On May 15, 2025, former FBI Director James Comey shared—and quickly deleted—an Instagram photo depicting seashells arranged to form the number “8647.” Almost immediately, prominent Republicans interpreted the image as a coded call for violence against former President Donald Trump. Within hours, the post became the focus of investigations by the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Secret Service, raising questions about intent, symbolism, and the limits of political expression.
The Cryptic Seashells Post
Comey’s original caption—“Cool shell formation on my beach walk”—implied an innocent discovery. However, Trump allies highlighted the arrangement as deliberately evocative: “86” is gangland slang for “get rid of,” and Trump is widely expected to be the 47th President, given ongoing debates over his eligibility and potential third campaign. The rapid deletion of the image underscored its volatility and the speed at which social media can inflame political tensions.
Origins of “86” and “47”
The term “86” originated in 1930s American slang—possibly from restaurant lingo—to mean “to throw out” or “to refuse service,” with later associations extending to “kill” or “eliminate”. The number “47” is interpreted as a reference to Trump’s anticipated return to the White House. When combined, “86-47” reads as a shorthand for “remove the 47th president,” a phrase that critics argue crosses the line from political dissent into threat territory.
Political Fallout and Reactions
Within hours of Comey’s post going live, Donald Trump Jr. and other MAGA figures accused him of inciting assassination. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem publicly condemned the image as “a direct threat to the president’s life,” while FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed coordination between the FBI and Secret Service on the matter
mint. The controversy intensified at a moment when both sides of the aisle grapple with increasingly incendiary rhetoric, raising alarms about the potential for real-world violence.
Official Investigations
The U.S. Secret Service has primary jurisdiction over threats to former and current presidents; it opened a formal inquiry into Comey’s post after receiving a referral from DHS
mint. The FBI, while not the lead agency, is providing full assistance, according to Patel. Investigators are examining Comey’s intent, digital metadata, and any communications suggesting premeditation. Although criminal threats require proof of specific intent, the investigation underscores the seriousness with which even ambiguous messages are treated in the current security climate.
Comey’s Explanation
Comey has maintained that he “assumed” the seashell arrangement was merely an interesting natural pattern and had no awareness of any political connotation until the post sparked outrage. Once alerted to the possible interpretation, he promptly removed the image and issued a brief statement expressing regret for any misunderstanding. Legal experts note that, absent explicit language threatening harm, prosecution would face high barriers; nonetheless, the episode illustrates how public figures’ social media activity can carry unexpected legal and reputational risks.
Implications for Political Rhetoric
The “8647” incident spotlights the fine line between protected speech and illegal threats. In an era of polarized media, symbolic messages—especially those open to violent interpretations—can rapidly escalate into matters of national security. Analysts warn that both political operatives and former officials must exercise caution, as ambiguous content may be weaponized by opponents or trigger formal investigations regardless of intent.
Conclusion
While no charges have been filed against Comey—and the investigation’s outcome remains uncertain—the “8647” episode serves as a cautionary tale about the power of symbols in digital communication. It underscores the need for clarity and responsibility, particularly among high-profile individuals whose words and images can influence millions and prompt immediate government action. In today’s hypercharged environment, even a seemingly innocuous seashell photo can become a flashpoint in America’s ongoing debate over free speech and political violence.
