A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina indicted former FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, on two federal counts stemming from a social media post he made in May 2025 depicting seashells arranged on a beach to form the numbers “86 47.” The indictment marks the second time the Trump Justice Department has brought federal charges against the former bureau director, and comes less than six months after a federal judge dismissed the first case on procedural grounds.
The charges approved by the grand jury are: knowingly and willfully making a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States, and knowingly and willfully transmitting in interstate commerce a threat to kill the President. Both counts carry a maximum sentence of ten years in federal prison. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the indictment at a formal Department of Justice press conference on Tuesday afternoon.
The indictment centers on an Instagram post Comey shared in May 2025 showing naturally arranged seashells on a North Carolina beach spelling out the numbers “86 47.” Comey’s caption read: “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” When used as slang, the term “86” refers to eliminating or getting rid of something. The number 47 corresponds to Trump’s current status as the 47th President of the United States. The combination was immediately interpreted by Republican officials and Trump supporters as a call for the assassination of the sitting president.
The indictment states that Comey “did knowingly and willfully make a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States,” and that “a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret” the seashells arranged in the “86 47” pattern “as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.” That legal standard, whether a reasonable recipient would interpret the communication as a serious threat, forms the core of the government’s case.
Blanche stood before cameras and reporters Tuesday and delivered a blunt message directed not just at Comey but at anyone who might contemplate similar conduct. “You are not allowed to threaten the President of the United States of America,” he said. He added that while the case stands out because of the identity of the defendant, the alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct the Justice Department will never tolerate and will always investigate and prosecute.
FBI Director Kash Patel issued a separate statement confirming that the grand jury was specifically informed that Comey deleted the post after it was shared and subsequently issued a statement claiming he did not connect the numbers with any violent meaning. Patel said Comey will have his day in court. He added in a follow-up social media post that Comey “disgracefully encouraged a threat on President Trump’s life and posted it on Instagram for the world to see.”
Blanche confirmed at the press conference that the grand jury had issued a warrant for Comey’s arrest. As of 5 p.m. ET on Tuesday, Blanche said he was unsure whether Comey was already in custody, and stated that Comey was welcome to turn himself in to law enforcement voluntarily.
On Wednesday morning, Comey surrendered to federal authorities at the federal courthouse in the Eastern District of Virginia. He appeared briefly before Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick in a hearing that lasted less than ten minutes. Comey did not speak before the judge but nodded along as his rights and the charges against him were reviewed. The hearing addressed primarily administrative matters including the conditions of his release. The judge referenced Comey’s prior appearance at that same courthouse in connection with the first indictment that was later dismissed.
The first indictment, brought in late September 2025, had charged Comey with making false statements and obstructing justice in connection with his September 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Prosecutors alleged Comey lied when he denied authorizing media leaks. Comey pleaded not guilty. In November 2025, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed both that case and separate charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James, finding that Lindsey Halligan, the acting U.S. attorney who secured those indictments in the Eastern District of Virginia, had been unlawfully appointed to the position. The cases collapsed entirely on procedural grounds.
The new indictment was filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina, where Comey allegedly took the beach photograph. That jurisdictional choice bypasses the procedural vulnerability that undid the first case and grounds the charges in the physical location where the alleged threat was created. The case now moves forward through a different federal district entirely.
Comey has been a vocal and consistent critic of Trump since being fired from the FBI in May 2017, when Trump dismissed him while Comey was leading an investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Comey has since written books, given extensive media interviews, maintained an active social media presence, and publicly commented on virtually every major development in Trump’s legal and political life. His willingness to continue engaging publicly with the political debate surrounding Trump ultimately produced the Instagram post that now sits at the center of a federal indictment.
Comey responded to the indictment in a video posted to his Substack account. He told viewers he is “still innocent,” that he is “still not afraid,” and that he still believes in the independent federal judiciary. He added that this is “not who we are as a country” and that the Department of Justice is not operating the way it is supposed to. He urged his followers to keep the faith and stated that nothing has changed with him.
Comey’s attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, notably the same Patrick Fitzgerald who famously served as a special prosecutor during the Valerie Plame investigation two decades ago, issued a formal statement saying that Comey vigorously denies all charges in the indictment. Fitzgerald said the defense will contest the charges in the courtroom and looks forward to vindicating Comey and the First Amendment.
The First Amendment question is central to any legal analysis of the case. Eugene Volokh, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University who specializes in First Amendment law, told CNN he believes the case has no legal merit. “This is clearly not a punishable threat,” Volokh said. He noted that for speech to constitute a prosecutable threat, it must meet the “true threat” standard established by the Supreme Court, which in 2023 ruled that the government must show the speaker understood their message would be perceived as threatening.
The challenge for prosecutors is contextual. The phrase “86 47” has become widely adopted by protesters and critics of the Trump administration across the country. Demonstrators have carried signs with the slogan. It has appeared at rallies. Multiple public figures have used similar numerical combinations in prior administrations with no legal consequence. Democratic Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer appeared during a 2020 television interview with a small figurine showing “86 45” on a table behind her. Conservative commentator Jack Posobiec posted “86 46” on social media during the Biden presidency and recently interviewed Acting Attorney General Blanche at a conservative conference.
The selective application of the threat statute to Comey while similar expressions from others on both sides of the political spectrum went unaddressed will be a central argument for the defense. Prosecutors will need to demonstrate that Comey’s specific post, in its specific context, with Comey’s specific public profile as Trump’s most prominent institutional adversary, rose to the level of a true threat under the Supreme Court’s 2023 standard.
Trump has publicly and repeatedly pushed for action against Comey. In a September 2025 post on Truth Social, the President told then-Attorney General Pam Bondi that “we can’t delay any longer” and urged her to take action against Comey, alongside Letitia James and Senator Adam Schiff. Bondi was subsequently removed as attorney general and replaced by Blanche, who moved quickly to escalate pursuit of cases the President had publicly demanded.
Trump fired Comey in May 2017, four years into Comey’s ten-year term as FBI director, while Comey was actively leading an investigation into Russian election interference. The firing produced one of the most consequential political controversies of Trump’s first term, prompted the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and cemented the personal hostility between the two men that has defined their public relationship ever since. That history now forms the backdrop of a federal criminal prosecution.
The case carries sweeping First Amendment implications that extend well beyond Comey personally. If prosecutors succeed in convincing a jury that a photograph of seashells on a public beach, captioned “Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” constitutes a prosecutable threat against the president based on the numbers they spelled out, the legal precedent established would be broad and potentially applicable to a wide range of political speech across the country.
Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates have begun raising alarm about that prospect. The combination of numerical slang and protest culture around the current administration means that a successful prosecution of this specific post would potentially criminalize a significant category of political expression. Those arguments will be made vigorously in court.
For the Trump administration and its allies, the indictment represents the completion of a long-sought accountability measure against one of the most prominent members of what they have characterized as the deep state apparatus that targeted Trump during and after his first term. Comey led the FBI during the Clinton email investigation, the early Russian interference inquiry, and the months leading up to Trump’s election in 2016. From the administration’s perspective, his federal indictment is not a political prosecution. It is justice, however long delayed.
The Justice Department’s position, as articulated by Blanche, is straightforward: regardless of who posted it, regardless of the political identity of the person posting it, threatening the life of a sitting president will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice. That principle, if consistently applied, is not controversial. Whether this specific case meets the legal threshold to support it will be determined by a jury in North Carolina.
Comey’s next court appearance has not yet been formally scheduled as of the latest available information. The case remains in its earliest procedural stages. The defense has already signaled an aggressive challenge, framing the prosecution not merely as legally deficient but as a threat to the First Amendment itself. The trial that follows, whenever it occurs, will be one of the most closely watched federal prosecutions in recent American history.
The implications of the outcome extend beyond both parties. A conviction would establish a legal precedent for prosecuting political speech using numerical combinations in a protest context. An acquittal would mark the second consecutive time the Trump Justice Department has brought federal charges against Comey and failed to secure a conviction or even advance to trial. Either outcome will have lasting consequences for the relationship between the executive branch and its critics, for the boundaries of political speech, and for the credibility of the Department of Justice itself.
Comey has not backed down and does not appear inclined to do so. His statement after the indictment was defiant, his tone was steady, and his attorney is preparing a vigorous First Amendment defense. The Justice Department under Blanche has shown no sign of retreating from these charges. What comes next will be decided in a federal courthouse in the Eastern District of North Carolina, before a jury of Comey’s peers, on the question of whether seashells on a beach constitute a federal crime.
Trump fired Comey in 2017. The Department of Justice has now indicted him twice. The second case is now active, the first having been dismissed on procedural grounds. The defendant says he is innocent. The government says it will never stop pursuing cases like this. The American judicial system will resolve what neither side is willing to concede.
The proceedings are expected to draw national and international media attention at every stage. Constitutional law professors across the country are already weighing in. Civil liberties organizations are preparing to monitor the case closely. And the former director of the FBI, who once sat across a table from the President of the United States and told him he hoped there were no tapes of their conversation, now faces federal prosecution for the second time in under a year.
