The U.S. Department of Justice indicted former FBI Director James Comey on April 28, 2026 [1], on two felony counts [2].

The charges represent a significant escalation in the legal conflict between the current administration and the former law enforcement chief. The case centers on the interpretation of social media content as a direct threat to the sitting president.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the indictment during a press briefing in Washington, D.C. [1]. Prosecutors said that Comey used a 2025 Instagram post to threaten the life of President Donald Trump [2]. The post in question featured seashells arranged to form the numbers “86 47” [1].

According to the Department of Justice, the arrangement was a coded message. Prosecutors said that “86” is slang for getting rid of or canceling something, while “47” refers to Donald Trump as the 47th president [1]. This combination, the government argues, implied a threat to the president's life [2].

“We take any threats against the President seriously, and this indictment reflects the seriousness of the alleged conduct,” Blanche said [1].

Comey responded to the announcement with a brief statement. “Let’s go,” Comey said [3].

Legal critics have questioned the validity of the evidence. A Fox News legal analyst said the indictment is absurd and that there is no credible evidence that Comey ever threatened the president [3]. The defense appears to contest the government's interpretation of the numeric code as a criminal act.

The indictment marks one of the most high-profile legal actions taken against a former FBI director in U.S. history. It follows a period of intense scrutiny regarding the use of social media, and coded language in political discourse.

““We take any threats against the President seriously...””

This indictment tests the legal boundaries of 'coded' threats and the application of felony charges to social media posts. By interpreting slang and numeric references as evidence of a crime, the Department of Justice is expanding the scope of what constitutes a credible threat to a public official, which may set a precedent for future digital evidence cases.