Almost certainly yes, at least based on historical precedent, though Trump loves ignoring that.

For example, Watts v. United States, where someone said:

“They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.”

He was originally convicted, but that was then reversed, as the Supreme Court stated:

“We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was ‘a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the president.’ Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise.”

At the end of the day, the law only really states that you have to:

1. Make a threat
2. …That threatens you taking the life of, kidnapping, or inflicting bodily harm upon the president

So let’s say I say “I am going to kill the President” not as an example, but as an actual statement. That could be interpreted as an actual threat. However, If I am a 13 year old kid with just $20 to my name, no access to a gun, and no means of transport to even get near the president, it would be hard for the government to argue that’s not just a joke, or political hyperbole, as it was in the case of Watts v. United States.

Given that all of those would be a threat for you to do something, and not just you wishing he was dead by any other means, it’s quite likely that any court would determine you saying something like “I hope Donald Trump dies a horrible, agonizing, painful death,” or even something like “I hope someone else shoots the president” would probably be considered AOK, and again, just political hyperbole, or statements without any material threat behind them.