Trump on Comey’s “86 47” Threat: “A Child Knows What That Meant — Assassination”; Gabbard: “Comey Should Be Behind Bars”; NATO 5% Spending

President Trump addressed former FBI Director James Comey’s controversial “86 47” social media post in May 2025. “He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination,” Trump said. DNI Tulsi Gabbard was more explicit: “Comey has been celebrated by MSNBC and the Democratic elite and CNN as the beacon of integrity. This is the guy who is issuing a hit on President Trump. Comey should be held accountable and put behind bars for this.” Secretary Rubio announced historic NATO progress: “Virtually every member of NATO will be at or above 2%, many over 4%, and all will have agreed on reaching 5% over the next decade."

"A Child Knows What That Meant”

Trump addressed Comey’s viral social media post with biting commentary.

“He knew exactly what that meant,” Trump said. “A child knows what that meant.”

He drove the point home: “If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination. It says it loud and clear.”

He offered a backhanded assessment: “Now, he wasn’t very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant.”

He characterized the motivation: “He did it for a reason, and he was hit so hard. Because people like me, and they like what’s happening with our country. Our country has become respected again.”

He drew the conclusion: “And all this, and he’s calling for the assassination of the president.”

He acknowledged the apology: “And obviously, he apologized and said he doesn’t want to apologize for bad violence. Look, he’s a very bad person.”

The “86 47” post had shown seashells arranged on a beach to spell out the numbers 86 and 47. In restaurant industry slang, “86” meant to remove something — historically, also used to describe eliminating a person. “47” was a reference to Trump as the 47th president. The combination, in the context of social media imagery, could reasonably be interpreted as advocating for Trump’s assassination.

Comey’s defense was that “86” simply meant “end” or “stop” — that he was calling for Trump’s political ending, not his physical death. Trump’s response highlighted the absurdity of this defense coming from a former FBI director. Comey had spent his career investigating organized crime, where “86” as a euphemism for murder was familiar terminology. For Comey to claim innocence of that connotation was, in Trump’s view, implausible given his background.

”He’s a Dirty Cop”

Trump called for accountability.

“What do you want to see happen?” a reporter asked.

“I don’t want to take a position on it, because that’s going to be up to Pam and all of the great people,” Trump said, referring to AG Bondi.

He continued with his characterization: “But I will say this. I think it’s a terrible thing. When you add his history to that — if he had a clean history, he doesn’t.”

He delivered the verdict: “He’s a dirty cop. He’s a dirty cop. And if he had a clean history, I couldn’t understand if there was a leniency. But I’m going to let them make that decision.”

When asked if Comey should be in jail: “I do.”

The “dirty cop” language reflected Trump’s long-running hostility toward Comey. Trump had fired Comey from the FBI in 2017, triggering the events that led to Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. Comey had subsequently written books, given interviews, and made public statements all highly critical of Trump — treatment Trump viewed as conduct unbecoming a former law enforcement professional.

Trump’s deference to AG Bondi on prosecution decisions was politically astute. By explicitly declining to demand prosecution while clearly signaling his view that Comey should be prosecuted, Trump maintained the public distinction between his personal opinion and Justice Department decision-making. This was the proper separation — the president should not direct individual prosecution decisions — while still allowing him to express his views.

Gabbard: “Absolutely Not”

DNI Tulsi Gabbard was even more direct.

When asked if she believed Comey’s explanation, Gabbard said: “Absolutely not, Jesse. That is a ridiculous and insane statement to make — certainly within this context, but especially coming from a guy who’s the former director of the FBI.”

She cited his specific background: “A guy who spent most of his career prosecuting mobsters and gangsters, people who know and execute other humans, and use this exact lingo of ‘86.’”

She stated the incredulity: “So for Comey to think that we, the American people, are so stupid as to think that he — a former FBI director, former prosecutor, and someone who clearly pays attention to what’s going on — would believe his lie that he didn’t know what this actually was calling for?”

She continued with the political context: “When we have people who look to guys like Comey, who’ve been celebrated by MSNBC and the Democrat elite and CNN as the beacon of integrity, the law and order guy, the guy who would tell the truth no matter what the consequences — this is the guy who’s issuing a hit on President Trump, the president that the American people voted for.”

She described the pattern: “So it’s guys like Comey and others who call the president the modern-day Nazi — people who are in great positions of influence, who are saying that President Trump poses an existential threat to our country.”

She drew the conclusion: “These are people who hate democracy and hate the American people because they cannot stand that the people overwhelmingly chose to elect Donald Trump and send him back to the White House.”

She stated the implication: “So they are seeking other means to get their way and to try to remove him from that position.”

She delivered her verdict: “I’m very concerned for the president’s life. We’ve already seen it. I’m very concerned for his life. And James Comey, in my view, should be held accountable and put behind bars for this.”

Gabbard’s statement was historically significant. A sitting Director of National Intelligence was publicly calling for the imprisonment of a former FBI Director. This level of accusation between senior intelligence officials was unprecedented in American history. It reflected the degree to which the institutional trust between Democrats and Republicans in national security had broken down.

The Nazi comparison reference was apt. Multiple Democratic figures — including Biden, Harris, and various Democratic officials — had repeatedly characterized Trump as a Nazi, fascist, or equivalent authoritarian threat. Gabbard’s point was that this rhetorical escalation created conditions in which violence against Trump was perceived by some as legitimate resistance rather than criminal assault. Trump had already survived two assassination attempts during the 2024 campaign.

NATO: Historic Spending Commitment

Secretary Rubio delivered perhaps the most significant NATO announcement in the alliance’s history.

“In 2018 was one of the most important moments in NATO history,” Rubio said. “It’s when President Trump at the NATO summit walked through the different contributions of different countries — some of whom were under 1% of GDP. Less than 1% of their economy was being spent on defense.”

He described the progress: “Since that time, we’ve seen improvements.”

He delivered the breakthrough: “I can tell you that we are headed for a summit in six weeks in which virtually every member of NATO will be at or above 2%. But more importantly, many of them will be over 4%, and all will have agreed on a goal of reaching 5% over the next decade.”

He described the historic significance: “It’ll be the first time ever in NATO history where they have reached targets and goals that will allow NATO partners to be more than 50% of the alliance. That’s a historic moment if it comes to fruition.”

He credited the origin: “That’s what was agreed upon today by the foreign ministers. And I think all of that tracks back to 2018 when President Trump challenged the members of the alliance to step up.”

The NATO spending commitments represented the culmination of a decade of Trump pressure on European allies. When Trump took office in 2017, many NATO members were spending below 2% of GDP on defense — some below 1%. Trump’s public pressure at the 2018 NATO summit had been criticized as alliance-damaging at the time. Seven years later, his prediction was being vindicated: NATO allies were committing to spending levels that exceeded even his original demands.

The 5% goal was particularly striking. The original NATO commitment was 2% of GDP. Trump had pushed that to 4% during his first term. The new 5% target meant European allies were committing to defense spending levels that matched or exceeded American spending as a percentage of GDP. This represented a fundamental rebalancing of the alliance: Europeans shouldering their fair share of the collective defense burden rather than relying on American taxpayers to provide the bulk of military capability.

The “partners be more than 50% of the alliance” observation was historic. For decades, the United States had provided the majority of NATO’s military capability despite representing one of 32 member nations. The new commitments meant European NATO members would collectively exceed American contributions — the alliance returning to its original design as a genuine partnership rather than an American-funded umbrella.

Key Takeaways

• Trump on Comey’s “86 47” post: “He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows. That meant assassination. He’s a dirty cop.”
• Trump was asked if Comey should be in jail: “I do.”
• DNI Gabbard: “Absolutely not” on Comey’s defense. “He should be held accountable and put behind bars.”
• Rubio on NATO: “Every member at or above 2%, many over 4%, all agreed on reaching 5% over the next decade.”
• First time ever NATO partners will be more than 50% of the alliance — traces back to Trump’s 2018 challenge.