Family of Boulder firebombing suspect taken into federal custody, visas revoked: sources
The family of a Boulder, Colorado, firebombing suspect is in federal custody and their visas have been revoked, sources confirm to Fox News.
According to senior sources within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the wife and five children of 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman were taken into custody.
A senior State Department official confirmed to Fox News that all visas for the Soliman family have been revoked. In a statement provided by the senior official, the department emphasized its commitment to national security, saying, "The Secretary did exactly what he said he would — support the administration's objective of getting terrorists and their family members out of America."
The family is being processed for expedited removal, sources said.
In a statement on X Tuesday afternoon, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said her agency is investigating his family to identify "to what extent" they knew about the alleged attack.
"Mohamed's despicable actions will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but we're also investigating to what extent his family knew about this horrific attack," Noem said in the X post. "If they had any knowledge of it or if they provided any support to it."
Soliman is an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa after entering the U.S. during the Biden administration, three DHS and ICE sources told Fox News.
Soliman first arrived in the U.S. after landing at Los Angeles International Airport Aug. 27, 2022, with a non-immigrant visa.
He was authorized to stay through Feb. 2, 2023, but never left. On Sept. 9, 2022, he filed a claim with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
On March 29, 2023, Soliman was granted work authorization, which was valid through March of this year.
Victims and witnesses observed Soliman throw what appeared to be a glass bottle, which burst upon impact, creating large flames, toward a crowd of peaceful pro-Israel demonstrators in Boulder Sunday, authorities said.
Twelve people were injured in the attack. None of the victims have died.
Now facing a litany of charges, including multiple counts of attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault and possession of incendiary devices, Soliman is being held on $10 million bond.
Judicial District Attorney Michael Dougherty outlined the severe potential penalties Soliman faces if convicted on all charges related to the alleged June 1 attack. He faces 16 counts of attempted first-degree murder – eight for attempted murder with intent and deliberation and eight for attempted murder with extreme indifference.
If he's convicted and sentences are ordered to run consecutively, he could face a maximum of 384 years in state prison for those charges alone. In addition, Soliman is charged with two counts of use of an incendiary device, which could add up to 48 years if served consecutively.
He also faces 16 counts of attempted use of an incendiary device, carrying a potential additional 192 years. In total, the maximum possible sentence could reach 624 years if all convictions are handed down and run consecutively.
Along with charges at the state level, he has also been federally charged with a hate crime involving actual or perceived race, religion or national origin.
His next court appearance is scheduled for Thursday, June 5, at 3:30 p.m. MT.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education
I've been a faculty member at the University of Chicago for 27 years; for 12 of them, I was married to the university's late president, Robert J. Zimmer. Bob was well known for his endorsement of the 'Chicago Principles' addressing academic free speech, which were formulated by a faculty committee he appointed in 2014. Now, in 2025, at a time when opposing ideological forces threaten to rip higher education apart altogether, it's clearer than ever we need to observe these principles if we are to maintain our universities as places for inquiry and learning rather than the nurturing of ideologies. First of all, let's be clear. Academic free speech and public free speech are not the same, and the Chicago Principles refer to the former, repeating a view of speech on campus with roots deep in the university's history. 'There is not an institution of learning in the country in which freedom of teaching is more absolutely untrammeled than in the University of Chicago,' remarked university President William Rainey Harper in 1902. Thirty years later, at a time of tension over a communist speaker on campus, President Robert M. Hutchins wrote that students 'should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.' Today, when being either for or against the position of our national government comes with undue risk and when free speech seems to many to be an insoluble problem, these principles — what they allow and what they do not — offer us simple guidelines as the American university faces two crises, both political in nature. The first crisis is one of free speech — and free thought — under attack. Faculty across the country face constraints on the ability to express a liberal opinion on any controversial matter, especially if related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or other 'woke' topics. One of my friends from another university worries that despite her U.S. passport (she's originally Japanese) the ICE men will kidnap her off the street because her work is in gender, disability and health. She doesn't expect her administration to step in if she's detained — too many college administrations are primarily worried about losing additional government funding. My friend is not being paranoid, and that's pretty terrifying in a country known for tolerance and freedom. Professors and students have been shut down or removed (or have fled the U.S.) for their views. Just think of Rümeysa Öztürk, whose great crime appears to have been co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed for her school newspaper while on a valid F-1 visa. Never mind the Chicago Principles, ICE's overreach in her case violates the First Amendment: The government shall not interfere with freedom of expression. Öztürk was not disruptive or violent. She simply published a point of view. Are we willing to let go of this democratic cornerstone that enables public discourse and government accountability? Don't we want to push back even a little? The second crisis is arguably one of pushing free speech too far. Some students and faculty on campuses around the country seem to be confusing vandalism and disruption with the function of learning. Is using a bullhorn an example of academic free speech? If you thereby chill the main function of a university, offering an education, by disrupting classes and students, the Chicago Principles would say it's not. Nor is taking over a campus quad, vandalizing university property, throwing paint or harassing people you disagree with. Free speech on campus is enabled by certain limits of time, place and manner that keep it manageable for all. The university 'may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment … or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.' Without such limits a university will have difficulty following its calling. If the future of the university itself is now at stake, as so many seem to agree, it would be a good time to reinstate our commitment to these principles. University presidents need not have to decide whether or not to call in the police if tent cities spring up on campus and administrative buildings are taken over. It should never get to that stage in the first place. ____ Shadi Bartsch is a professor in humanities at the University of Chicago and former director of the Institute on the Formation of Knowledge. _____
Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Travel Ban Could Dampen Relations, African Union Warns
US President Donald Trump's travel ban on seven African nations could dampen economic and diplomatic ties, a continental bloc warned. Trump on Thursday signed a proclamation that restricts travel by foreign nationals from 12 countries, including Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia and Sudan, citing the need to counter the threat of terrorist attacks and safeguard the public.
Bloomberg
16 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Russia Pessimistic About New US Nuclear Pact as Treaty Nears End
Russia thinks chances are fading for agreeing on a new pact to replace the last nuclear arms control treaty with the US, which expires early next year, a top arms control official said. The main obstacle to any agreement is the state of US-Russian ties, which are 'in ruins,' said Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov in an interview published with the state-run Tass news service on Friday.
