US charges Ex-FBI Chief James Comey Over Trump ‘86 47’ Seashell Post

US Justice Department indicts James Comey for alleged threat after Instagram seashell post interpreted as coded message targeting Trump.

The United States Justice Department has brought criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey, accusing him of threatening President Donald Trump after posting an image of seashells arranged to display the numbers “86 47” during a beach vacation last year.

The indictment, filed on Tuesday in the federal court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, charges Comey with transmitting a threat across state lines and threatening the life of the U.S. president.

The case centres on an Instagram post Comey made in May 2025 while vacationing in North Carolina, in which he shared a photograph of seashells arranged on a beach forming the numbers “86 47”. In American slang, “86” can mean to eject or get rid of someone, while “47” has been interpreted by Trump allies as a reference to Donald Trump, the 47th president.

The Justice Department argued that the post amounted to a veiled threat. Trump and his allies at the time said they interpreted it as a call for violence against the president.

However, Comey has strongly rejected that interpretation and says he never intended any harm.

“I’m still innocent. I’m still not afraid,” Comey said in a video posted online after the indictment, adding: “This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be.”

He also said he removed the post once it generated controversy.

“I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down,” Comey said shortly after deleting the Instagram message.

The renewed prosecution comes amid accusations that President Trump’s Justice Department is targeting political opponents. Trump has previously called for criminal action against Comey and other critics.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the indictment on Tuesday, framing it as a standard legal action.

“While this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate, and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute,” Blanche said during a news conference.

US authorities had previously investigated Comey over the post and interviewed him through the Secret Service, but declined to bring charges at the time.

Since taking office in April, Blanche has overseen a series of controversial Justice Department actions, including prosecutions and investigations involving political and institutional figures, as part of what critics say reflects a broader shift in enforcement priorities.

Trump’s long-standing hostility toward Comey stems from the FBI’s investigation into alleged ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russian officials. A separate criminal case brought against Comey last September accused him of lying to Congress about media disclosures related to FBI investigations. That case was later dismissed by a federal judge who ruled that the prosecutor involved was unlawfully appointed, though the Justice Department has appealed the decision.

The earlier prosecution also faced additional legal setbacks, including judicial findings that prosecutors may have made serious errors before the grand jury and improperly used evidence obtained in violation of constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure.

Comey’s legal team has described the latest case as politically motivated.

“We will contest these charges in the courtroom and look forward to vindicating Mr. Comey and the First Amendment,” said his lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald.

The defence is expected to argue that the prosecution represents “vindictive prosecution” aimed at punishing Comey for his criticism of President Trump.

The case is also likely to test free speech protections under the First Amendment, which safeguards political expression, including controversial or offensive speech. However, legal experts note that the Constitution does not protect “true threats” against individuals.

Scholars say the US Supreme Court has not clearly defined the boundaries of what constitutes a “true threat”, leaving law enforcement to assess intent and context when determining whether speech crosses into criminal conduct.

For now, the case adds another high-profile legal and political flashpoint in the ongoing tensions between President Trump and former officials who played roles in investigations during his political career.