As The Dallas Express covered, U.S. Park Police are investigating large markings spelling “8647” that appeared in discolored grass on the National Mall east of the World War II Memorial.
Authorities collected grass samples for testing. The Interior Department described the incident as “deranged vandalism” and said any threat against the President is taken seriously. The markings surfaced days before events tied to President Donald Trump’s birthday.
The sequence “8647” has been interpreted by some as combining “86,” slang for “remove” or “get rid of,” with “47,” referring to Trump as the 47th President.
A similar incident occurred when former FBI Director James Comey was indicted after he posted an image of seashells arranged as “8647.” Comey deleted the post and denied violent intent.
Comey Indictment Status and Comparison to National Mall Case
Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted on April 28, 2026, by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina on two counts: threatening the President under 18 U.S.C. § 871 and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).
Prosecutors alleged that a reasonable recipient familiar with the circumstances would interpret his May 2025 Instagram post of seashells forming “8647” as a serious expression of intent to harm Trump.
Comey pleaded not guilty, surrendered to authorities, and remains free on his own recognizance. His trial is scheduled for October 21, 2026. A lead prosecutor withdrew from the case in late May 2026. Comey’s legal team plans to seek dismissal, arguing that the prosecution is selective and vindictive.
The National Mall case differs in key ways. It involves anonymous vandalism with no identified suspect (U.S. Park Police continue their investigation). A federal judge ruled earlier this month that displaying “8647” by itself does not constitute a true threat and is protected speech, The New York Times reported.
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 871 prohibits knowingly and willfully threatening to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm on the President. The Supreme Court has limited the application of this statute through First Amendment rulings, requiring evidence of intent and context for prosecution.
Incitement Standard and Notable Cases
The Supreme Court established the modern test for incitement in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, spoke at a rally advocating violence against African Americans and Jews. The Court overturned his conviction under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law, ruling that speech advocating force or law violation is protected unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
In Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Court protected a protester’s statement at an anti-war rally: “We’ll take the f*cking street later.” The justices held it advocated illegal action at some indefinite future time, not imminent lawless action.
In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the Court protected strong language during a civil rights boycott, including a statement that those refusing to participate “would be disciplined,” ruling it did not incite imminent lawless action.
These cases are built on earlier rulings. In Watts v. United States (1969), the Court protected an anti-war protester’s conditional statement about President Lyndon B. Johnson: “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.,” calling it political hyperbole.
In Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the Court required proof of the speaker’s subjective understanding that the communication could be threatening for true-threat prosecutions.
Historical Context
Threatening the President of the United States has been a federal crime since 1917 under what is now codified as 18 U.S.C. § 871. The Sedition Act of 1798 criminalized “false, scandalous and malicious” writings against the government; however, the Act expired on March 3, 1801.
The expiration of the Sedition Act meant that broad criminal punishment for criticizing the President or the federal government ended. Under the 1798 law, it was a crime to “print, utter, or publish any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government, Congress, or the President.
This was used to prosecute newspaper editors and political opponents of President John Adams — often for statements that were true or opinion-based, per the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
What is now ALLOWED that was criminalized in 1798–1801:
- Publishing sharp, even harsh, criticism of the President or government policies.
- Accusing the President of misconduct, incompetence, or corruption (as long as it does not meet the narrow legal definition of defamation or a “true threat”).
- Expressing strong political opinions, hyperbole, or rhetorical attacks against the President.
- Peaceful protest and advocacy that criticizes government officials.
Modern First Amendment protections, developed through Supreme Court rulings, generally shield this kind of speech. The government cannot punish someone simply for saying negative things about the President unless the statement qualifies as a true threat, defamation (with “actual malice” if the target is a public figure), or incitement to imminent lawless action, per the National Constitution Center.
Key modern LIMITS that still exist:
- True threats (e.g., credible statements like “I’m going to kill the President”) remain illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 871 and are not protected speech.
- Speech that incites imminent violence can be restricted (Brandenburg v. Ohio standard).
Four sitting Presidents have been assassinated: Abraham Lincoln (1865), James A. Garfield (1881), William McKinley (1901), and John F. Kennedy (1963).
Negative Impact
Data from multiple sources show that political polarization and threats against public officials have increased significantly in recent years.
According to a Pew Research Center survey, the share of Americans who view the opposing party as more immoral than other Americans rose sharply from 2016 levels, reaching 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats by 2022.
A 2025 Carnegie Corporation survey found that 89% of local officials said polarization is negatively affecting the United States.
Additionally, federal prosecutions for threats and violent rhetoric have also climbed, with threats against local public servants rising more than 2,000% since 2015, per data compiled by The Impact Project and the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.
Today, Americans can criticize the President far more freely than they could in 1798–1801, as long as it does not cross into unprotected categories like genuine threats or direct incitement.
Of note, Trump has survived three major assassination attempts since entering national politics, as The Dallas Express reported.
The first occurred on July 13, 2024, at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. A second attempt took place on September 15, 2024, at Trump International Golf Club in Florida. The third occurred on April 25–26, 2026, during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, D.C., while Trump was serving his second term as President.
