Instagram Post Leads to a Federal Indictment

Smartphone showing social media apps with text background.

Former FBI Director James Comey faces a second federal indictment from the Trump Justice Department, this time over a May 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged as “86 47″—a move that raises urgent questions about selective prosecution and the erosion of constitutional protections in America.

Quick Take

Comey indicted April 28, 2026, by a North Carolina grand jury over a beach photo interpreted by Trump allies as an assassination threat
First indictment dismissed in November 2025 due to improper prosecutor appointment, yet DOJ immediately pursued new charges
Pattern suggests political weaponization of the Justice Department against Trump administration critics
Case raises First Amendment concerns about symbolic speech and the government’s power to criminalize ambiguous expression
Legal experts note a “high bar” for proving true threats absent clear intent evidence

The Second Indictment: A Pattern Emerges

On April 28, 2026, a federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted former FBI Director James Comey over a social media post from May 2025 showing seashells arranged in the pattern “86 47,” according to multiple sources. Trump administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, characterized the image as a veiled assassination threat, interpreting “86” as slang for “get rid of” and “47” as a reference to Trump’s presidency. Comey posted the image with a caption describing it as a “cool shell formation” during a beach walk, then deleted it shortly after.

This represents the second indictment of Comey in less than a year. The first indictment, filed in September 2025, charged him with lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to his 2020 Senate testimony about FBI leaks. That case was dismissed in November 2025 after a federal judge ruled that the interim U.S. Attorney who brought the charges, Lindsey Halligan, had been improperly appointed without Senate confirmation. Rather than accepting the dismissal, the Justice Department under acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced its intent to appeal and pursue new charges.

Questions About Political Motivation

The timing and circumstances surrounding both indictments suggest a troubling pattern. Trump publicly pressured then-Attorney General Pam Bondi via Truth Social to act against Comey and others in late September 2025, just before the first indictment was filed. When that case collapsed due to prosecutorial misconduct, the DOJ quickly pivoted to the Instagram post as a basis for renewed prosecution. This cycle mirrors concerns raised by fired federal prosecutors who documented that Trump personally ordered Comey’s prosecution despite weak evidence, according to oversight experts.

Comey, who served as FBI Director from 2013 to 2017, was fired by Trump in 2017 amid the Russia investigation into the 2016 election. He subsequently became a vocal Trump critic, and the former president has long blamed him for the scrutiny that sparked the Mueller probe. The pattern of indictments—dismissed and renewed—fuels concerns that the Justice Department has become an instrument of political retribution rather than impartial law enforcement.

Constitutional Concerns and Legal Barriers

Legal experts note significant obstacles to securing a conviction. The Supreme Court has established a “high bar” for prosecuting threats, requiring proof that the defendant intended to communicate a genuine threat. Symbolic or ambiguous speech, particularly on social media, presents a challenging legal landscape. Comey’s defense team is expected to argue that the post was innocuous, that he was unaware of any violent connotation associated with “86,” and that the prosecution represents selective and vindictive prosecution—arguments that resonated with the judge who dismissed the first case.

The case also highlights broader concerns about how government officials interpret and weaponize digital communication. If prosecutors can criminalize ambiguous online posts based on creative interpretations by political opponents, the implications for free speech and political discourse are profound. Citizens expressing dissent or engaging in symbolic protest could face federal charges if their words are reinterpreted through a hostile lens.

A Symptom of Deeper Institutional Decline

This prosecution exemplifies a troubling reality that transcends traditional partisan divides: many Americans—both conservative and liberal—have lost faith in institutions designed to serve the public interest. Whether the focus is Comey or other perceived foes, the appearance of a weaponized Justice Department erodes public trust and suggests that powerful elites operate under different rules than ordinary citizens. When the machinery of government appears to serve political vendettas rather than justice, it undermines the rule of law itself and validates the growing conviction that Washington works for the powerful, not the people.