Technically no, but the 747 is fast, almost too fast in these days of fuel economy.
The 747 was designed by Boeing to do M.87 (Pan Am wanted M.9) , though it now sits around M.855 (913 km/h) [1] due mainly to the requirement of fuel efficiency over raw speed. Almost Mach 1. How did Boeing designers get this speed? Hint: The hump and area rule (min drag > M.8) [2] Now a DC8 was pushed to M1.012 under special conditions. [3] And as a point of interest, Air Force One (VC-25A) is rated at M0.92 (1015 km/h). [4]
[1] http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400e...?
[2] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0150a.shtm...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-8#Production_and_te...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25#Specifications_.2...
wing sweep alone doesn't explain why the 747 is the fastest subsonic transport to date. If it did, competitors would have copied the idea. I'm curious why? Boeing describe it as a combination of wing design, engine, electro-mechanical systems. Maybe I should ask Boeing.
[0] http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2006/08/father_kno...
My source for the wing sweep thing is also Joe Sutter, in his wonderful book. Also highly recommend Widebody, by Clive Irving, which is sadly out of print.
As for flying over populated parts of the U.S. at supersonic speeds, not even the U.S. Air Force gets to do that. (Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8209976)
I saw the Concorde at OshKosh Air Show. Doubt they had problems flying there, landing, and setting up for viewing plus several demonstration flights. After that, I recall they were set to fly out west coast for another show.
Don't think the USG had any issues with the plane.
Not to mention the flights from JFK to Heathrow and Paris.