A federal grand jury in North Carolina has reportedly indicted former FBI Director James Comey in connection with a social media post that prosecutors allege could be interpreted as a threat toward President Donald Trump.

The case centers on a photograph Comey shared showing seashells arranged to form the numbers “86-47.” While the image may appear cryptic at first glance, investigators are said to be examining whether the message carried a more serious implication. In some contexts, “86” is slang meaning “to eliminate” or “get rid of,” while “47” could be interpreted as a reference to Trump’s current presidential position.

According to officials familiar with the matter, at least one of the charges is expected to fall under a federal statute that criminalizes the transmission of threats against the President of the United States. The law broadly covers written or symbolic communications that could be interpreted as conveying intent to harm.

A Department of Justice press conference is expected to formally outline the charges and the government’s reasoning, including how prosecutors are framing the intent behind the post.

The indictment marks the second time Comey has faced legal action during the current administration. A prior case in Virginia was ultimately dismissed following challenges related to the authority of the acting U.S. attorney overseeing the prosecution.

This latest development comes after reports earlier this year indicated that Comey had been subpoenaed as part of a broader Justice Department investigation described by some sources as a “grand conspiracy” probe. While details surrounding that inquiry remain limited, the new charges suggest prosecutors are continuing to pursue multiple avenues.

Comey has remained a controversial figure in American politics since his tenure as FBI Director. He rose to national prominence during the 2016 election cycle, particularly after announcing the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server—an action that many analysts believe had significant political consequences.

Legal experts are likely to focus on a central question in the case: whether the post constitutes a credible threat under federal law, or falls within the bounds of protected speech. Courts have historically required a clear demonstration of intent when evaluating alleged threats, particularly when the communication is indirect or symbolic.

The case may ultimately hinge on how prosecutors establish that intent—and whether a reasonable person would interpret the message as a genuine threat.

As the Justice Department prepares to present its case publicly, the indictment is already raising broader questions about political expression, legal thresholds for threats, and the increasingly blurred line between online messaging and criminal liability.

More details are expected following the DOJ’s official announcement.