A federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted former FBI Director James Comey on April 28, 2026, on two counts arising from a social media post in which he shared a photograph of seashells arranged to read "86 47," a phrase the Department of Justice characterized as a threat against President Trump's life [1]. The indictment marks the government's second attempt to prosecute Comey for the post after an earlier case was dismissed [1].
The prior prosecution, filed in September 2025, was dismissed before reaching trial [1]. DOJ's renewed effort relies on the same core allegation: that the numeric sequence, a colloquial term meaning to eliminate or kill combined with the president's sequential office number, constituted a criminal threat under federal law [1]. Comey has maintained that the post was political commentary protected by the First Amendment, and his legal team has signaled it will renew arguments that the prosecution is both selective and vindictive [1].
The constitutional stakes are substantial. Federal statutes prohibiting threats against the president require that a communication qualify as a "true threat," a term the Supreme Court has interpreted to exclude protected hyperbole or political expression [1]. Comey's defense is expected to argue that the image fell within protected speech and that the government's decision to re-indict after a dismissal, targeting a prominent critic of the current administration, reflects impermissible prosecutorial motive rather than legitimate law enforcement [1]. Todd Blanche, a key figure in the proceedings, is connected to the matter in the government's posture [1].
Comey's attorneys have indicated they will file motions to dismiss on selective and vindictive prosecution grounds, a threshold challenge that would require the defense to show both that the government singled out Comey based on protected conduct and that the prosecution was motivated by a desire to punish rather than enforce the law [1]. Courts set a high bar for such claims, demanding more than circumstantial evidence of political animus, but the existence of a prior dismissed indictment on identical facts provides unusual procedural footing for the argument [1].
The case is being watched closely for its implications at the intersection of executive power, prosecutorial discretion, and the First Amendment's limits on criminalizing political speech directed at public officials [1]. No trial date has been set.