Michigan synagogue attacker committed ‘Hezbollah-inspired act of terrorism’: FBI
Caution tape near the front entrance of Temple Israel a day after an active shooter incident on March 13, 2026, in West Bloomfield, Michigan. Authorities say a suspect who rammed a vehicle into the synagogue and opened fire was killed after an exchange of gunfire with security, and the incident is being investigated as a targeted act of violence. (Photo by Emily Elconin/Getty Images)
(WEST BLOOMFIELD, Mich.) — The man armed with fireworks who rammed his truck into a West Bloomfield, Michigan, synagogue was carrying out “a Hezbollah-inspired act of terrorism purposely targeting the Jewish community and the largest Jewish temple in Michigan,” the FBI said.
Ayman Mohamad Ghazali was “motivated and inspired by Hezbollah’s militant ideology” for his March 12 attack at Temple Israel, Jennifer Runyan, special agent in charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office, said at a news conference on Monday.
Ghazali — who wanted to kill as many people as possible, Runyan said — died at the scene. Dozens of law enforcement officers were hurt in the incident but nobody inside the synagogue was injured, authorities said.
On March 9, three days before the attack, Ghazali, 41, started looking at web pages for local synagogues, Runyan said.
He tried to buy a gun from two different people. After they said no, he bought an AR-style rifle at a gun store, along with 10 rifle magazines and approximately 300 rounds of ammunition, she said.
Ghazali searched online for phrases including “largest gathering of Israelis in Michigan” and “Israelis near me,” and tried to delete his search history, Runyan said.
He also practiced using his gun at a shooting range and purchased more than $2,200 worth of fireworks, she said.
On March 11, he began adding photos to a Facebook photo album that he called “vengeance,” Runyan said. He posted images that included Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran who was killed in U.S.-Israeli strikes on Feb. 28, she said.
On March 12, the morning of the attack, Ghazali posted numerous photos of his deceased family members to Facebook, and he wrote online, “We will seek retribution for his sacred blood,” according to Runyan.
Ghazali’s two brothers and several other relatives were killed in an Israeli airstrike on March 5, a town official in Mashghara, Lebanon, told ABC News earlier this month.
On March 12, while sitting in the synagogue parking lot, Ghazali sent his sister “19 videos, photos and messages that reiterated his intent to commit a mass terrorist attack, as well as affirming his Hezbollah-inspired ideology,” Runyan said.
Ghazali also exchanged several short phone calls with his ex-wife shortly before the attack, Runyan said. The ex-wife called local police requesting a welfare check, she said.
On the afternoon of March 12, Ghazali plowed his truck into the synagogue and struck a security guard, authorities said. When Ghazali’s truck jammed in a hallway, he opened fire, authorities said, and security guards returned fire.
The synagogue became engulfed in fire. Runyan said Ghazali used approximately 35 gallons of gasoline.
Ghazali died at the scene from a self-inflicted gunshot wound during an exchange of gunfire with security guards, officials said.
Dozens of law enforcement officers were treated for smoke inhalation, authorities said, but nobody inside the synagogue was hurt, including all 140 students at the building’s preschool. The security guard hit by the suspect’s truck was expected to be OK, Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said.
Runyan said she couldn’t say whether Ghazali was inspired by the strikes in Iran but did say he was “engaging in that ideology” before his relatives’ deaths. She said the FBI has not been able to verify if Ghazali — a U.S. citizen with no criminal history — was in Hezbollah.
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Jerome Gorgon said at Monday’s news conference, “Had this man lived, I’m convinced that my office would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he committed the federal crime of providing material support to Hezbollah.”
Ghazali “acted under Hezbollah’s direct and control,” Gorgon said. “Terrorist propaganda is designed to activate the so-called ‘lone wolf’ to act on behalf of the terrorist organization.”
Luis Nico-Moncada is seen in a photo released by Homeland Security, Jan. 9, 2026. (Department of Homeland Security/X)
(PORTLAND, Ore.) — The driver who was one of two people shot by a federal agent during immigration enforcement operations in Portland, Oregon, last week allegedly rammed his truck into an unoccupied U.S. Border Patrol vehicle prior to the shooting, according to a federal complaint unsealed on Monday.
Luis Nino-Moncada is charged with aggravated assault of a federal officer with a deadly or dangerous weapon and depredation of federal property in excess of $1,000, according to the federal complaint.
Border Patrol agents attempted to stop his Red Toyota Tacoma on Thursday while conducting a targeted enforcement operation focusing on his passenger, according to the complaint.
According to the complaint, Nino-Moncada appeared “anxious” and was moving around in the driver’s seat. After agents commanded them to exit, he allegedly put the vehicle in reverse and struck an unoccupied Border Patrol vehicle, causing “significant damage,” according to the complaint.
He then allegedly drove forward and backward multiple times, repeatedly hitting the federal vehicle, according to the complaint, which included several photos of the damaged car.
A Border Patrol agent then fired their service weapon twice at the driver of the truck, according to statements from Border Patrol agents, the complaint said.
Nino-Moncada and the woman fled the scene and agents did not know at the time whether anyone had been hit, according to the complaint.
Border Patrol agents did not pursue the vehicle after it fled, according to the complaint. Nino-Moncada shortly called 911 from an apartment complex several miles from the shooting scene requesting help and Portland Police and medical aid responded, police said.
During an FBI interview, Nino-Moncada allegedly admitted to intentionally ramming the Border Patrol vehicle and acknowledged he knew they were immigration enforcement vehicles, according to the complaint.
According to the complaint, there is no body-worn camera footage of the incident and no surveillance or social media video has been found.
Nino-Moncada and his passenger — identified by DHS as Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras — remained hospitalized in stable condition, police said Friday.
Both allegedly have ties to the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang, according to DHS and Portland police.
DHS alleged that Zambrano-Contreras, a Venezuelan national, is known to be involved with a TdA prostitution ring and was allegedly connected to a July shooting tied to a prostitution deal gone bad.
Nino-Moncada, who was previously ordered removed by a judge in Denver in 2024, allegedly drove the woman during her prostitution activities, according to the complaint.
“According to a newly unsealed complaint, Luis Nino-Moncada — an illegal alien in Portland, Oregon with ties to Tren de Aragua — is alleged to have repeatedly rammed a Border Patrol vehicle, threatening the lives of federal law enforcement officers,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement on X on Monday. “He should NEVER have been in our country to begin with, and we will ensure he NEVER walks free in America again.”
The incident in Portland came a day after an ICE officer shot and killed a woman in her car in Minneapolis, Minnesota, sparking outrage and backlash against the presence of federal agents there. Similarly, the mayor of Portland called for immigration enforcement operations to halt while the investigation is ongoing.
In the Minneapolis case, federal officials alleged the motorists tried to run over an agent, who fired defensive shots.
Tippecanoe Superior Court 2 Judge Steve Meyer. (Tippecanoe County Government)
(LAFAYETTE, Ind.) — An Indiana judge and his wife were injured in a shooting at their home over the weekend, with a search underway for the suspected gunman, officials said.
Tippecanoe County Judge Steven Meyer and his wife, Kimberly Meyer, were shot in their home on Sunday, according to Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush.
Both are in stable condition, police said Monday.
Officers responded to the home in Lafayette around 2:17 p.m. Sunday and found both injured from the shooting, according to the Lafayette Police Department. Judge Meyer had an injury to one of his arms and his wife sustained an injury to her hip, police said.
Shell casings were recovered at the scene, according to police.
The investigation remains ongoing with multiple agencies, including the FBI, involved, police said. No arrests have been announced.
“I want to ensure the community that every available resource is being used to apprehend the individual(s) responsible for this senseless unacceptable act of violence,” Lafayette Mayor Tony Roswarski said in a statement. “I have tremendous confidence in the Lafayette Police Department and I want to thank all of the local, state, and federal agencies who are assisting in this investigation.”
In a statement issued on her and her husband’s behalf, Kimberly Meyer said, “I have great confidence in the Lafayette Police Department’s investigation and want to thank all the agencies involved for their work.”
“We are also incredibly grateful for the outpouring of support from the community; everyone has been so kind and compassionate,” she said. “We would also like to thank the medical personnel who provided care and assistance to us following the incident.”
Meyer is a judge in the Tippecanoe County Superior Court. He was first elected to the position in 2014. He has previously served as a public defender for Tippecanoe County and on the Lafayette City Council.
Tippecanoe County Judges said in a statement on Monday that cases in Meyer’s court “will continue to be heard in a timely manner.”
“There has been an overwhelming outpouring of support from judges throughout the state offering to assist in any way,” the statement said.
Chief Justice Rush urged other judges in Indiana to “remain vigilant in your own security” and to contact their local sheriff, noting in a statement on Sunday that “the shooter is purportedly still at large.”
“I worry about the safety of all our judges,” she said in the statement. “As you work to peacefully resolve more than 1 million cases a year, you must not only feel safe, you must also be safe. Any violence against a judge or a judge’s family is completely unacceptable. As public servants, you are dedicated to the rule of law.”
Signage at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026. Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Environmental Protection Agency is walking back a landmark environmental decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
For more than 16 years, the EPA’s endangerment finding served as the scientific and legal foundation for federal regulations on carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The 2009 decision found that certain greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The regulations that resulted cover everything from vehicle tailpipe emissions to the release of greenhouse gases from power plants and other significant emission sources.
President Donald Trump, joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, is expected to announce the decision on Thursday.
In a statement to ABC News, the EPA said it’s “actively working to deliver a historic action for the American people. Sixteen years ago, the Obama Administration made one of the most damaging decisions in modern history – the 2009 Endangerment Finding. In the intervening years, hardworking families and small businesses have paid the price as a result.”
Some climate scientists and policy experts say the agency’s decision to repeal the finding, even just for cars and trucks, could significantly affect U.S. efforts to address human-amplified climate change. The EPA calculates that the transportation sector is the largest contributor of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the country, with cars and trucks accounting for more 75% of those emissions.
“This is taking away the principal federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. All of the federal regulations under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases depend on the endangerment finding. If it’s wiped out, none of those regulations exist,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Gerrard said the immediate impact of the EPA’s decision will be somewhat muted by the fact that the Trump administration has already revoked most regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.These include greenhouse gas emission limits on passenger vehicles, emission controls on fossil fuel-powered power plants, and controls on methane leakage from oil and gas wells.
“But this action attempts to be the nail in the coffin of all those regulations, at least for the balance of the Trump administration,” Gerrard added.
Saying the decision “amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” the Trump administration estimates the move will save Americans $1.3 trillion, primarily by reducing the cost of cars and trucks. The EPA said consumers will save more than $2,400 on the purchase of a new vehicle.
But Lou Leonard, dean of Clark University’s School of Climate, Environment, and Society, says the repeal could also result in companies facing more financial and legal challenges.
“It’s going to expose, particularly businesses that are very fossil fuel intensive, to legal claims that they might not have otherwise been exposed to,” said Leonard.
“When the EPA vacates the space legally and says we’re not going to regulate, we’re out of this game, then that not only creates room for other state and local governments to do their regulation, but it also creates room for legal claims against companies for not acting on climate, because they can’t say, well, we’re just following the regulations that the federal government has created,” he added.
“The EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding triggered a trillion-dollar regulatory cascade that Congress never authorized,” the conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement to ABC News. “What began as authority to address regional smog and acid rain has been stretched to vehicle emissions, power plants, oil and gas operations, and federal lands – reshaping America’s entire energy economy and ability to harness natural resources through administrative fiat.”
The EPA’s expected repeal of the 2009 finding “restores the principle that decisions of this magnitude require clear congressional authorization, not bureaucratic improvisation,” the statement continued.
A widely anticipated decision
The announcement from the administration was widely anticipated; the Trump administration has made the endangerment finding’s review a priority since the first day of Trump’s second term.
On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy” that required the head of the EPA to work with other agencies to “submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings” regarding the endangerment finding. The order gave them 30 days to respond.
Then, in March, the EPA announced more than two dozen policy recommendations aimed at rolling back environmental protections and eliminating a series of climate change regulations, including plans to “formally reconsider the endangerment finding.”
In a statement at the time, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote, “The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas. We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.”
As part of the March announcement, the agency released a fact sheet about the endangerment finding, describing it as “the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s (and later the Biden-Harris Administration’s) overreaching climate agenda” and stating that it has cost the country trillions of dollars.
The EPA announced its proposal to rescind the endangerment finding in late July 2025, citing recent Supreme Court decisions that limited the regulatory power of executive agencies and arguing that the Obama administration misinterpreted Congress’s intent when it passed the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court case that led to the endangerment finding
The endangerment finding stems from the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the 1970 Clean Air Act because those gases are air pollutants.
That ruling became the legal foundation for many of the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations for vehicles, fossil-fuel power plants, and other sources of pollution responsible for climate change.
Writing for the court at the time, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.”
“Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do,” Stevens added.
In 2009, the head of the EPA made a landmark environmental decision. Lisa P. Jackson, appointed by President Barack Obama to lead the agency, determined that the current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Her decision, based on a nearly 200-page EPA analysis of the science, more than 380,000 public comments and two public hearings, became what is now known as the “endangerment finding.”
Critics of decision say the underlying science is even stronger today
Critics of the administration’s plan to rescind the finding argue that the science linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is even stronger today than when the endangerment finding was established in 2009. They argue that the repeal lacks both a scientific basis and a legal foundation and will exacerbate the harmful impacts of climate change. Some are already promising to fight the decision in court.
“The Trump administration justifies this assault on science and our health by falsely claiming that U.S. climate-heating pollution doesn’t matter and that it lacks the authority to cut it. That’s a lie, and any 6-year-old knows it’s wrong to lie,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, in a statement to ABC News.
“The United States is the second-largest carbon polluter in the world after China, and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. emitted 11% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2021, and during Trump’s first term his administration admitted that emissions in excess of 3% were ‘significant,’” he added.
“EPA’s own settled science shows that managing greenhouse gases is fundamental to protecting Americans. Rolling back these safeguards is a dangerous breach of responsibility to protect people, the environment, and our economy, benefitting polluters at the expense of all people,” said World Resources Institute (WRI) U.S. Director David Widawsky in a statement.
Overwhelming scientific evidence
In the more than 16 years since the EPA issued its 2009 endangerment finding, the science on how greenhouse gases impact human health has become more robust.
In response to the EPA’s request for public input, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a comprehensive independent assessment of the science behind the endangerment finding to help inform the agency’s final decision. They released their report in September, concluding the EPA’s 2009 determination was accurate and is now supported by stronger scientific evidence, with many uncertainties that existed at the time now resolved.
“[T]he evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute,” the report stated.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation on such issues. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Abraham Lincoln.
Similarly, the United Nations concluded that “health and the climate are inextricably linked, and today the health of billions is endangered by the climate crisis.” The U.N. cited severe weather events, toxic air pollution, an increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks, and extreme heat as evidence that human-amplified climate change poses a significant danger to people.
In 2021, 200 leading medical journals issued a joint editorial stating that “the science is unequivocal: a global increase of 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.”
And in 2023, the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report that the federal government describes as providing “authoritative scientific information about climate change risks, impacts, and responses in the U.S.,” found that “climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities.”
“This is another setback in the fight against climate change. We’re already seeing climate change having very negative impacts. It worsens flooding, heat waves, wildfires and other impacts. We’ve seen catastrophes already in the United States for all of these. We will see more,” Gerrard said.
What happens next?
A coalition of state attorneys general, including those from California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, along with environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, has indicated they will challenge the EPA’s decision. They argue the action is unlawful because it ignores the agency’s obligations under the Clean Air Act to regulate pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.
“This action is unlawful, ignores basic science, and denies reality. We know greenhouse gases cause climate change and endanger our communities and our health – and we will not stop fighting to protect the American people from pollution,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, who are also the co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance.
While the courts could overturn the repeal, Gerrard said they could also rule that the EPA needs congressional authorization for significant regulatory actions.
“If the Supreme Court says that, that would tie the hands of another president in reinstating the endangerment finding and in using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. It would not block another president from rejoining the Paris Agreement or doing lots of other things to fight climate change, but it would greatly hurt their ability to use the Clean Air Act,” said Gerrard.
Previous lawsuits challenged the endangerment finding itself, but the courts have consistently rejected those efforts. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the endangerment finding after fossil fuel industry groups challenged the EPA’s use of scientific assessments. The court ruled that the EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence in “a rational manner.” The following year, the Supreme Court declined to hear petitions specifically contesting the finding.
Leonard warns that it will be a “long road” to learn out how the decision plays out.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty, and we’re gonna have even more starting tomorrow or the next day, and that’s not good. It’s not good for the public health of Americans, it’s not good for the welfare of our communities, and it’s not good for the business climate and the economy in America,” said Leonard.
