, and the seat is currently held by Representative John Rutherford, a Republican [5]. His candidacy remained active in the state’s election database after the arrest [2].
That last detail surprises most voters, and it is worth understanding before November. Ballot access and criminal jeopardy run on separate tracks. A candidate can remain listed in a state database while sitting in federal detention.
One more fact deserves to be stated plainly, because it complicates any attempt to file this case under a familiar partisan heading. The defendant is a Republican candidate accused of threatening a Republican president.
How Did Federal Agents Find Out About the Posts?
The case did not begin with a surveillance program. It began with two phone calls.
The Secret Service started investigating after receiving two reports on July 14 about posts connected to Upham’s campaign account. One came from an anonymous caller. The other came through a representative of the Department of Veterans Affairs, who described a veteran posting videos in uniform, calling the president the Antichrist, and discussing weapons and combat tactics [2]. Agents then reviewed the videos themselves [1].
In a statement, the Secret Service said it investigates anything that can be perceived as a threat toward one of its protectees and that, out of concern for operational security, it does not discuss matters of protective intelligence [3].
Investigators also obtained information indicating Upham had access to firearms, including records showing he purchased two guns from a Virginia pawnshop in June 2024. The complaint does not say whether he still possessed those firearms when agents investigated the alleged threats [2]. Separately, Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office officers had conducted a welfare check at his residence on July 5, eight days before the first video. During that encounter, according to the complaint, Upham told officers he was the Messiah and that God had ordered him to die [4].
The record also contains a mental health claim that should be handled carefully. The complaint says a VA representative relayed a third-party claim that Upham had been medically retired because of mental health concerns and had recently experienced a psychiatric hold. The complaint does not identify the original source of that claim, does not attach medical records, and does not indicate that agents independently confirmed it [2]. It is an open question, not a settled fact, and it may shape the defense.
For most readers, the takeaway is reassuring. Ordinary people spoke up, a federal agency reviewed the actual evidence before acting, and an arrest followed within two days of the last post.
Why Did the Marine Corps Respond So Quickly?
The Marine Corps did not wait for a court to act. In a social media post, the service said it was aware of the “disturbing statements” made by Upham, noted that he had been medically discharged on May 30, 2025, and said the comments were a direct violation of the oath he swore to uphold and were not in keeping with the service’s values [1].
Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao was equally direct, writing that the conduct was unacceptable and that Upham is no longer a Marine and does not represent the service’s values or ethos [5].
Notice what those statements were aimed at. Neither response addressed Upham’s politics, his campaign, or his views on the administration. Both were aimed at the uniform.
That focus is the right one, and it explains why the uniform is an aggravating detail rather than a background one. Military credibility is earned, and it belongs to the institution and to every person who served under that same standard. Wearing the uniform while calling for a killing borrows trust that the individual no longer had any claim to, and it attempts to lend the weight of the Corps to a private grievance. The service recognized that immediately and said so publicly, before an indictment existed and before it was clear how the legal case would proceed.
Institutions that police their own quickly are the ones that keep public trust. On this, the Marine Corps met the standard.
What Happens Next, and Why Should Anyone Outside Florida Care?
Upham remains detained. The case is being prosecuted by the United States attorney’s office for the Middle District of Florida, and arraignment and any trial date have not been announced [1]. If he is convicted, he faces a maximum of five years in federal prison [1]. He is presumed innocent, and the government carries the burden of proof [2].
Officials from both major parties have repeatedly warned that language appearing to encourage or justify political violence contributes to a dangerous climate [5]. Those warnings are worth very little if they are enforced selectively. This case is a useful test of whether the standard holds regardless of who is speaking and who is targeted, and on the facts as charged, it held. A rule that binds only one side is not a rule.
The free speech boundary is the part most readers will carry with them. Nothing in this case narrows the right to criticize a president harshly, publicly, and repeatedly. The government’s position is that the communications here went further, supplying a target, a method, and a stated commitment to act.
There is also an unresolved thread that deserves honest treatment. If the mental health claims in the record hold up under scrutiny, this becomes a case about accountability and about how a veteran in apparent crisis moved from a medical discharge to a welfare check to a federal charge without anything interrupting that trajectory. Both of those things can be true at once, and both are worth watching as the case proceeds.
Final Thoughts
Two institutions responded to the same act, and they responded on the same principle. The Marine Corps disowned the conduct publicly within days, pointing directly at the oath. A federal grand jury then returned an indictment, pointing at the line between speech and threat.
Neither response required agreeing with this president or liking him. That is the point worth keeping. The protection against threats of political violence does not attach to a party, an officeholder, or an election cycle. It attaches to the office and, by extension, to the system that lets Americans settle disputes with ballots and arguments instead of force.
The case now moves to a courtroom, where the government will have to prove what it has alleged and the defendant will have every protection the law provides. That is how it should work. What happens between now and a verdict is a matter for the record, not for speculation.
Works Cited
- Lundy, Jonathan. “Jacksonville Marine Veteran Indicted on Charge of Threatening to Kill President Trump in Social Media Videos.” News4JAX, 23 July 2026, www.news4jax.com/news/local/2026/07/23/former-jacksonville-marine-indicted-on-charge-of-threatening-to-kill-president-trump-in-social-media-videos/. Accessed 23 July 2026.
- Fuller, Haley. “Ex-Marine, GOP Congressional Candidate Arrested for Threatening to Kill Trump.” Military.com, 17 July 2026, www.military.com/ex-marine-gop-congressional-candidate-arrested-threatening-kill-trump. Accessed 23 July 2026.
- Price, Stepheny. “Florida Write-in Congressional Candidate William Upham Arrested after Saying Trump ‘Must Be Killed’.” Fox News, 15 July 2026, www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-write-in-congressional-candidate-william-upham-arrested-after-saying-trump-must-killed. Accessed 23 July 2026.
- Rosenberg, Tate. “Congressional Candidate, Former Marine Charged with Threatening to Kill President Trump.” First Coast News, 16 July 2026, www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/former-marine-congressional-candidate-threats-to-kill-president-trump-jacksonville-department-of-justice/77-c12b59e0-3fd4-4783-9850-aa4b34604889. Accessed 23 July 2026.
- Commander, Anna, and Dan Gooding. “Florida Congressional Candidate Charged after Saying Trump ‘Must Be Killed’.” Newsweek, 15 July 2026, www.newsweek.com/marine-corps-rebukes-florida-candidate-who-said-trump-must-be-killed-12196842. Accessed 23 July 2026.