The Post and Its Immediate Fallout
James Comey, who served as FBI Director from 2013 until his dismissal by President Trump in 2017, posted the now-deleted Instagram photo on Thursday, May 15, 2025. The image showed seashells arranged in the shape of “86 47,” a combination that some interpreted as a coded message. The slang term “86” can mean “to get rid of” or, in some contexts, “to kill,” according to Merriam-Webster. Given that Donald Trump is the 47th president, critics, including Donald Trump Jr., quickly alleged that the post was a call for the president’s assassination. Trump Jr. posted on X, “Just James Comey causally calling for my dad to be murdered. This is who the Dem-Media worships. Demented!!!!”.
The post was swiftly deleted, and Comey issued a follow-up statement on Instagram, clarifying, “I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. 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.”. Despite this explanation, the damage was done. The Trump administration, along with key figures such as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, condemned the post as a potential threat, prompting the Secret Service to launch an investigation..
The Context: Comey’s History with Trump
To understand the intensity of the reaction, it’s essential to consider the fraught history between James Comey and Donald Trump. Comey, appointed FBI Director by President Barack Obama, led the bureau during the 2016 presidential election, overseeing investigations into Hillary Clinton’s email practices and alleged ties between Trump’s campaign and Russian officials. His decisions, including his public statements about the Clinton investigation and his handling of the Russia probe, made him a polarizing figure. Trump fired Comey in May 2017, a move that sparked widespread controversy and fueled speculation about obstruction of justice, particularly in light of the ongoing Russia investigation..
Since his dismissal, Comey has been a vocal critic of Trump, authoring books and speaking publicly about his concerns regarding the former president’s leadership. His upcoming novel, FDR Drive, set to be published soon after the incident, features a plot involving a US attorney targeting a far-right media personality, a narrative some conservatives view as a thinly veiled critique of Trump and his supporters.. This backdrop of animosity likely amplified the perception that Comey’s post was not a harmless observation but a deliberate provocation.
The Interpretation of “86 47”
The crux of the controversy lies in the interpretation of the numbers “86 47.” The term “86” is widely recognized in American slang as meaning to discard or eliminate something, often used in restaurant contexts to indicate that an item is no longer available. In more recent usage, it has occasionally been associated with violence, including as a euphemism for killing.. The number “47” directly corresponds to Trump’s status as the 47th president, a fact that fueled speculation about the post’s intent. Critics argued that the combination was a coded call for violence, especially given Comey’s prominence and his history with Trump.
Supporters of Comey, however, argue that the interpretation is a stretch. The former FBI director claimed he viewed the seashell arrangement as a “political message” but did not elaborate on what he thought it meant. Some observers suggest that the numbers could have been a reference to anti-Trump sentiment, possibly tied to online movements or protests, rather than a direct threat. For instance, Axios reported that the numbers “8647” had appeared in anti-Trump protests online, though the exact meaning remains unclear.. Comey’s defenders point to his long career in law enforcement and his stated opposition to violence as evidence that he would not intentionally incite harm.
The Trump Administration’s Response
The Trump administration wasted no time in condemning the post. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took to X, stating, “Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of Trump. DHS and Secret Service is investigating this threat and will respond appropriately.”. FBI Director Kash Patel echoed this sentiment, noting that the FBI was in communication with the Secret Service, which has primary jurisdiction over threats against the president.. The Secret Service, through spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi, confirmed that it “vigorously investigates anything that can be taken as a potential threat against our protectees” and was taking Comey’s post seriously..
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard went further, calling for Comey’s imprisonment during an appearance on Fox News with Jesse Watters. “Any other person with the position of influence that he has, people who take very seriously what a guy of his stature, his experience and what the propaganda media has built him up to be, I’m very concerned for the president’s life,” Gabbard said. She cited recent assassination attempts against Trump as heightening the stakes, arguing that Comey’s post could inspire dangerous actions..
President Trump himself weighed in, labeling Comey a “dirty cop” and accusing him of knowingly posting a call for assassination. Speaking from Al Udeid Air Base during a Middle East trip, Trump deferred to Attorney General Pam Bondi on whether to pursue prosecution but made clear his belief that Comey’s actions were deliberate.. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich and other staffers, such as James Blair, framed the post as a “hit” on the president, particularly dangerous given Trump’s international travel..
Public and Media Reactions
The controversy quickly consumed social media, particularly among Trump’s supporters. Conservative influencers and MAGA activists amplified the narrative, with figures like Charlie Kirk mocking Comey’s post as “cringe” while condemning its alleged intent.. On X, posts from users like
@ABrosnikoff
and
@DanasMuse1
echoed the administration’s rhetoric, sharing articles about the Secret Service’s investigation and accusing Comey of inciting violence.. The outrage was not limited to Comey himself; investigative journalist Laura Loomer and others called for scrutiny of Comey’s daughter, Maurene Comey, a prosecutor in the US Attorney’s Office involved in high-profile cases, questioning why she remained employed at the Department of Justice..
Mainstream media outlets provided varied coverage. Outlets like The Washington Post and The Guardian noted Comey’s denial and the lack of definitive evidence that the post was a threat, while acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue given recent assassination attempts against Trump.. Conservative-leaning publications, such as Fox News and The Daily Mail, emphasized the administration’s concerns and Gabbard’s call for imprisonment.. Progressive outlets, like MSNBC, highlighted the polarized nature of the reaction, suggesting that the controversy reflected broader tensions in American politics..
Legal and Ethical Implications
The Secret Service’s investigation raises important questions about free speech and the threshold for what constitutes a threat. Federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 871, criminalizes threats against the president, but such cases require proof of intent and a reasonable perception that the statement could incite harm. Comey’s post, while cryptic, lacks explicit language calling for violence, and his prompt deletion and clarification may weaken any legal case against him. Legal experts suggest that the investigation is likely a precautionary measure, given the high-profile nature of the individuals involved and the current political climate..
Ethically, the incident underscores the challenges public figures face in navigating social media. Comey’s decision to post an ambiguous image, even if unintended as a threat, demonstrates the risks of misinterpretation in a polarized environment. His status as a former FBI director amplifies the scrutiny, as his words and actions carry weight among both supporters and detractors. The backlash also highlights the power of social media to amplify outrage, with platforms like X serving as echo chambers for political narratives..
Broader Implications for Political Discourse
The Comey controversy is a microcosm of the deep divisions in American politics. The rapid escalation from a single Instagram post to a federal investigation reflects the heightened sensitivity to perceived threats in the wake of recent assassination attempts against Trump. It also illustrates the ongoing weaponization of social media, where ambiguous messages can be spun into narratives of malice or victimhood. The involvement of figures like Gabbard, Patel, and Noem, all staunch Trump allies, suggests a coordinated effort to frame Comey’s actions as part of a broader “deep state” conspiracy, a recurring theme in Trump’s rhetoric..
For Comey, the incident may further cement his status as a lightning rod for criticism. His attempts to clarify the post have done little to quell the outrage, and the calls for his prosecution or his daughter’s dismissal indicate that the controversy may have lasting repercussions. For the Trump administration, the episode reinforces its narrative of being under siege by political opponents, a message that resonates with its base..
Conclusion
James Comey’s “86 47” Instagram post, whether a misjudged attempt at commentary or an innocent observation, has ignited a firestorm that encapsulates the volatility of American politics in 2025. The Secret Service’s investigation, the Trump administration’s forceful response, and the polarized public reaction underscore the challenges of navigating free speech, political enmity, and social media in an era of heightened tensions. While the legal outcome remains uncertain, the incident serves as a reminder of the power of symbols and the speed with which they can be weaponized. As the nation grapples with these divisions, the Comey controversy is likely to be remembered as a flashpoint in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of discourse in a fractured society..
James Comey, who served as FBI Director from 2013 until his dismissal by President Trump in 2017, posted the now-deleted Instagram photo on Thursday, May 15, 2025. The image showed seashells arranged in the shape of “86 47,” a combination that some interpreted as a coded message. The slang term “86” can mean “to get rid of” or, in some contexts, “to kill,” according to Merriam-Webster. Given that Donald Trump is the 47th president, critics, including Donald Trump Jr., quickly alleged that the post was a call for the president’s assassination. Trump Jr. posted on X, “Just James Comey causally calling for my dad to be murdered. This is who the Dem-Media worships. Demented!!!!”.
The post was swiftly deleted, and Comey issued a follow-up statement on Instagram, clarifying, “I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. 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.”. Despite this explanation, the damage was done. The Trump administration, along with key figures such as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, condemned the post as a potential threat, prompting the Secret Service to launch an investigation..
The Context: Comey’s History with Trump
To understand the intensity of the reaction, it’s essential to consider the fraught history between James Comey and Donald Trump. Comey, appointed FBI Director by President Barack Obama, led the bureau during the 2016 presidential election, overseeing investigations into Hillary Clinton’s email practices and alleged ties between Trump’s campaign and Russian officials. His decisions, including his public statements about the Clinton investigation and his handling of the Russia probe, made him a polarizing figure. Trump fired Comey in May 2017, a move that sparked widespread controversy and fueled speculation about obstruction of justice, particularly in light of the ongoing Russia investigation..
Since his dismissal, Comey has been a vocal critic of Trump, authoring books and speaking publicly about his concerns regarding the former president’s leadership. His upcoming novel, FDR Drive, set to be published soon after the incident, features a plot involving a US attorney targeting a far-right media personality, a narrative some conservatives view as a thinly veiled critique of Trump and his supporters.. This backdrop of animosity likely amplified the perception that Comey’s post was not a harmless observation but a deliberate provocation.
The Interpretation of “86 47”
The crux of the controversy lies in the interpretation of the numbers “86 47.” The term “86” is widely recognized in American slang as meaning to discard or eliminate something, often used in restaurant contexts to indicate that an item is no longer available. In more recent usage, it has occasionally been associated with violence, including as a euphemism for killing.. The number “47” directly corresponds to Trump’s status as the 47th president, a fact that fueled speculation about the post’s intent. Critics argued that the combination was a coded call for violence, especially given Comey’s prominence and his history with Trump.
Supporters of Comey, however, argue that the interpretation is a stretch. The former FBI director claimed he viewed the seashell arrangement as a “political message” but did not elaborate on what he thought it meant. Some observers suggest that the numbers could have been a reference to anti-Trump sentiment, possibly tied to online movements or protests, rather than a direct threat. For instance, Axios reported that the numbers “8647” had appeared in anti-Trump protests online, though the exact meaning remains unclear.. Comey’s defenders point to his long career in law enforcement and his stated opposition to violence as evidence that he would not intentionally incite harm.
The Trump Administration’s Response
The Trump administration wasted no time in condemning the post. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took to X, stating, “Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of Trump. DHS and Secret Service is investigating this threat and will respond appropriately.”. FBI Director Kash Patel echoed this sentiment, noting that the FBI was in communication with the Secret Service, which has primary jurisdiction over threats against the president.. The Secret Service, through spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi, confirmed that it “vigorously investigates anything that can be taken as a potential threat against our protectees” and was taking Comey’s post seriously..
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard went further, calling for Comey’s imprisonment during an appearance on Fox News with Jesse Watters. “Any other person with the position of influence that he has, people who take very seriously what a guy of his stature, his experience and what the propaganda media has built him up to be, I’m very concerned for the president’s life,” Gabbard said. She cited recent assassination attempts against Trump as heightening the stakes, arguing that Comey’s post could inspire dangerous actions..
President Trump himself weighed in, labeling Comey a “dirty cop” and accusing him of knowingly posting a call for assassination. Speaking from Al Udeid Air Base during a Middle East trip, Trump deferred to Attorney General Pam Bondi on whether to pursue prosecution but made clear his belief that Comey’s actions were deliberate.. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich and other staffers, such as James Blair, framed the post as a “hit” on the president, particularly dangerous given Trump’s international travel..
The controversy quickly consumed social media, particularly among Trump’s supporters. Conservative influencers and MAGA activists amplified the narrative, with figures like Charlie Kirk mocking Comey’s post as “cringe” while condemning its alleged intent.. On X, posts from users like
@ABrosnikoff
and
@DanasMuse1
echoed the administration’s rhetoric, sharing articles about the Secret Service’s investigation and accusing Comey of inciting violence.. The outrage was not limited to Comey himself; investigative journalist Laura Loomer and others called for scrutiny of Comey’s daughter, Maurene Comey, a prosecutor in the US Attorney’s Office involved in high-profile cases, questioning why she remained employed at the Department of Justice..
Mainstream media outlets provided varied coverage. Outlets like The Washington Post and The Guardian noted Comey’s denial and the lack of definitive evidence that the post was a threat, while acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue given recent assassination attempts against Trump.. Conservative-leaning publications, such as Fox News and The Daily Mail, emphasized the administration’s concerns and Gabbard’s call for imprisonment.. Progressive outlets, like MSNBC, highlighted the polarized nature of the reaction, suggesting that the controversy reflected broader tensions in American politics..
Legal and Ethical Implications
The Secret Service’s investigation raises important questions about free speech and the threshold for what constitutes a threat. Federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 871, criminalizes threats against the president, but such cases require proof of intent and a reasonable perception that the statement could incite harm. Comey’s post, while cryptic, lacks explicit language calling for violence, and his prompt deletion and clarification may weaken any legal case against him. Legal experts suggest that the investigation is likely a precautionary measure, given the high-profile nature of the individuals involved and the current political climate..
Ethically, the incident underscores the challenges public figures face in navigating social media. Comey’s decision to post an ambiguous image, even if unintended as a threat, demonstrates the risks of misinterpretation in a polarized environment. His status as a former FBI director amplifies the scrutiny, as his words and actions carry weight among both supporters and detractors. The backlash also highlights the power of social media to amplify outrage, with platforms like X serving as echo chambers for political narratives..
Broader Implications for Political Discourse
The Comey controversy is a microcosm of the deep divisions in American politics. The rapid escalation from a single Instagram post to a federal investigation reflects the heightened sensitivity to perceived threats in the wake of recent assassination attempts against Trump. It also illustrates the ongoing weaponization of social media, where ambiguous messages can be spun into narratives of malice or victimhood. The involvement of figures like Gabbard, Patel, and Noem, all staunch Trump allies, suggests a coordinated effort to frame Comey’s actions as part of a broader “deep state” conspiracy, a recurring theme in Trump’s rhetoric..
For Comey, the incident may further cement his status as a lightning rod for criticism. His attempts to clarify the post have done little to quell the outrage, and the calls for his prosecution or his daughter’s dismissal indicate that the controversy may have lasting repercussions. For the Trump administration, the episode reinforces its narrative of being under siege by political opponents, a message that resonates with its base..
Conclusion
James Comey’s “86 47” Instagram post, whether a misjudged attempt at commentary or an innocent observation, has ignited a firestorm that encapsulates the volatility of American politics in 2025. The Secret Service’s investigation, the Trump administration’s forceful response, and the polarized public reaction underscore the challenges of navigating free speech, political enmity, and social media in an era of heightened tensions. While the legal outcome remains uncertain, the incident serves as a reminder of the power of symbols and the speed with which they can be weaponized. As the nation grapples with these divisions, the Comey controversy is likely to be remembered as a flashpoint in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of discourse in a fractured society..
Last edited:
