Trump's Shell Game: War On Free Speech is the First Step to Facism

In a world where "86" becomes a national security threat but "LOCK HER UP" is just patriotic fervor, we've crossed the threshold into dangerous territory.

The Beach Where Democracy Gets Washed Away

The air tastes like metal. That distinctive coppery flavor that floods your mouth when you bite your tongue too hard. That's what democracy tastes like now – like an accident in your own mouth that you didn't see coming.

When former FBI Director James Comey posted a harmless beach photo showing shells arranged as "86 47," he couldn't have anticipated the shit hurricane that would follow. The seashells – those innocent, hollow exoskeletons washed up on the shore – would be transformed into evidence of a capital offense, the would-be murder weapons in an imaginary assassination plot that exists only in the fevered imagination of a man whose brain has been pickled in narcissistic paranoia for seven fucking decades.

Within hours, the full force of the United States government machinery was mobilized against a retired civil servant for the crime of... arranging shells on a beach.

The sensation is visceral, like watching someone vomit blood and being told it's just ketchup. The texture is wrong. The smell is wrong. Every instinct in your body screams that something is profoundly, fundamentally broken. Your stomach clenches, throat tightens, and you can feel your heart pulsing behind your eyeballs. This is fear, but it's not the healthy kind that keeps you safe. It's the existential dread of watching institutions you once trusted turn predatory.

The Psychology of Manufactured Threat

Here's what happened in plain language: The Trump administration weaponized federal agencies to investigate a man for posting seashells on Instagram. Not a bomb. Not a gun. Not even a verbal threat. Fucking seashells.

The psychological mechanism at play is transparent for anyone with eyes to see. Donald Turdface has spent years conditioning his followers to interpret any criticism as an attack, any dissent as treason, and any unflattering portrait as an existential threat. The pattern repeats with clockwork precision:

1. Someone criticizes Trump

2. Trump claims victim-hood

3. Trump designates critic as "enemy of the people"

4. Government machinery activates against the critic

This process isn't just psychologically damaging to our collective sense of reality – it represents a fundamental inversion of constitutional principles. The government now exists not to protect citizens' rights but to protect a single citizen from hearing things he doesn't like.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem accused Comey of calling for Trump's assassination and announced on social media that her department and the Secret Service were "investigating this threat and will respond appropriately." FBI Director Kash Patel promised to "provide all necessary support," while Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard went on Fox News declaring Comey should be jailed for "issuing a hit" on Trump.

The bitter irony sticks to your ribs like spoiled meat. You can almost taste the acrid hypocrisy burning the back of your throat. This is the same administration whose leader has repeatedly – and I mean repeatedly – threatened his political opponents with imprisonment, persecution, and even death.

The Constitutional Double Standard

Think about how it feels in your body when you process this incongruity: During his first term, Trump frequently targeted Andrew McCabe, an FBI official who became acting director after Trump fired Comey. Trump repeatedly attacked McCabe during the investigation into Russian election interference, fixating on the fact that McCabe's wife had run unsuccessfully for Virginia state Senate as a Democrat. This wasn't just political disagreement – it was vindictive persecution.

The difference is stark enough to give you whiplash. When Trump publicly calls for his opponents to be investigated, prosecuted, or imprisoned, it's just "Trump being Trump." But when a private citizen (even a former FBI Director) arranges seashells that could be interpreted as anti-Trump, suddenly the full might of the federal government descends.

The Constitution's First Amendment was designed specifically to prevent this exact scenario – government persecution of speech. The amendment doesn't exist to protect popular speech or officially sanctioned narratives. It exists precisely to protect the speech that makes those in power uncomfortable.

Your skin prickles with awareness of how fundamentally twisted this situation has become. Trump has repeatedly called for prosecuting Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg who successfully prosecuted him, New York Attorney General Letitia James who sued his business for fraud, and former FBI officials including Comey and McCabe, claiming they're "corrupt" and "should be investigated."

The word "treason" flows from Trump's mouth like spit from a rabid dog. He's accused political opponents of treason – a capital offense – with such frequency that it's become background noise. He's reposted calls on social media for "military tribunals" against former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, called for jailing journalists who protect their sources, and suggested that General Mark Milley should face execution for back-channel calls with China during the chaotic final days of his first term.

The Free Speech Gaslight

The Republican establishment that now clutches its pearls over Comey's seashells has spent years defending Trump's much more explicit threats as protected "free speech." The cognitive dissonance is enough to make your teeth hurt.

Look at their track record: Since 2022, Trump has issued more than 100 threats to investigate, prosecute, imprison or otherwise punish perceived opponents, according to an NPR investigation. He's advocated for using the military against domestic political rivals, calling them "the enemy from within" and promising that if "radical left lunatics" disrupt the election, it should be handled "if necessary, by the National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military."

These aren't just vague expressions of displeasure. These are specific threats to use state power against American citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

Now the psychological reality comes into stark focus. The administration isn't defending free speech – it's monopolizing it. Only speech that aligns with Trump's interests is protected. All other speech is designated as dangerous, treasonous, or criminal.

The Republican Hypocrisy Machine

The smell of this hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. When actual threats and intimidation come from the right, they're dismissed or celebrated. In February 2024, Trump ally Matt Gaetz boasted on social media about how his political allies had "86'd" three party leaders, including then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who had just announced plans to step down. No federal investigations were launched. No one called for Gaetz's arrest.

And let's be raw about Trump's own violent rhetoric. He wondered aloud how former Congresswoman Liz Cheney – who he characterized as a war hawk – would feel "when the guns are trained on her face." He reportedly asked in 2020 why protesters outside the White House couldn't be shot, saying "Can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?"

Your jaw clenches remembering how during the 2016 campaign, Trump suggested that if Clinton were in a position to appoint judges, there is "nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." The implication was clear to anyone with ears.

The Comey Case: Constitutional Crisis in Real Time

The truth hits you in the gut like a sucker punch. What we're witnessing isn't just run-of-the-mill political overreach. It's a fundamental assault on the Constitution's core protection of free expression.

When the government investigates citizens for speech it doesn't like, we've crossed a threshold. The Comey case represents a perfect example of why the First Amendment exists in the first place – to prevent those in power from using government machinery to silence critics.

Comey was only four years into a ten-year term when Trump fired him in May 2017. The White House claimed at the time that Comey was dismissed for mishandling the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. But Trump later admitted on national television that he fired Comey because of "this Russia thing" – the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The bitter taste of this reality lingers on your tongue. Trump fired Comey for investigating Russian election interference. Now he's using federal agencies to investigate Comey for posting seashells on Instagram. The circle of retribution is complete.

The Comparison with Biden: Night and Day Difference

When we examine how the Biden administration approached free speech compared to Trump's, the contrast is so stark it makes your eyes water.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over social media content moderation. The conservative states had alleged the administration applied "unrelenting pressure" on platforms to censor conservative viewpoints, but the Court rejected these claims.

Unlike Trump's direct threats to prosecute critics, the Biden administration never sicced federal law enforcement on individual citizens for criticizing the president. Biden didn't threaten to imprison journalists or call for military tribunals against political opponents.

In fact, free speech ranked as the second most important issue for voters heading into the 2024 election, according to a poll by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Republicans were more likely to rate it "very important" with nearly half saying they spoke less freely under Biden than under Trump – despite the lack of actual prosecutions or investigations of critics.

The difference sends shivers down your spine. One administration engaged in policy disagreements over how to handle misinformation. The other is actively using federal law enforcement to investigate critics for arranging seashells.

The Visceral Reality of Constitutional Erosion

This doesn't feel abstract anymore. You can feel it in your body – that creeping dread that settles into your bones when you realize the institutions meant to protect you could be weaponized against you.

Since returning to office, Trump has taken actions that First Amendment advocates say represent unprecedented attacks on free speech. His administration has threatened Democratic members of Congress with investigation for criticizing conservatives, pulled federal grants that include language it opposes, sanctioned law firms that represent Trump's political opponents, and arrested protesters he criticized as "anti-Semitic, anti-American."

"I've brought free speech back to America," Trump boasted in his joint address to Congress. But as Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, observed: "Your right to say something depends on what the administration thinks of it, which is no free speech at all."

When Words Become Crimes

The current reality smells like something rotting. It's the decomposition of constitutional norms in real time. Words that would be protected speech when uttered by Trump or his allies become potential crimes when spoken by critics.

The psychological impact is enormous. Citizens begin to self-censor, afraid that casual criticism might bring federal agents to their door. That's not paranoia – it's precisely what's happening to Comey now.

Rep. Tim Burchett called for Comey's arrest, while Chris LaCivita, Trump's former campaign manager, said he would have raided Comey's home over the post. Rep. Andy Ogles called for an "immediate" joint investigation in a letter to FBI Director Patel and Secret Service Director Sean Curran.

Trump himself insisted Comey knew exactly what the shells meant: "If you're the FBI director and you don't know what that meant, that meant assassination," Trump told Fox News.

The Free Speech Crisis Is Real, But Not What Republicans Claim

There is indeed a free speech crisis in America, but it's not what the Republican establishment claims. The crisis isn't liberals "canceling" conservatives on college campuses or social media platforms enforcing terms of service.

The real crisis is a government that investigates its critics while protecting its allies, that uses federal law enforcement as a weapon against political opponents, that treats criticism of the president as a potential capital offense while dismissing the president's own violent rhetoric as harmless hyperbole.

Under Trump's renewed administration, the constraints on free expression are becoming palpable. Scientists are scrubbing federal grant applications of words the administration has banned. Student activists fear deportation for participating in protests. Teachers worry about being reported for making historical connections that don't portray the administration positively.

This isn't theoretical anymore. It's happening. The taste of fear is metallic in your mouth, the sound of boots on the march echoing in your ears.

Conclusion: The Constitutional Reckoning

The seashell incident isn't just another Trump tantrum. It's a constitutional crisis in miniature – a perfect distillation of how the First Amendment is being systematically undermined.

When the full weight of government power comes crashing down on a citizen for arranging seashells in a pattern the president doesn't like, while that same president freely threatens his enemies with imprisonment and violence, we've entered territory the Founders specifically designed the Constitution to prevent.

The sensation is physical – like watching a car crash in slow motion while being told it's just a parade. Your body knows the truth even as the propaganda tries to convince you otherwise.

The Comey investigation isn't about national security. It's about intimidation. It's about sending a message that criticism – even in the form of seashells on a beach – will be met with the full force of federal law enforcement.

This is how free speech dies – not through outright bans, but through selective enforcement. Not through censorship boards, but through federal investigations of critics. Not with a legal declaration, but with the quiet understanding that certain words, when spoken by certain people, will bring the government to your door.

The shells on the beach may seem trivial. But they represent the canary in the constitutional coal mine – and that canary is struggling to breathe.

---

Sources:

1. Treisman, R. 2025 “James Comey is under investigation for his '8647' Instagram post. What does it mean?”

2. Strickler L. 2025 “Secret Service agents question Comey about his Trump social media post” NBC

3. Helmore, E. 2025 “What does ‘8647’ really mean? Not what Trump’s supporters are saying” The Guardian

4. Amadi, A. 2025 “Ex-FBI boss James Comey investigated for seashell photo seen as threat to Trump” BBC