A cryptic message, “86 47,” surfaced at May Day protests across the nation, igniting a firestorm of controversy and culminating in a second indictment for former FBI Director James Comey.
Photographs from New York City and Los Angeles revealed demonstrators brandishing signs displaying the numbers, some explicitly calling to “86 the whole regime.” The phrase, rooted in restaurant slang, signifies the removal or cancellation of an item – a chilling implication given the political climate.
The charges against Comey stem from a seemingly innocuous Instagram post in May 2025. He shared a photo of “86 47” meticulously arranged in seashells on a beach, captioned simply as a “cool shell formation.” The post was later deleted, but not before attracting intense scrutiny.
The indictment alleges Comey “knowingly and willfully” made a threat against the life of President Donald Trump, and transmitted that threat across state lines. Both counts carry a potential sentence of up to ten years in prison.
Republicans and former Trump administration officials swiftly condemned the post as a veiled threat, pointing to the significance of “47” as representing the 47th President of the United States. The Justice Department’s action follows a sustained wave of criticism.
May Day itself, historically a celebration of worker rights, has evolved. Its origins lie in 19th-century labor movements and the Bolshevik Revolution, initially advocating for strikes and a national holiday for workers.
Today, critics argue the protests have become increasingly partisan, fueled by substantial financial backing from labor unions. An investigation revealed approximately 600 groups, with a combined annual revenue of $2 billion, planned over 6,000 events nationwide.
While organizers describe the demonstrations as a rallying point for “workers, students, and families” demanding a system prioritizing people over profits – a call for “No School. No Work. No Shopping.” – the presence of the “86 47” slogan casts a long shadow over the event’s stated goals.
The seemingly casual beachside photograph has now become a central piece of evidence in a case that threatens to further polarize an already deeply divided nation, raising questions about the boundaries of political expression and the interpretation of coded messages.
