The Breaking Indictment Shakes Washington

A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina has indicted former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey on serious charges related to an Instagram post that prosecutors claim constituted a threat against President Donald Trump. Announced on April 28, 2026, the two-count indictment accuses the 65-year-old Comey of violating federal statutes designed to protect the president from harm. This development marks the second time the Trump administration's Justice Department has brought charges against Comey, reigniting debates over political retribution, free speech, and the boundaries of social media expression.

The case stems from a seemingly innocuous beach photo Comey shared online nearly a year earlier, which quickly spiraled into a national controversy. As details emerge, legal experts, politicians, and the public grapple with the implications of interpreting ambiguous symbols as criminal threats in an era of heightened political tensions.

Recounting the Controversial Instagram Post

On May 15, 2025, while walking on a beach near his vacation home in North Carolina, James Comey encountered seashells arranged in the sand forming the numbers '86 47.' Intrigued, he snapped a photo and posted it to his Instagram account with the caption, 'Cool shell formation on my beach walk.' What began as a casual share of a natural curiosity exploded when Trump allies interpreted the image as a coded message calling for violence against the president.

Comey deleted the post within hours after backlash erupted online. In a follow-up statement, he explained that he viewed the shells as a 'political message' but 'didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence.' He emphasized his opposition to 'violence of any kind' and took down the content to avoid misinterpretation. Despite the quick removal, the image had already been widely shared and scrutinized by federal investigators.

Deciphering '86 47': Slang, Symbolism, and Controversy

At the heart of the case lies the interpretation of '86 47.' The term '86' originates from 1930s American diner slang, where it meant an item was out of stock or needed to be removed from the menu. Over time, it evolved to signify 'get rid of,' 'eject,' or 'cancel' in everyday language. In more extreme contexts, particularly online political discourse, it has been stretched to imply 'kill' or 'eliminate.'

Paired with '47,' referencing President Trump's position as the 47th U.S. president following his 2024 reelection, the combination '86 47' was seen by critics as a direct incitement to harm. Trump himself commented in a May 2025 Fox News interview, stating, 'A child knows what that meant... that meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear.' Prosecutors argue that a 'reasonable recipient familiar with the circumstances' would view the post as a serious expression of intent to injure the president.

Defenders counter that the phrase has multiple benign meanings, from restaurant lingo to casual dismissal, and lacks explicit violent language. This ambiguity forms the crux of the First Amendment challenges likely to arise in court.

James Comey's Turbulent History with Donald Trump

James Comey served as FBI Director from 2013 to 2017, appointed by President Barack Obama. His tenure became fraught under Trump, who fired him in May 2017 amid the FBI's investigation into Russian election interference. Comey later testified before Congress about Trump's alleged pressure to drop the probe into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, authoring memos that fueled the Mueller special counsel investigation.

Since his dismissal, Comey has been a vocal Trump critic, authoring books like 'A Higher Loyalty' and maintaining an active social media presence. This latest indictment revives accusations from Trump that Comey orchestrated efforts to undermine his presidency, positioning the case as long-overdue accountability.

Unpacking the Specific Federal Charges

The indictment charges Comey under two key statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. § 871(a): Threatening the President – Alleging Comey 'knowingly and willfully' made a threat to take the president's life or inflict bodily harm via the Instagram post.
• 18 U.S.C. § 875(c): Transmitting a Threat in Interstate Commerce – Claiming he transmitted a communication containing a threat to injure another, disregarding the risk it would be seen as violent.

Each count carries a potential maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The Eastern District of North Carolina venue ties to the post's origin, where Comey owns property. For full details, view the official DOJ press release.

Justice Department Officials Speak Out

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche declared, 'Threatening the life of the President of the United States is a grave violation of our nation’s laws... anyone who dials it up and threatens the life of the President will be held accountable.' FBI Director Kash Patel added, 'James Comey disgracefully encouraged a threat on President Trump’s life and posted it on Instagram for the world to see... Mr. Comey will be held fully accountable.'

U.S. Attorney W. Ellis Boyle for the Eastern District emphasized, 'No one is above the law... Our office regularly pursues threat cases including those against public officials.' The investigation, led by the FBI, spanned months and culminated in the grand jury's probable cause finding.

Comey's Defiant Response to the Charges

In a video posted to his Substack on April 28, 2026, Comey stated, 'I’m still innocent. I’m still not afraid. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary, so let’s go.' His attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, affirmed, 'Mr. Comey vigorously denies the charges... We will contest these charges in the courtroom and look forward to vindicating Mr. Comey and the First Amendment.'

Comey is expected to self-surrender on April 29, 2026, in Virginia federal court, avoiding a dramatic arrest. His team plans motions arguing selective prosecution and protected speech.

The Dismissal of Comey's Prior Indictment

This is not the first time Comey has faced federal charges under the Trump DOJ. In September 2025, he was indicted in Virginia for lying to Congress about authorizing leaks to journalists during the 2016 Russia probe. That case was dismissed in November 2025 when a judge ruled the lead prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed without Senate confirmation, violating federal statutes on interim U.S. attorneys.

The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing refiling, but highlighted procedural flaws in Trump-era appointments.

Legal Experts Question the Case's Strength

Prominent voices express doubt. First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh called it 'clearly not a punishable threat.' Professor Mary Anne Franks noted its 'ambiguous' nature, stressing the need to prove intent. Former U.S. Attorney Michael Moore remarked, 'This is not him saying, “I am going to kill him.”' Analyst Elie Honig deemed the indictment 'deeply flawed.'

Prosecutors must surmount the 'true threat' standard from Virginia v. Black (2003), proving the post conveyed a serious intent to harm absent protected political hyperbole. For deeper analysis, see coverage from CNN Politics.

Partisan Reactions Flood the Airwaves

Republicans hailed the move: Sen. Josh Hawley urged further indictments. Democrats decried it: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer labeled it 'Trump’s perverse attempts to abuse the justice system.' Critics see it as part of a pattern post-Pam Bondi's dismissal, with Acting AG Blanche accelerating probes into opponents like John Brennan and Fani Willis.

Free Speech vs. National Security: A Delicate Balance

The case tests social media's role in political discourse. While platforms host heated rhetoric, statutes like § 871 criminalize threats unprotected by the First Amendment. Precedents like Watts v. United States (1969) distinguish 'political hyperbole' from true threats. Comey's high profile amplifies scrutiny on how courts handle ambiguous online content amid rising threats—over 1,000 presidential threats probed annually by the Secret Service.

Next Steps in the High-Profile Proceedings

Comey faces arraignment soon, with pretrial motions likely challenging venue, intent, and vindictiveness. Trial could span months, potentially reaching 2027. Success hinges on circumstantial evidence like Comey's Trump criticism history and post-deletion timing. A conviction would mark a rare prosecution of a former top official for speech-related charges.

Threats in a Polarized Era: Historical Perspective

U.S. presidents face thousands of threats yearly, with convictions under § 875 averaging dozens annually. Recent spikes correlate with social media's rise, prompting Secret Service expansions. This case underscores challenges in policing digital expressions without chilling dissent. As Acting AG Blanche noted, the DOJ prosecutes threats routinely, regardless of status.

For the Associated Press timeline, outcomes here could reshape online political engagement norms.

Photo by Anil Baki Durmus on Unsplash