James Comey’s Cryptic “86 47” Post Sparks Secret Service Probe: Threat or Misunderstanding?

Introduction: A Beach Photo Ignites Controversy

On Thursday, May 15, 2025, former FBI Director James Comey posted an Instagram photo that sent shockwaves through political circles. The image showed seashells arranged on a beach to form the numbers “86 47,” captioned simply, “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” Within hours, the post was deleted amid a firestorm of criticism from Trump administration officials and supporters, who interpreted it as a veiled call for violence against President Donald Trump, the 47th president. By Friday afternoon, Comey was questioned by U.S. Secret Service agents at their Washington, D.C., field office, raising questions about free speech, intent, and political tensions in a polarized America. What did Comey’s post really mean, and why has it caused such an uproar? Let’s dive into the details.

The Post That Started It All

James Comey, who served as FBI Director from 2013 until his firing by Trump in 2017, is no stranger to controversy. His tenure was marked by high-profile investigations, including the Hillary Clinton email probe and allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Since leaving the FBI, Comey has been a vocal critic of Trump, calling him “morally unfit” to lead in a 2018 interview. His latest move—a seemingly innocuous Instagram post—has landed him in hot water once again.

The photo in question showed seashells arranged to spell “86 47.” To many, the numbers carried a sinister connotation. In slang, “86” can mean to “get rid of” or “throw out,” with some sources, like Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang, noting violent connotations since the 1970s. The number “47” is widely associated with Trump’s current term as the 47th president. Critics, including Donald Trump Jr., Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, quickly labeled the post a “threat” or even a “call for assassination.” Trump himself told Fox News’ Bret Baier, “That meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear.”

Comey, however, denied any malicious intent. In a follow-up post, he wrote, “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.” He described the shell formation as a “political message” he found on the beach, not a personal endorsement of violence. Despite his explanation, the backlash was swift, and the Secret Service launched an investigation.

The Secret Service Steps In

On Friday, May 16, 2025, Comey voluntarily met with Secret Service agents at their Washington, D.C., field office for an hour-long interview, according to multiple sources, including CBS News and The Washington Post. Such interviews are standard when investigating potential threats against protectees like the president, but they don’t necessarily indicate that charges are imminent. Agents likely questioned Comey about his intent, his awareness of the slang meanings of “86,” and whether he had made similar posts before. The Secret Service, under the Department of Homeland Security, emphasized that it “vigorously investigates anything that can be taken as a potential threat against our protectees.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed the interview on X, stating, “Today, federal agents from @SecretService

interviewed disgraced former FBI Director Comey regarding a social media post calling for the assassination of President Trump.” Current FBI Director Kash Patel also weighed in, noting that the FBI was in communication with the Secret Service and would provide “all necessary support.” The decision on whether to pursue charges reportedly rests with Attorney General Pam Bondi, though legal experts note a high bar for proving a direct threat under U.S. law.

Why “86 47” Struck a Nerve

The controversy hinges on the interpretation of “86 47.” Merriam-Webster defines “86” as slang for “to throw out,” “get rid of,” or “refuse service to,” noting that a newer, less common meaning—“to kill”—has not been officially adopted due to its “relative recency and sparseness of use.” The number “47” directly references Trump’s current presidential term. To Trump supporters, the combination was a clear dog whistle, especially given Comey’s history of clashing with Trump. Donald Trump Jr. posted on X, “Just James Comey causally calling for my dad to be murdered. This is who the Dem-Media worships. Demented!!!!”

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich called the post “deeply concerning,” noting that it came while Trump was traveling in the Middle East, suggesting it could be a “clarion call to terrorists and hostile regimes.” Tulsi Gabbard went further, telling Fox News that Comey should be “put behind bars” for his “influential” post. The outrage was amplified by conservative influencers like Laura Loomer, who pointed out the violent connotations of “86” in certain contexts.

On the other hand, some argue the reaction was overblown. Trump’s critics, as noted in The New York Times, suggested the administration was using the post to “harass” Comey, a known adversary. The phrase “86 47” has appeared in anti-Trump protests and merchandise, often as a symbolic call to remove him from office, not necessarily through violence. Without explicit threats, proving criminal intent is challenging, especially since Comey deleted the post and disavowed any violent intent.

A History of Tension

The Comey-Trump feud is well-documented. Trump fired Comey in May 2017 amid the FBI’s investigation into alleged ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russian officials. Comey later detailed his experiences in his memoir, A Higher Loyalty, and has publicly criticized Trump’s leadership. Trump, in turn, has branded Comey a “dirty cop” and “Leakin’ Lyin’ James B. Comey” on social media. This history adds fuel to the current controversy, with Trump supporters viewing the “86 47” post as the latest salvo in a personal vendetta.

The timing of the post—while Trump was abroad—heightened sensitivities. White House officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair, framed it as particularly reckless given the president’s international trip. The administration’s swift response, including statements from Noem, Patel, and Gabbard, underscores the political stakes in an already polarized climate.

Public Reaction and Media Frenzy

The story dominated headlines and social media. Outlets like Fox News, CNN, and The Washington Post reported on the investigation, with conservative media emphasizing the perceived threat and liberal-leaning outlets questioning the administration’s motives. On X, posts ranged from outrage to skepticism. User

@anadoluagency noted, “Comey called it an innocent mistake,” while @MohiniWealth

pointed out “inconsistent enforcement of perceived threats against presidents,” citing Trump’s own past rhetoric, like his 2020 comment about shooting protesters or his 2024 remark about “guns trained” on Liz Cheney.

The polarized reactions reflect broader divisions. For Trump’s base, Comey’s post is evidence of a “deep state” targeting the president. For his critics, the investigation is an overreach, weaponizing law enforcement to silence dissent. The truth likely lies in the gray area of intent and interpretation, but the incident has reignited debates about free speech, political rhetoric, and the role of law enforcement in policing social media.

What Happens Next?

The Secret Service investigation is ongoing, but charging Comey would require clear evidence of intent to threaten Trump—a high legal threshold. The First Amendment protects controversial speech, and Comey’s deletion of the post and public disavowal of violence may weaken any case against him. Attorney General Pam Bondi will ultimately decide whether to pursue charges, but as of May 17, 2025, no further actions have been reported.

The incident raises broader questions about how authorities handle perceived threats in the digital age. Social media amplifies ambiguous messages, and slang like “86” can be interpreted in multiple ways. As political tensions simmer, such incidents risk escalating into flashpoints, with both sides accusing the other of bad faith.

Conclusion: A Polarized Moment

James Comey’s “86 47” post, whether an innocent beach find or a provocative jab, has exposed the raw nerves of American politics. The Secret Service’s swift response shows the seriousness with which threats against the president are taken, while Comey’s defenders argue the reaction is disproportionate. As the investigation unfolds, this episode will likely fuel debates about free speech, political accountability, and the boundaries of public discourse.

What do you think? Was Comey’s post a reckless threat or a misunderstood message? How should authorities balance free speech with protecting public figures? And what does this incident reveal about the state of political discourse in 2025? Share your thoughts below, and let’s keep the conversation going.

Thought Questions:

1. Do you believe James Comey’s “86 47” post was intended as a threat, or was it a political statement taken out of context?

2. How should the Secret Service handle ambiguous social media posts that could be interpreted as threats?

3. What role does political polarization play in shaping reactions to incidents like this?

4. Should public figures like Comey be held to a higher standard for their social media activity, given their influence?

Sources:

• Fox News, May 16, 2025

• CBS News, May 16, 2025

• CNN, May 16, 2025

• The Washington Post, May 16, 2025

• Hindustan Times, May 16, 2025

• The New York Times, May 17, 2025

• Times Now, May 15, 2025

• Anadolu Agency on X, May 17, 2025

• MohiniWealth on X, May 16, 2025