Bomb-Maker’s Shocking Ties to Terror Attack

FBI website shown through magnifying glass.

Federal agents say a Missouri man’s online bomb-making lessons helped enable a New Orleans terror attack that killed 14 people, raising new questions about how far government power should reach into the digital spaces where Americans speak, teach, and learn.

Story Snapshot

Prosecutors say a Missouri man’s explosives tutorials were used by the New Orleans New Year’s attacker.
Federal investigators claim the bomber watched, downloaded, and copied techniques from those online videos.
The suspect is charged with making explosives without a license, based on what he posted and did offline.
The case exposes a widening struggle over online speech, security, and trust in federal law enforcement.

What Investigators Say Happened In New Orleans And Missouri

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents say New Year’s Day 2025 turned deadly on Bourbon Street when terror suspect Shamsuddin Jabbar used a truck to kill 14 people and injure dozens more, while also planting multiple improvised explosive devices along the crowded New Orleans tourist strip.^[1]^[2] Investigators say several devices failed to detonate and were later rendered safe. Authorities report they also found at least one explosive device inside the truck Jabbar used in the attack, deepening concerns about what could have happened.^[1]

Investigators now claim those devices were built using techniques learned online. Local news reports say the FBI linked the bombs’ design to social media videos posted by 40‑year‑old Missouri resident Jordan Derrick, who allegedly recorded step‑by‑step tutorials for making explosives.^[1]^[2] Prosecutors say the New Orleans attacker watched and downloaded these instruction videos before the attack, and federal authorities allege that Derrick’s tutorials were later used by the man behind the Bourbon Street terror plot, though technical proof has not been publicly released.^[1]^[2]

The Charges Against Jordan Derrick And What The Public Actually Knows

According to broadcast reports, Derrick has been charged federally with one count of engaging in making explosives without a license, along with other unspecified charges tied to his online videos and related conduct.^[1] The FBI says he began sharing bomb‑making videos on social media in 2023, providing detailed, step‑by‑step instruction on how to construct devices similar to those later recovered in New Orleans.^[1] Officials also reportedly connected his tutorials to a separate home explosion in Odessa, Missouri, where a homeowner allegedly admitted learning from Derrick’s content.^[1]

Publicly available information, however, remains thin and heavily filtered through television summaries. The media reports do not include the actual federal complaint, indictment, or search‑warrant affidavits that would spell out exactly which videos were viewed, when they were accessed, or how investigators tied specific instructions to specific components in the recovered devices.^[1]^[2] Coverage highlights that FBI technicians said the New Orleans bombs were “consistent” with techniques seen in Derrick’s videos, but similarity is not the same thing as proof that the attacker directly copied those methods or relied solely on those tutorials.^[1]

Free Speech, Online Tutorials, And The Growing Gray Zone

This case drops straight into a national fault line where both conservatives and liberals worry that Washington elites pick and choose when to crack down on speech. Many conservatives see years of selective censorship of political views while violent or extremist content seems to slip through, then watch government move aggressively only after a tragedy, often in ways that could chill lawful firearms discussion, do‑it‑yourself culture, or technical education online. Many liberals, meanwhile, are alarmed by the ease with which lone actors can learn deadly skills from public platforms.^[1]^[2]

Those cross‑pressures make the Derrick case especially sensitive. If prosecutors can prove that highly detailed, operational bomb‑making instructions directly enabled a mass‑casualty attack, many Americans will see a clear line crossed from abstract discussion into actionable facilitation of terrorism. If, on the other hand, the government leans mostly on vague claims that devices were merely “linked” or “consistent” with online content, without sharing solid forensic evidence, then distrust of the Department of Justice and the FBI will deepen among citizens who already believe a distant “deep state” bends the rules whenever it suits political or bureaucratic interests.^[1]^[2]

Why Transparency And Guardrails Matter Across The Political Spectrum

Reports on the Derrick investigation highlight a pattern that frustrates people on both the right and the left: sweeping claims by federal authorities, sparse public evidence, and sealed documents that prevent independent verification.^[1]^[2] In terrorism cases especially, prosecutors often argue that releasing details would compromise ongoing investigations. That argument may be valid at times, but when it becomes the default response, the government effectively asks a skeptical public to “just trust us” at the very moment trust is running on fumes.

Missouri man arrested after New Orleans terrorist allegedly used his bomb-making tutorials to carry out NYE attack Jordan Derrick, 40, is accused of filming and posting a slew of videos on social media that show him making explosive materials. https://t.co/jOmlYEvSWg pic.twitter.com/UMKLgYlfvZ

— UnfilteredAmerica (@NahBabyNahNah) May 13, 2026

Americans who still believe in the country’s founding ideals want something better than secret files and headline‑level accusations. They want clear rules distinguishing protected speech from criminal instruction, consistent enforcement regardless of politics or ideology, and enough transparency to test whether the government’s story holds up. The Derrick case, like so many others in this digital age, shows how far the federal security apparatus has drifted from that standard, and why citizens across the spectrum are right to insist on stronger oversight and sunlight.^[1]^[2]