Nearly 1,000 people gathered at Main Beach in Santa Cruz, California, on Saturday for a Pride Month protest aimed squarely at President Donald Trump.

Participants formed a massive human banner that spelled out "Resist!" in rainbow colors as part of a demonstration organized by Indivisible Santa Cruz County. 

The 220-foot-wide display, with letters reaching 70 feet high, was designed by longtime left-wing activist Brad Newsham.

Organizers described the event as a peaceful act of resistance and a show of solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community.

SEATTLE MAYOR ACCUSED OF LYING AFTER BLAMING CHRISTIAN RALLY FOR PARK VIOLENCE

"It’s very important, the more people [who] can show our neighbors, our politicians in the world, that nonviolent resistance is the way to express our dissatisfaction with the way our country’s going," said event organizer Becca Moeller to Lookout Santa Cruz.

But just above the colorful banner was a very different kind of message: "86 47," a phrase many interpreted as a call to "get rid of" the 47th President of the United States.

In slang, "86" typically means to cancel, eliminate, or even destroy. Combined with "47," the number now associated with President Trump’s second term, the phrase has raised alarms among critics who say it crossed a line.

Earlier this month, former FBI Chief James Comey posted a similar message in the sand, but instead of kelp, they were shells. He has since removed the post after widespread criticism and action by law enforcement.

SEATTLE MAYOR BLAMES CHRISTIAN RALLY FOR INSPIRING VIOLENT 'ANARCHISTS' WHO 'INFILTRATED' COUNTER-PROTEST

"We don’t need a king. We want to go back to the way we were. We want to make America kind again," said protester Beth Basilius to Lookout Santa Cruz.

While the event promoted "kindness" and inclusivity, the imagery told a more conflicted story.

"They claim they want to make America ‘kind’ again, but then they spell out ‘86 47’ in the sand. That’s not kindness — that’s a coded call to eliminate someone they disagree with. It’s hypocritical," said Mike LeLieur, chair of the Santa Cruz County Republican Party to Fox News Digital.

LeLieur said local conservatives face growing hostility from the political left.

"We’ve had vehicles vandalized, tires slashed, and windows broken. I was forced off the road and attacked just for having a Trump sticker. At our State of the Union watch party, we were swarmed by angry protesters. It’s been nonstop hostility — and these are the same people who call themselves the ‘Party of Peace.’"

Just 8.5% of voters in the city of Santa Cruz are registered Republicans, according to the most recent data from the California Secretary of State.

Despite the message written in the sand, some participants insisted the demonstration was rooted in compassion.

"We want to go back to the way we were. We want to make America kind again," said protester Beth Basilius to Lookout Santa Cruz.

Supporters of the protest claimed that "86 47" was a symbolic rejection of Trump’s agenda, not a literal threat. But critics say that argument falls flat in a political climate where coded language carries real-world consequences.

"In California — and especially in Santa Cruz County — the left is creating a political environment of non-acceptance and persecution," said Daniel Enriquez, a representative of the California Republican Assembly. "It’s consistent with the goals of socialist movements throughout history."

Jenny Evans, co-leader of Indivisible Santa Cruz County, defended the event.

"When a great number of people come out to do something like this, it just is one more thing to show that we’re not all saying, ‘Fine, fine. We’ll go along with whatever you want,’" she said to Lookout Santa Cruz.

The event was also part of Santa Cruz’s 50th Pride celebration. Participants were instructed to dress in matching rainbow colors, coordinated with fabric laid out across the beach starting at 7 a.m.

The protest was peaceful, but critics say calling for kindness while displaying "86 47" sent a message that was anything but.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Indivisible Santa Cruz County did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

Crystal McKinney was named Friday in an amended lawsuit first filed against Harvey Weinstein in February, according to documents obtained by Fox News Digital.

McKinney, a former model, accused the disgraced movie mogul of sexually assaulting her and a friend at a hotel in New York City in 2003.

She previously sued Sean "Diddy" Combs in May 2024, and accused the "Last Night" rapper of sexual assault during a Men's Fashion Week event in 2003.

WHITNEY HOUSTON, MIKE MYERS NAME-DROPPED IN DIDDY'S HIGH-PROFILE SEX TRAFFICKING TRIAL

"Harvey Weinstein categorically denies the outlandish and fantastical claims made against him by Crystal McKinney in her complaint," Weinstein's lawyer, Imran H. Ansari, told Fox News Digital. 

"Made late in time and suspiciously on the heels of her complaint against Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs, Mr. Weinstein is ready to refute and defend against the salacious claims, that are believed to have been made with an opportunistic motive." 

The lawsuit against Weinstein was first filed anonymously on Feb. 28 under the pseudonym A.P. McKinney claimed that a modeling company executive set up a meeting for her to "discuss a potential business opportunity" with Weinstein at the PM lounge one evening, on the pretense that meeting Weinstein would allow McKinney to "make it big," according to the complaint.

MODEL SUES DIDDY FOR ALLEGED DRUGGING, SEXUAL ASSAULT AT NEW YORK STUDIO

In her lawsuit, she alleged that the executive told her, "Don't f--- him until he puts you in a movie." She noted that she was "bothered" by the executive's "crass comment," but was interested in the possibility of "working with the biggest producer in Hollywood."

McKinney brought her roommate, "Jane Doe," to the meeting with the hope Weinstein would consider her for a movie role as well. She claimed in the lawsuit that during the meeting, Weinstein "repeatedly told them that he wanted to get to know both of them better." 

He allegedly asked to go somewhere quieter as the lounge was too loud, and the women agreed to "go to his place to discuss potential acting roles."

After arriving at Weinstein's hotel room via his chauffeur, McKinney claimed the former Miramax honcho "plied the women with alcohol, ordering them bottles of Boulevardier and Dom Perignon, several gimlets for Plaintiff, and vodka cocktails for Jane," the complaint stated.

As McKinney sat on the couch, she alleged Weinstein grabbed her breasts and tore at her tank top. "In Plaintiff's efforts to avoid being groped, drinks were sloshed onto her shirt," according to the complaint. "Plaintiff fled to the bathroom and Jane followed suit."

Weinstein then allegedly "barged into the bathroom and continued to leer at Plaintiff's visible breasts through her soaked tank top. Weinstein demanded that the women strip and take a bath with him."

McKinney claimed that Weinstein then "exposed himself to the women before entering the tub," and then commanded the women to join him in the tub.

"Plaintiff and Jane complied with his request, as they felt backed into a corner and feared that he would retaliate against them if they refused his sexual advances," the complaint stated. 

Weinstein then allegedly "directed the women to engage in same-sex sexual conduct with each other." He then allegedly "grotesquely watched, taking perverse joy from forcing the women to engage in sexual acts with each other."

LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS

"At some point, Weinstein dragged the intoxicated women out of the tub and into the bedroom," the complaint stated. "Weinstein, then, pushed Plaintiff onto the bed, and raped her."

After Weinstein "ceased assaulting Plaintiff, he forcibly penetrated Jane as well," the documents alleged. Following the incident, Weinstein left the hotel room. The hotel phone rang, and Weinstein's assistant allegedly told the women to leave the hotel room immediately. 

In May 2024, McKinney filed a lawsuit against Diddy in a Manhattan federal court. She claimed that the powerhouse producer "plied Plaintiff with alcohol throughout the dinner as he repeatedly refilled her glass with wine." After the meal, Combs allegedly asked McKinney to meet him at his studio on 44th Street, and she felt "reassured that she would be with others at the studio rather alone in a personal residence."

Upon arriving, she found Combs with several other men passing around "a bottle of Hennesy and joints." 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

"One of Combs' associates asked her, ‘Do you smoke weed?’ to which she responded affirmatively," the documents stated. "Combs' associate replied: ‘You’ve never had weed like this before.'"

The complaint stated that "Plaintiff later came to understand that Combs had laced the joint with a narcotic or other intoxicating substance." McKinney said she felt "pressured" to imbibe by Combs, who told her that she was "acting too uptight."

"Seeing Plaintiff was very intoxicated, Combs demanded Plaintiff follow him and he physically led Plaintiff to the bathroom," the suit stated. "In the bathroom, Combs forced himself on Plaintiff and began kissing her without her consent." He allegedly forced McKinney to "perform oral sex on him."

McKinney allegedly "lost consciousness" and awoke in shock to find herself in a taxicab. She noted that modeling opportunities "quickly began to dwindle and then evaporated entirely" following the alleged assault. McKinney believed that Combs "blackballed" her in the industry.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"The assault led Plaintiff into a tailspin of anxiety and depression," the suit claimed. "In or about 2004, Plaintiff attempted suicide and was hospitalized." She claimed to experience alcohol and drug addiction in an attempt to cope "with the emotional trauma of being assaulted."

Diddy is currently on trial, and faces 15 years to life in prison if convicted of sex crimes and racketeering. Weinstein received a retrial after his 2020 sexual assault conviction was overturned.

In a 4-3 decision, the court found that Weinstein's trial judge allowed prosecutors to call women who said Weinstein had assaulted them to testify, even though their accusations did not specifically relate to the entertainment mogul's charges.