LA New Years attack
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal prosecutors say the FBI arrested four people in Lucerne Valley and charged them after disrupting an alleged plot to detonate improvised explosive devices at five locations around Los Angeles on New Year’s Eve; the complaint names Audrey Illeene Carroll, Zachary Aaron Page, Dante Gaffield and Tina Lai and says the group tested devices in the Mojave Desert on Dec. 12 [1] [2]. Authorities describe the suspects as members of a radical offshoot of the Turtle Island Liberation Front (TILF) motivated by pro‑Palestinian, anti‑law‑enforcement and anti‑government ideology; officials also say a fifth person was arrested in New Orleans in a related matter [3] [4].
1. What prosecutors say happened — a coordinated bombing plot foiled
Federal officials say the plan called for planting explosive devices at five locations targeting two U.S. companies at midnight on New Year’s Eve and that members purchased bomb‑making materials, traveled to the Mojave Desert to assemble and test devices on Dec. 12, and were arrested in Lucerne Valley while preparing to test improvised explosive devices [1] [3] [2].
2. Who the suspects are and what they’re charged with
The criminal complaint filed in the Central District of California names Audrey Illeene Carroll, Zachary Aaron Page, Dante Gaffield and Tina Lai; they face charges including conspiracy and possession of an unregistered destructive device, according to the complaint and multiple news outlets [1] [5] [2].
3. The group label and motive offered by authorities
The FBI and DOJ characterize the suspects as self‑identified members of a radical offshoot of the Turtle Island Liberation Front (TILF), which officials described as motivated by pro‑Palestinian, anti‑law‑enforcement, anti‑government and anti‑capitalist ideology; that characterization appears repeatedly in agency statements reported by Reuters, CNN and local outlets [1] [3] [6].
4. Evidence authorities emphasize — written plans and desert testing
Prosecutors point to a handwritten document reportedly titled “Operation Midnight Sun” that allegedly detailed step‑by‑step instructions for IEDs and identified targets, plus surveillance footage and accounts that the group moved materials and a large black object in the desert before arrests; the complaint also mentions Signal group chat activity and lists of components and prices for pipe bombs [7] [3] [8].
5. Scope of intended harm and follow‑on plotting
Officials say the defendants planned simultaneous detonations to harm “U.S. companies” described as “Amazon‑type” logistics centers and discussed later attacks on ICE agents and vehicles with pipe bombs, indicating prosecutors view the operation as multi‑phased and focused on infrastructure and government targets [8] [2].
6. How agencies framed the disruption and public messaging
FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly framed the arrests as disrupting a “credible, imminent terrorist attack,” praising interagency coordination; local law enforcement echoed that the unified response probably averted tragedy [4] [2].
7. Reporting variations and what differs across outlets
Reporting is consistent on arrests, named defendants and desert testing, but outlets vary in emphasis: some highlight the alleged pro‑Palestinian ideological thread and the TILF label (CNN, Reuters, Fox), others emphasize the operational detail and surveillance evidence shown at briefings (AP, LA Times, Boston Globe) [3] [1] [5] [9] [8].
8. What’s not in available reporting or remains unclear
Available sources do not mention the specific companies named as targets beyond general descriptions like “Amazon‑type” logistics centers; detailed forensic descriptions of devices, whether any victims were directly endangered before arrests, and the defendants’ public statements or defense assertions are not included in the cited reporting [8] [3] [1].
9. Risks of narrative framing and possible agendas to note
Government labeling of groups as “extremist” or “pro‑Palestinian” shapes public perception; several outlets echo official labels without independent verification in the reporting cited here, and political actors amplifying the case (including top federal officials) have incentives to emphasize a successful counterterror operation ahead of high‑profile dates, which readers should factor into assessing tone and emphasis in official statements [4] [2].
10. What to watch next — courtroom filings, defense response, and forensic details
The complaint is an initial prosecutorial filing; upcoming docket entries, evidentiary hearings, defense filings and any public statements from the defendants or their lawyers will clarify contested facts and motives. Expect news updates on grand jury developments, possible additional arrests (a fifth person was mentioned as arrested in New Orleans), and prosecutors’ presentation of forensic testing on the alleged devices [4] [3].
Limitations: this summary uses only contemporaneous news accounts and the criminal complaint summaries as reported; it does not include independent review of court filings or defense materials that may alter factual claims [1] [5] [3].