Michigan House Bill HR0112

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/21/25
• Refer: 5/21/25

Caption

A resolution to urge the Federal Bureau of Investigation to condemn the use of the expression “8647” due to its symbolism and implications, including the use of this code by James Comey, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in a social media post on May 15, 2025.

Summary

House Resolution 112 is a nonbinding resolution that urges the Federal Bureau of Investigation to publicly condemn the use of the expression “8647.” The resolution says the phrase has become associated with a threat or call for violence against President Donald J. Trump, and it cites a May 15, 2025 Instagram post by former FBI Director James Comey showing seashells arranged in that pattern. The resolution also references a prior instance involving Governor Gretchen Whitmer and the display of “8645,” using that example to argue that coded political messages can foster hostility toward a president. The resolution does not change criminal law, election law, or FBI authority. Instead, it expresses the House’s position and asks the FBI to denounce the phrase, with copies of the resolution to be sent to the FBI Director, the Governor of Michigan, and James Comey. Its practical legal effect is limited to a formal statement of condemnation and political pressure, rather than any enforceable statutory change.

Impact

HR 112 would have no direct effect on Michigan statutes or state regulatory authority because it is a House resolution, not a bill amending the law. Its impact is symbolic and political: it places the Michigan House on record urging federal law enforcement to condemn a specific coded expression and frames the issue as one of political violence and threats against the President. The resolution also targets public figures by name, including James Comey and Governor Gretchen Whitmer, but it does not create penalties, duties, or new legal standards for any person or agency.

Sentiment

The resolution appears strongly partisan and accusatory in tone, reflecting a clear sentiment of condemnation toward the use of “8647” and toward the individuals referenced in the text. The language characterizes the expression as an invitation to violence and describes political violence as intolerable, indicating that supporters view the matter as a serious public safety and civility issue. No committee testimony or recorded votes are provided, so there is no evidence of bipartisan support or formal opposition in the available record beyond the resolution’s own framing.

Contention

The main point of contention is the meaning and intent of the “8647” message: supporters of the resolution treat it as a coded threat against President Trump, while critics would likely argue that the interpretation is speculative and that the conduct is protected speech absent a true threat. A second point of contention is the resolution’s comparison to Governor Whitmer’s “8645” display, which the text uses to suggest a pattern of hostile political signaling; that analogy is likely to be disputed by those who see it as overstated or politically motivated. More broadly, the resolution raises the familiar tension between condemning perceived political threats and respecting First Amendment protections.