Los Angeles Podcaster Charged With Threatening Trump, Cyberstalking President’s Lawyer

Federal prosecutors say a Los Angeles podcaster threatened to kill President Trump and stalked the President’s personal lawyer across months of posts and calls.

Story Snapshot

A federal grand jury charged Benjamin Azariah Southworth with threats against the President, cyberstalking, and harassing interstate calls.
Prosecutors allege a months-long pattern that mixed social media posts with voicemails aimed at Trump’s lawyer and family.
Southworth reportedly called his earlier “Kill Donald Trump” language “just rhetoric,” according to court-paper-based reporting.
An indictment is an allegation; Southworth is presumed innocent under the law.

What Prosecutors Allege Happened

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California said a federal grand jury indicted Benjamin Azariah Southworth, a 40-year-old from Los Angeles, on three counts. The charges are threats against the President, cyberstalking, and harassing telephone calls in interstate communications. Prosecutors say his conduct targeted President Trump and the President’s personal lawyer over several months. Federal agents arrested Southworth at his Westlake apartment on Thursday morning, according to local reports citing officials.

The indictment alleges Southworth used social media posts and direct calls to threaten and harass. Prosecutors describe a pattern, not a single post, citing repeated online statements and voicemails aimed at the attorney and the attorney’s family. Local news reports, drawing from the indictment, say the content included explicit calls for violence and attempts to expose personal contact details of the lawyer’s household. The case now moves to federal court, where a judge will weigh detention and release terms.

How The Law Treats Threats And Stalking Online

Federal law forbids true threats against the President and makes cyberstalking a crime when someone intends to harass or intimidate and takes actions that cause fear or distress. Courts have narrowed these laws to target unprotected speech, not rough or offensive opinions. Recent rulings stress prosecutors must show a person understood the threatening nature of their words, especially online. Research shows federal cyberstalking filings rose over the last decade, targeting repeated conduct with clear threats or harassment.

That trend tracks how abuse now often spans platforms and modes, from posts to calls. Cases like this hinge on intent and context. Did the speaker mean the threat as a real warning, and did the conduct cause fear? Prosecutors usually reserve federal charges for patterns that look sustained and serious. That is why they often point to multiple posts, repeated contacts, and any doxxing attempts to show impact and purpose. Judges then apply free-speech limits and precedent to decide what counts as a true threat.

Defense Posture And The Presumption Of Innocence

Court-paper-based reporting says Southworth later called his “Kill Donald Trump” language “just rhetoric,” and another cited post claimed he had been “vocal in calling for the execution” of Trump. That stance suggests a likely defense: he was speaking in hyperbole and did not mean a real threat. The Department of Justice press release notes a basic rule of the system: an indictment is an allegation, and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

LA podcaster arrested on charges of making threats to Trump https://t.co/gv5mnWwbim

— LB Press-Telegram (@presstelegram) September 4, 2026

The line between speech and threat is the legal fault line here. Prosecutors say the posts and calls formed a course of conduct that crossed into threats and stalking. The defense may argue the words were crude and political, not criminal, and that the government is overreaching. Many Americans, right and left, worry that the system often misses real danger yet also clamps down on speech it dislikes. This case will test those fears and the courts’ guardrails, in full public view.

Why This Case Matters Beyond One Defendant

This case lands in a tense moment. Political anger is high, and threats against public figures draw fast action. People want safety for leaders, judges, and lawyers. People also want space to speak bluntly about power without risking prison. Federal cyberstalking research shows the government tends to bring cases when there is sustained behavior, direct targets, and explicit or implied harm. That pattern tries to balance safety with free speech, but it does not end debate.

For readers, two truths can both stand. First, no one gets to threaten violence or stalk a family. Second, the First Amendment protects harsh, even ugly, political speech that does not cross into true threats. The court will sort facts, intent, and impact. The outcome will signal how far officials can go when online rage turns personal. It will also show whether the justice system can protect people without chilling the speech that keeps a free nation honest.