Long Island Man Charged With Threatening to ‘Put a Bullet’ in Jeanine Pirro

Prosecutors say a Long Island man posted videos vowing to “put a bullet” in U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s head, and now he faces a federal threat charge.

Story Snapshot

Complaint cites two June 30 videos posted on X as core evidence.
Agents arrested Daniel Kretsinger after a warrant issued August 7.
Charge: transmitting a threat across state lines, up to five years.
Officials also flagged threats toward President Trump in the posts.

The Alleged Threats And The Rapid Arrest

Federal court records, as described in news reports, say Daniel Kretsinger posted two videos on June 30 that threatened U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro by name and vowed a trip to Washington, D.C., to carry it out. An arrest warrant followed on August 7, and U.S. Marshals took him into custody on August 11, according to those reports. Newsday reports he appeared before Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo on August 12 to face the interstate threat charge.

Law enforcement attributed the videos to an account that tagged Pirro’s official handle, which helped anchor the complaint to a specific target. Newsday also reported that officials viewed the posts as threats against both Pirro and President Trump. The government often treats direct, on-platform video posts as strong digital evidence because they fix the speaker, the words, and the time in a way juries and judges can follow. That clarity tends to speed up warrants and arrests.

What The Law Requires In A True Threat Case

Federal law does not protect “true threats.” Courts define that as a serious expression to commit unlawful violence against a person or group, judged by an objective listener and the speaker’s state of mind. The Supreme Court has also said the government must show the speaker understood others would take the words as threatening, or at least acted with reckless disregard to that risk. In plain terms, ranting is speech, but a direct promise of harm can be crime when the words cross that line.

Prosecutors often meet that bar in social media cases with clear language, direct naming of a target, and statements about plans to travel. Those details signal seriousness, not just heat. The reported complaint here leans on two posted videos dated the same day, a named public official, and explicit violent intent. That is the kind of package that fits long-standing threat statutes. A criminal complaint sometimes uses “Jane Doe” for a victim’s privacy, but named reporting ties the target to Pirro. One caveat always applies: an arrest is not a conviction.

Why This Case Fits A Bigger National Pattern

Threat cases against public officials have surged in the last decade. Researchers counted 594 federal cases from 2013 to 2023, with the highest annual total in 2023. Analysts also report a spike in Department of Justice threat prosecutions since 2017, with elevated levels holding after that. Digital platforms make it fast to speak to large audiences and tag officials directly. That speed rewards rage. It also produces clean evidence that federal agents can preserve and charge.

A Long Island man has been arrested for allegedly threatening to travel to Washington, DC, to “put a bullet” in US Attorney Jeanine Pirro‘s head.

Daniel Kretsinger, of Hauppauge, posted two menacing videos to X on June 30, threatening Pirro and further suggesting he may also…

— Crime In NYC (@Crime_In_NYC) August 20, 2026

This trend carries a hard lesson. Free speech is wide, but not endless. The First Amendment shields sharp criticism of leaders, tough language about policies, and satire that bites. It does not shield a promise to kill someone. American conservative values hold that law and order protect free debate. Death threats end debate. When someone moves from anger to an explicit vow of violence, that crosses the bright line the Constitution never drew to protect.

What Comes Next In Court

The interstate threat count carries up to five years in prison if a jury convicts. Prosecutors may seek platform records from X to verify timestamps, account control, and any deletion history, and they may examine devices for drafts or related messages. Defense counsel can press context and intent, but the legal focus will be on whether the words, in full view, were a serious expression to do harm. Courts apply that standard case by case, and jurors weigh the videos with care.