A federal judge appointed by Barack Obama granted a temporary restraining order Monday that blocks the National Park Service from removing an "86 47" flag flown by a progressive activist group near the National Mall, a ruling that landed just months after the same coded phrase led to federal charges against former FBI Director James Comey.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, who previously served in Bill Clinton's Justice Department and has contributed to and volunteered for Democratic candidates and causes, sided with Accountability Now USA, the left-wing organization that erected the flag. The group alleged the Park Service violated its First Amendment rights by threatening to revoke its permit.
The order keeps the flag in place for 14 days while litigation continues, fourteen days of a message that the Trump administration considers a political threat displayed within sight of the seat of American government, as Fox News Digital reported.
The phrase "86 47" carries different weight depending on who reads it. In the restaurant industry, "86" is longstanding slang for removing an item or refusing service. Combined with "47", a reference to Trump as the 47th president, the message has been adopted by anti-Trump activists who insist it simply means "get rid of" or "vote out."
Moss wrote in his opinion that "the evidence shows that Plaintiff displayed the 8647 flag to urge that Congress impeach and remove President Trump from office." He noted the flag itself did not contain violent symbols and bore patriotic colors. He found the meaning of "86" to be ambiguous.
But the judge also acknowledged the gravity of the alternative reading. In his order, Moss stated that "a true threat to the life or safety of the President would undoubtedly outweigh the interest of the public or the speaker in continuing to urge that unlawful conduct."
That concession matters. It means even the judge who allowed the flag to stay recognized the phrase could be read as something far darker than a call for impeachment.
President Trump's Department of the Interior did not mince words. A DOI spokesperson told Fox News Digital that the ruling came from "an Obama-appointed judge" and asked a pointed question:
"In what world have we lost all decency, to demand that any threat against the President be taken very seriously."
The spokesperson added that while "the Department shall and does comply with the Court's orders, this type of behavior should not be tolerated." Fox News Digital also reached out to Moss' chambers for comment, though the source material does not indicate whether chambers responded.
The administration's frustration is not abstract. Trump survived two assassination attempts in 2024. On July 13 of that year, a gunman climbed onto a roof at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and grazed Trump with a bullet. Secret Service agents rushed the then-Republican presidential candidate offstage as he pumped his fist. And just in April, a suspect named Cole Allen was accused of plotting an assassination attempt tied to the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner.
Against that backdrop, the administration views "86 47" not as cheeky political commentary but as language that normalizes violence against a president who has already been shot at. The broader legal fight over the flag near the National Mall is far from settled.
The flag case does not exist in isolation. The Department of Justice charged Comey with two federal counts over an Instagram post last year that showed seashells arranged to read "86 47." Comey denied intending any violent threat toward Trump, explaining that he understood "86" to mean leave or ditch.
Comey faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted.
So the same phrase that a federal judge now says a progressive group has a First Amendment right to display on a flag near the National Mall is also the subject of a federal criminal prosecution against a former FBI director. Both sides claim the phrase is benign political speech. The DOJ disagrees, at least when Comey is the one using it.
That tension raises an obvious question: can the government simultaneously prosecute one person for deploying "86 47" while a federal court protects another's right to fly it on a flag yards from the Capitol? The legal system will have to reconcile those positions. For now, it has not.
Moss is not the only D.C. judge drawing scrutiny from Trump allies. U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui recently drew backlash after apologizing to Cole Allen, the suspect accused of plotting an assassination attempt tied to the White House Correspondents' Dinner, over Allen's treatment in custody. Faruqui told Allen in open court:
"At a minimum, I should be apologizing to him. We are obligated to make sure he's taken care of. Mr. Allen, I'm sorry that things have not been the way they are supposed to."
Lara Trump joined Fox News host Will Cain to react to what was described as a D.C. judge apologizing to the president's "would-be assassin." The pattern is hard to miss: D.C. federal courts, staffed heavily by appointees of Democratic presidents, have repeatedly issued rulings and statements that cut against this administration's enforcement priorities.
That pattern extends well beyond flags and assassination suspects. Federal appeals courts have blocked Trump's asylum proclamation, and other judges have challenged administration plans on everything from construction projects to executive orders.
Moss' own background underscores the concern. He served in the Clinton-era Justice Department. He contributed to Democratic candidates. None of that disqualifies him from hearing cases, but it does provide context when his rulings consistently land on one side of the political divide.
The First Amendment question at the heart of this case is real. Courts have long protected provocative political speech, including speech that offends those in power. A separate federal ruling has already addressed whether the "86 47" flag constitutes protected speech, finding that it does.
But the administration's point is equally real. When a president has been shot, when a suspect has been charged with plotting another attack, and when a coded phrase sits at the intersection of political protest and implied menace, the government has an interest in taking threats seriously, even ambiguous ones.
Moss himself acknowledged that a "true threat" would override free speech protections. He simply concluded that this particular flag did not cross that line. Reasonable people can disagree. What is harder to dispute is that the ruling gives a left-wing group a court-backed platform to fly a message the administration considers threatening, on federal land, within sight of the president's workplace.
The temporary restraining order lasts 14 days. What happens after that depends on further litigation. But the broader trend, federal judges warning the Trump administration of consequences for its own actions while shielding its opponents, is not going away.
The legal system will sort out whether "86 47" is protected speech, a veiled threat, or something in between. Courts are built for exactly that kind of dispute. But the political reality is already clear.
A progressive group obtained a permit, flew a flag with a phrase the government considers threatening, and when the Park Service moved to shut it down, an Obama-appointed judge with a Democratic donor history stepped in to keep it flying. Meanwhile, the administration has had to file emergency appeals just to carry out its own construction plans on White House grounds.
The administration complies with court orders. It said so explicitly. But compliance and agreement are different things, and the DOI spokesperson's question lingers: in what world is this considered decent?
When a president has already taken a bullet, the answer should not require 14 days of litigation to figure out.