Three University of South Alabama students stood in federal court in Mobile on Friday, October 2, charged with threatening President Trump in social media posts made days before his rally on their own campus. One of the posts, prosecutors say, read “he gotta die bro.” The charge carries up to five years in prison, and all three were ordered held in custody.
Story Highlights
- Amare Jemal Woods, Cameron Lamark Lewis and Kayla Leaann Smith were charged Friday, October 2, with making threats against the president.
- Court papers quote the posts: “he gotta die bro” and “We only got one chance let’s take it,” followed by an image of someone pretending to hold a gun.
- A judge ordered all three held through the weekend, with detention hearings set for Monday, October 5.
- A defense lawyer said, “If this kid is a threat, then everybody pecking on a keyboard is a threat.”
What Each Student Is Accused of Posting
The accusations come from FBI affidavits. An affidavit is a sworn written statement an agent gives a court to explain why charges should be filed. Investigators said they found the posts while searching social media ahead of the president’s visit, then worked with university police to identify who wrote them.
Three students posted. The feds charged them. Trump still took the stage
Three University of South Alabama students were arrested Friday, hours before President Trump’s rally at the Mitchell Center in Mobile. Each one is charged with threatening the president. He spoke that… pic.twitter.com/cqqSlifeXP
— Ryan Eminhizer 🇺🇸 (@ryan_eminhizer) October 3, 2026
Woods, an aerospace engineering student, is accused of writing “he gotta die bro” under a TikTok post on September 27. Smith, who is studying elementary education, is accused of replying to a TikTok post about the president’s visit on September 29 with the words “We only got one chance let’s take it.” Investigators say she then posted an image of someone pretending to hold a gun.
Lewis, a philosophy major, is accused of posting on X that people would “remember the University of South Alabama the same way they remember Utah Valley University.” That is the Utah campus where conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed in 2025.
All three were taken into custody Friday, and the cases were made public that afternoon. The rally went ahead as planned that night at the university’s Mitchell Center.
The Defense and the University Respond
Jason Darley, the lawyer for Woods, said his client never meant to hurt anyone. “The problem is that the president is on campus and Woods is a student,” Darley said. “If this kid is a threat, then everybody pecking on a keyboard is a threat.” He added, “I don’t honestly think any of these three are threats.”
The school did not defend the posts. In a statement, it said the university “unequivocally condemns any form of threats directed at elected officials or any individual with whom we disagree.” It added that political speech is protected, but intimidation and unlawful conduct are not.
What Happens Next
A federal magistrate judge, a judge who handles the early steps of a federal case, ordered all three students held. They were to stay in custody through the weekend and return to court Monday, October 5, for detention hearings. A detention hearing is where a judge decides whether a person stays locked up or goes home while the case moves forward.
The three are charged, not convicted. If found guilty, each faces a maximum of five years in federal prison.
Why a Post Can Be a Federal Crime
Threatening the life of a president has been a federal crime for more than a century. The reason is simple. Agents protecting a president cannot wait to learn whether a threat was serious, and the country cannot afford for them to guess wrong.
The First Amendment protects rough political talk, but it does not protect a “true threat.” A true threat is a statement that a reasonable person would take as a serious promise of violence. In a 2023 case called Counterman v. Colorado, which involved a man who sent hundreds of unwanted messages to a singer, the Supreme Court set the test. Prosecutors must show the person knew his words could be taken as a threat and sent them anyway.
That is the question a court in Mobile will now weigh: whether these posts were loose talk, or a warning the three knew others would take seriously.
Sources:
fox10tv.com, people.com, foxnews.com, al.com, nypost.com, legalinsurrection.com
