Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted by a federal grand jury for the second time since Donald Trump returned to the White House — this time over a photograph of seashells arranged to spell out “86 47.” The Justice Department says the post was a veiled death threat against the President. Comey says it was a caption about shells. Legal experts are divided, and the case is now a major First Amendment flashpoint.
What Exactly Did Comey Post — And Why Does “86 47” Matter?
In May 2025, Comey shared a photo on Instagram showing shells arranged on a beach to form the numbers “86 47” with the caption: “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” In American slang, “86” means to remove, get rid of, or eliminate something or someone. Trump is the 47th president. Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem immediately labelled the post a call for the president’s assassination and referred it to the Secret Service.
Comey deleted the post shortly after, calling it an “inadvertent” coincidence. He later said he had not even considered the Trump connection when he posted it. The Justice Department, led by Trump appointee Pam Bondi, concluded otherwise. On April 28, 2026 — nearly a year after the post — a federal grand jury returned two counts against Comey: threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
“This indictment is a transparent attempt to criminalise political expression. The government cannot prove criminal intent — the First Amendment protects ambiguous speech, and a photo of shells does not meet the legal threshold for a credible threat.”
— Jennifer Daskal, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
This is the second Comey indictment under Trump’s second term. The first — related to alleged leaking of classified memos after his 2017 firing — collapsed before trial after a judge ruled key evidence inadmissible. Comey responded to this latest indictment in a video posted to Substack titled “Seashells,” stating: “I’m still innocent. I’m still not afraid. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary — so let’s go.”
What Are the Legal Arguments on Both Sides?
The government’s case rests on arguing that a reasonable person — particularly a former senior intelligence official — could and would understand that “86 47” constitutes a threat against the President. Prosecutors will likely argue that Comey’s history as one of Trump’s most prominent critics, combined with the specific numeric reference, establishes the intent needed for conviction.
Comey’s defence will centre on the First Amendment’s “true threat” doctrine. For a prosecution to succeed, the government must prove the statement communicated a serious, unambiguous threat of violence — not merely controversial or symbolic speech. A photo of beach shells, his lawyers will argue, does not clear that bar. Several leading constitutional law scholars have already described the case as overreach, with some noting that criminal charges over Instagram posts raise profound questions about the future of political dissent in America.
The timing is notable. The Comey charges arrive just as the FCC — under Trump-aligned Chairman Brendan Carr — ordered ABC to fast-track broadcast licence renewals after Trump called for the firing of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Civil liberties groups are describing both cases as a coordinated pattern of using government power to punish political critics. Meanwhile, the broader Trump executive agenda continues to test the limits of judicial checks — making this courtroom battle part of a much larger constitutional conversation.
What This Means For You
If the government wins this case, it sets a precedent allowing prosecutors to treat ambiguous social media posts as federal crimes — potentially chilling political commentary across the country. If Comey wins, it reinforces the high bar required for speech to qualify as a “true threat” under US law. For anyone who posts political content online, the outcome matters. This is not just about one man’s Instagram photo — it is about how far the government can reach into the digital public square to criminalise opposition to the President.
Sources
- US Department of Justice — Federal Grand Jury Indicts Former FBI Director Comey
- NBC News — James Comey indicted over seashell photo that officials say threatened Trump
- CNBC — James Comey charged with Trump threat in 8647 seashell post
