A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned an indictment on April 28, 2026, charging former FBI Director James Comey on two counts: making a threat to harm the President of the United States, and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce [1]. The charges stem from a May 2025 Instagram post in which Comey published a photograph of seashells arranged to display the numerals "86 47," a construction prosecutors allege constituted a threat against President Trump [1][2]. The indictment was announced by the Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs [1].
This is the second federal indictment brought against Comey during the current Trump administration. A prior indictment was dismissed after a court determined that the special prosecutor appointed to pursue it, Patrick Fitzgerald, had been improperly appointed under applicable law [2][3]. The current prosecution is filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina, a venue choice that itself signals a deliberate tactical decision by Main Justice [1]. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has been identified among the senior DOJ officials involved in the matter [2]. The statutory counts track 18 U.S.C. § 871, which criminalizes knowing threats against the President, and a separate interstate threats provision [1].
Comey's defense has contested the government's characterization of the post, arguing that the numerals constitute protected political expression under the First Amendment rather than a true threat [2]. The phrase "86" carries colloquial meanings ranging from removal to, in some usage, a call for harm, and the government's theory rests on the latter reading in the context of Trump's presidential designation, "47" [2][3]. Defense counsel has signaled it will renew arguments grounded in the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Counterman v. Colorado, which held that true-threat prosecutions require proof of at least reckless disregard for whether a statement would be perceived as threatening [2].
The case now proceeds to arraignment in the Eastern District of North Carolina. A selective prosecution challenge and a First Amendment motion to dismiss are the most likely early defensive maneuvers, given that the first indictment already collapsed on structural grounds [2][3]. The DOJ's decision to re-indict following that dismissal signals that the administration intends to sustain the prosecution through the appellate process if necessary. Legal observers across the political spectrum have noted that no sitting administration has previously brought two successive indictments against a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation [2][3].
Comments (0)