Hubbry Logo
Bomb threatBomb threatMain
Open search
Bomb threat
Community hub
Bomb threat
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Bomb threat
Bomb threat
Bomb threat
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A bomb threat or bomb scare is a threat, usually verbal or written, to detonate an explosive or incendiary device to cause property damage, death, injuries, and/or incite fear,[1][2] whether or not such a device actually exists.

History

[edit]

Bomb threats were used to incite fear and violence during the American Civil Rights Movement, during which leader of the movement Martin Luther King Jr. received multiple bomb threats during public addresses,[3][4][5] and schools forced to integrate faced strong opposition, resulting in 43 bomb threats against Central High School in Arkansas being broadcast on TV and the radio.[6]

Motivations

[edit]

Supposed motives for bomb threats include: "humor, self assertion, anger, manipulation, aggression, hate and devaluation, omnipotence, fantasy, and psychotic distortion,[7] ideology, retaliation," and creating chaos.[8][9][10] Many of the motives based on personal emotion are speculative.[11] Bomb threats that aren’t intended to be pranks are often made as parts of other crimes, such as extortion, arson, or aircraft hijacking.[12] Actual bombings for malicious destruction of property, terrorism, or murder are often perpetrated without warning.[13][14]

Ideological

[edit]

Bomb threats may be motivated by political, religious, and ideological differences. These include political issues, abortion, animal testing, eco-terrorism, and use of nuclear power. The aim of these threats is to draw attention to certain causes or incite fear and unrest among those who support said causes.[15][13][16][17] Some threats are racially motivated,[18] while others are made against houses of worship or research and medical facilities.[19][20][21]

Extortion

[edit]

Bomb threats made as part of extortion schemes demand some form of bribe, payment, or incentive to prevent the use of a bomb. The payment can be made in the form of cash, Bitcoin,[22][23] or forcing the victim to adhere to demands.[24][25]

Hoax device

[edit]

A hoax device has the appearance of a destructive device or biological weapon, and is intended to cause a reasonable person to assume the item was a truly destructive device capable of causing injury or death.[26] Because of the potential for loss of life, injury, and property damage of a bomb detonation, bomb threats are treated as realistic and maliciously intended by authorities until proven otherwise.[27] Bomb threats made as jokes or pranks, especially those made against schools, annually waste thousands of dollars in law enforcement costs, other government resources, and educational time.[27][11] These threats may be made as distractions or disruptions, forcing school officials to cancel or postpone planned activities such as exams.[28][29]

False flag

[edit]

False flag bomb threats are made to create the appearance of a specific group or person being responsible for an activity to disguise the true perpetrators.[30][31]

Political

[edit]

Bomb threats can be part of politically motivated operations. For example: It was reportedly used as a pretext by the Belarusian government to divert Ryanair Flight 4978 to Minsk to arrest Raman Pratasevich, an oppositional figure. As a result the nation was accused of committing state terrorism.[32][33]

Targets

[edit]

Schools and universities

[edit]

Bomb threats are often made toward educational institutions. They are typically by students who are overwhelmed by academic pressure,[34][35][36][37] are resentful of the school, and/or are acting on violent impulses. Their frustration may be aimed at specific groups or individuals that are part of the school’s community.[38][39][40] During 1999— which was the most recent year with publicly published data as of 2005— roughly 5% of bomb threats made in the United States targeted schools. Over a decade later bomb threats against schools saw a 33% increase of while threats against residences decreased by 35% between 2014 and 2016. [41] Perpetrators of bomb threats are usually immediately expelled or fired from the school. [citation needed]

On December 16, 2013 at approximately 8:30 a.m. the final exams at Harvard University were disrupted by several anonymous emails threatening plant shrapnel bombs at various locations on the campus.[citation needed] The FBI charged Eldo Kim, a sophomore at Harvard, for the false bomb threats on the following day.[42]

Kim agreed to take responsibility for his attempt to cancel the fall 2013 final exams on November 19th, 2014. Following his legal agreement, he agreed to publish his confession in The Harvard Crimson on November 25th, pay restitution to law enforcement agencies, complete a rehabilitative "diversionary program", remain under house arrest for four months, and perform 750 hours of community service.[43][44]

Public figures

[edit]

Bomb threats against political figures such as the President of the United States, occur regularly and are illegal under the United States Code Title 18, Section 871 law.[45]

The British royal family, specifically Queen Elizabeth, has faced bomb threats based on blame for the actions of the British government.[46] Celebrities may also be the victims of bomb threats, especially those who have expressed political views,[47] or those who are leaders of political causes.[3][4][5] Author Salman Rushdie and his publisher faced multiple bomb threats from Islamic fundamentalist groups because of his controversial book The Satanic Verses, which was interpreted by these groups as opposing Muslim ideology.[48]

Government and public infrastructure

[edit]
Evacuation of the Paris Expo Porte de Versailles during the 2008 Salon du livre de Paris, after a bomb threat

Many buildings are the recipients of bomb threats, including transportation hubs such as airports and train stations,[49][50][51][52] power plants, medical facilities,[53] and government buildings[54] such as the Pentagon,[55] US embassies[56] and the Casa Rosada.[57] Among these, airports, city halls, and courthouses are most likely to experience repeated bomb threats.[14] Among bomb threats related to transportation, threats and false information knowingly provided about bombs on airplanes have the most severe response.[58][59]

Private institutions and businesses

[edit]

Private institutions and businesses, including as banks, department stores, malls, casinos, restaurants, manufacturing plants,[60] and truck stops, have been the recipients of bomb threats for various reasons.[61][62][63][52][64][65][66] Some bomb threats are made because of ideological differences or opposition to the mission or perceived mission of the institution, such as those made against Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics,[67][68][69] news organizations such as CNN,[55] or nuclear facilities.[15] From 1983 to 1992, the World Trade Center experienced roughly 350 bomb threats and scares for various reasons.[70]

Some threats are motivated by money, involving an offender demanding a payoff from a bank or department store over a public phone.[61] Other reasons for attacking a restaurant or shopping center include revenge or vandalism, the primary motives found in a study analyzing 69 Finnish offenders.[62]

Methods

[edit]

A majority of bomb threats are perpetrated by middle-aged men who make these threats via a telephone call.[61][62][71][72][60] Different types of offenders tend to call the target directly on a public phone to demand money, call directly on a personal line because of resentment, or call emergency service lines and make threats for personal entertainment.[61]

Bomb threats may also be made by text message, as in the case of a March 2004 message to a private operator sending a warning of bombs in five Washington, D.C. schools,[27] and February 2014 messages to school employees of Ateneo de Manila University.[73]

Bomb threats may be made in letters or notes,[38][74][39] delivered either personally or through the mail system. Packages intended to mimic or represent bombs, including backpacks, luggage, bags, or attache cases,[70] even if they may not have the capability of exploding because of poor construction or intentional choices, are still treated as potential explosives, as in the case of 13 devices mailed to various politicians and opponents of Donald Trump.[75][76]

Electronic bomb threats may be made over websites,[11] email,[40] or social media,[38][77] as in the case of the emailed wave of 2018 Bitcoin bomb threats in the United States and Canada.[78][79][67] A series of mail bombs sent to celebrities based on their political ideologies was found to have been preceded by threats on Twitter.[80]

They can also be made face-to-face.[11]

Indirect threats

[edit]

Many activities treated as bomb threats do not explicitly state an intent to set off an explosive; nevertheless, they convey through context or action that a threat is being made. Some actions may indicate an intent to bomb, such as parking a truck outside an abortion clinic, after a similar bombing made by the same vehicle.[81] In other scenarios, a message mentioning bombs may be interpreted as a threat based on context, such as an email to a school principal reading "bomb,"[40] a statement that a bomb exists in a specific location,[38][60][39] the expression of a desire to build a bomb,[82] a description of a bomb that was placed,[77] or other communications.[54]

Credibility and response

[edit]

Most bomb threats are false alarms which do not involve actual explosives, only the incitement of fear.[13][14] There are more bomb threats than incidents, with only 14 of 1,055 school incidents recorded from 1990 to 2002 being preceded by threats.[11] According to the Hunter-Howler threat dynamic, the group of people who make bomb threats is largely separate from those who attempt a real bombing, which typically occurs without warning.[13]

Standard procedure is usually to take all threats seriously because civilians are usually threatened by them if valid as well as the community,[83] and arrests may be made even for bomb threats made falsely as in most jurisdictions even hoaxes are a crime.[8] Signs that a threat is legitimate include an out-of-place object found, a motive or specific targets being stated, and multiple calls or specific threats being made.[84][11]

Police and bomb disposal professionals are typically alerted to respond to bomb threat incidents to assess and mitigate potential harm. Schools and government organizations offer instructions and sometimes training for both bomb prevention planning and response to assist those facing bomb threats.[85][86] Organizations involved in responding to a bomb threat may also include anti-terrorism government agencies, fire departments, and other emergency services.[27]

The decision to evacuate an area or building, depending on the perceived reliability of the threat, may be made by local controlling authorities or those in charge of the targeted facility based on advice from bomb disposal experts.[76][87][88] When a large facility is involved, it can be very difficult and time-consuming to ensure the absence of any bomb or other hazardous device or substance. A search is conducted for out-of-place packages that have features such as unusual shapes, sounds, smells, leakage, or electrical components. Bomb-sniffing dogs may be used as part of this search.[13][89][90][38] Forensic evidence and law enforcement searches are then used to attempt to locate the perpetrator.

Law

[edit]

While the terms "bomb threat" and "bomb scare" are often used interchangeably, a bomb threat in the legal context is typically in the form of a statement, or some "communicated intent to inflict harm,"[8][91][92] whereas a "bomb scare" refers to situations of imminent risk, such as the discovery of a suspicious bag.[2] These are both distinct from false statements knowingly made about bombs, which are sometimes also criminalized.[8]

Some statutory definitions include the threatened use, release or placement of other harmful agents, such as poisons, biological pathogens, radioactive materials, or even a dangerous weapon (e.g., aboard an airliner). Other statutes enhance the penalties for threats made against specific places or persons (e.g. government facilities or dignitaries), and the actual possession of harmful devices or agents. Prosecution of making a bomb threat hinges only on the victim's reasonable belief of the threat's veracity rather than the actual existence of a dangerous device.[93]

United States

[edit]

A total of 1536 bomb threat incidents took place in the US in 2016, 254 of which were made against businesses and 186 of which were made to residences.[41] Criminal statutes typically dictate severe penalties. For example, in the United States, Massachusetts provides for penalties of up to 20 years in prison, up to $50,000 fine, and restitution for the costs of the disruption.[94] New York law makes it a "Class E Felony ... to issue a false bomb threat directed toward a school in New York State."[95] Even a false bomb threat has a maximum fine of $5,000 and up to 5 years in prison.[96] In Orange County in North Carolina, a person may face "a felony charge, a 365-day suspension, revocation of his or her driver’s license, and a civil lawsuit of up to $25,000."[27]

The current federal law regarding bomb threats applies to a person who "threatens by any means the placement or setting of a weapon of mass destruction."[77] Although there is some contention as to whether the law is overly broad, some current statutes making bomb threats illegal do not define a "threat," as a "true threat", meaning that the intent to use an actual bomb,[97] the existence of a target,[92] or the ability to convince the recipient that a bomb exists,[98] is not relevant.[99] This is because verbal acts which inherently cause panic are not protected under Freedom of speech.[97] However, other sentencing guidelines apply only to "defendants whose conduct evidenced an intent to carry out the threat"[100]

Society

[edit]

Bomb threats are likely influenced by the power of suggestion and mass media, with threats likely to be made against targets with recent media coverage. Analysis suggests bomb threats against nuclear energy facilities tend to follow greater publicity of nuclear power problems.[15] In the 6 months after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, there were a reported 5,000 bomb threats made against schools, with hundreds more made every year.[27] Before 1999, there were roughly 1 to 2 threats a year, but by May 1999 a Gallup poll showed one fifth of teenage students experiencing a bomb threat evacuation.[101] Because of copycat trends, some schools are moving toward policies of immediate criminal action against students caught making such threats, regardless of motivation.[27] In addition, the FBI has created a campaign, namely “#ThinkBeforeYouPost”, and warns students not to post or send any threats against a school online.[102]

Notable incidents

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Bomb threat

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A bomb threat is any communication, whether verbal, written, or electronic, that indicates the presence of or intent to detonate an , typically aimed at instilling , prompting evacuations, or coercing compliance with demands. Such threats are investigated as credible until proven otherwise, given the potential for real harm, though the majority prove to be hoaxes intended to disrupt operations in schools, businesses, transportation hubs, or public events. In the United States, official data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the document thousands of reported incidents annually, contributing to significant resource diversion, economic losses from shutdowns, and psychological strain on affected populations. Law enforcement response protocols emphasize rapid assessment of threat credibility—factoring in specificity of details, caller's demeanor, and contextual —followed by coordinated actions such as controlled evacuations, searches by bomb squads, and forensic tracing of communication origins to identify perpetrators. Legally, conveying false bomb threats constitutes a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. § 35, punishable by up to five years and fines, with enhanced penalties if the act endangers lives or involves malicious intent, reflecting the causal chain from to potential tragedy even absent an actual device. These incidents underscore vulnerabilities in modern communication networks, where facilitates threats but also enables traceability through , prioritizing empirical threat evaluation over assumptions of benign intent.

Definition and Characteristics

A bomb threat is defined as any communication—typically verbal, written, or electronic—indicating the presence of an or or the intent to detonate one, aimed at causing , disruption, , , or . This encompasses threats that may be genuine warnings of an actual device or hoaxes intended to simulate such a , with the core element being the conveyance of that prompts a response as if a real danger exists. Unlike physical bombings, bomb threats rely on psychological impact and do not require of explosives at the time of communication. Legally, in the United States, bomb threats are criminalized under federal statutes primarily addressing the willful dissemination of false or misleading information about potential destructive acts. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1038, any conduct intended to convey false information regarding threats of mass destruction, damage, or injury—where such information could reasonably be believed and triggers a response—constitutes a felony, punishable by fines, up to five years imprisonment if no substantial response costs are incurred, or longer terms (up to eight years or life) if death results or significant harm occurs. This statute applies even to hoaxes without an actual device, emphasizing the intent and foreseeable belief in the threat's credibility. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 875 prohibits transmitting interstate communications containing threats to injure persons or property, which courts have interpreted to include bomb threats via phone, mail, or digital means, with penalties up to 20 years if involving kidnapping or severe harm threats. State laws supplement federal provisions, often classifying bomb threats as misdemeanors or felonies based on context, such as targeting schools or public facilities; for instance, Pennsylvania's 18 Pa.C.S. § 2715 treats threats to use weapons of mass destruction, including bombs, as felonies with up to seven years imprisonment. The Federal Bureau of Investigation treats hoax bomb threats as serious crimes, noting they divert resources and can result in federal prosecution regardless of intent to follow through. Prosecutions hinge on elements like willfulness, malice, and the threat's potential to induce action, with evidentiary burdens met through call records, IP traces, or witness accounts rather than device recovery.

Distinction from Actual Bombings and Hoaxes

A bomb threat constitutes a communicated assertion—typically verbal, written, or digital—claiming the presence of an or an imminent , prompting immediate security responses such as evacuations and searches. This differs fundamentally from an actual bombing, which involves the physical deployment and of an , resulting in tangible destruction, injuries, or fatalities. While some bomb threats precede discoveries of viable devices or culminate in explosions, the threat itself is a preparatory or standalone communicative act, not the explosive event; for instance, Bomb Data Center reports from 2017 and 2019 separately categorize bomb threats from confirmed explosions and bombings, highlighting that threats rarely escalate to . Hoaxes represent a prevalent subset of bomb threats characterized by deliberate falsity, where the perpetrator has no actual explosive device or intent to detonate one, seeking instead to provoke resource-intensive responses like bomb squad deployments without risking physical harm. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 35 criminalizes such "imparting or conveying false information" regarding bombs as felonies, underscoring their distinction as deceptive disruptions rather than credible warnings. Empirical data from explosives incident tracking indicate that hoaxes and bomb threats vastly outnumber actual bombings; for example, annual reports document thousands of threats and hoax incidents against hundreds of explosions, with most threats resolving as unfounded after investigation. The operational distinction lies in response protocols: all bomb threats, whether hoax or potentially genuine, mandate treating them as credible to mitigate rare but catastrophic risks, as evidenced by guidance emphasizing comprehensive searches despite high hoax prevalence. Actual bombings, by contrast, shift focus to post-incident forensics and casualty management, while hoaxes often reveal perpetrator motives like pranks or swatting through traced communications, enabling prosecution without device recovery. This separation ensures threats are not conflated with executed violence, though credible threats may signal intent for bombing, as rare cases link unresolved threats to subsequent attacks.

Historical Development

Early Instances and Pre-Modern Examples

One of the earliest recorded instances resembling a bomb threat occurred during the of 1605 in , where a group of Catholic conspirators, led by , amassed approximately 36 barrels of —equivalent to about 2.5 tons—beneath the with the intent to assassinate King James I and members of during the State Opening on November 5. An anonymous letter delivered to , on October 26 warned cryptically of an impending "terrible blow" that would affect without revealing the perpetrator, prompting investigation that uncovered the plot and led to the arrest of and others. This communication, while intended as a selective warning rather than public intimidation, functioned as an early form of conveyed intent to deploy explosives against a concentrated political target, averting mass casualties. In the , precursors to mailed explosive threats emerged, blending mechanical traps with . The Bandbox Plot of November 4, 1712, targeted Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, Britain's Lord Treasurer, via a bandbox—a hatbox—rigged with cocked pistols primed to fire upon opening, using charges connected by threads to the lid; disarmed it by severing a thread, preventing detonation, and the scheme was attributed to Whig opponents seeking to exploit political rivalries. Similarly, in 1764 , the first documented parcel bomb was hand-delivered, incorporating a -loaded firelock mechanism triggered by opening, with anti-tamper features to ensure , marking an in concealed delivery as a means of targeted rather than overt public threats. These cases highlight early uses of postal or personal conveyance to imply harm, though they involved actual devices rather than mere verbal or written warnings. The advent of nitroglycerin and in the mid-19th century, patented by in 1867, enabled more portable and powerful explosives, facilitating threats beyond state or military contexts. Felice Orsini's January 14, 1858, attempt to assassinate in using three hand-thrown bombs filled with nitroglycerin killed eight and injured 142, inspiring widespread fear and copycat designs known as "Orsini bombs"—percussion-triggered shrapnel devices—that influenced anarchist tactics and heightened perceptions of explosive threats in . By the 1880s, Irish-American Fenians escalated this with the "Dynamite Campaign" against British targets, including the May 5, 1881, bombing of Chester Barracks using dynamite, as part of broader efforts to coerce political concessions for Irish independence through terror; while many attacks lacked prior warnings, the campaign's pattern instilled anticipatory dread, functioning as implicit threats of further bombings. These late pre-modern examples transitioned toward modern bomb threats by leveraging industrial explosives for disruption and coercion, though explicit hoax communications remained rare before .

20th Century Evolution

The proliferation of bomb threats in the paralleled advancements in communication technology and escalating social and political tensions, shifting from sporadic written warnings to frequent anonymous telephone calls. In the early decades, threats were often conveyed via mail during periods of anarchist activity, as seen in the 1919 wave of 36 attempted mail bombings targeting prominent figures, which included implicit or explicit warnings of explosive devices. The widespread adoption of telephones from the onward enabled greater anonymity, allowing perpetrators to issue verbal threats without traceable evidence, a method that became dominant for hoaxes by the mid-century. During the of the 1950s and 1960s, bomb threats emerged as a tool of racial intimidation against Black institutions and activists. Churches serving as key meeting places, such as Birmingham's Baptist Street Church, faced repeated telephone bomb threats prior to actual bombings, reflecting a pattern of psychological terror to disrupt organizing efforts. Similarly, the in Birmingham endured ongoing bomb threats from groups like the before the 1963 dynamite attack that killed four girls, underscoring how threats served as precursors to violence amid resistance to school integration and voting rights campaigns. These incidents, often unprosecuted due to local biases, highlighted the role of threats in suppressing minority advancement without requiring explosive deployment. By the , bomb threats surged in frequency against targets amid a wave of hijackings and emerging terrorist tactics, prompting federal responses like enhanced screening protocols. In alone, U.S. airports recorded numerous incidents delivered via or written notes, with threats targeting flights to cause delays and evacuations rather than destruction. This era saw thousands of annual threats to commercial aircraft, correlating with over 300 hijackings worldwide between 1968 and 1972, many involving bomb claims to coerce demands. Concurrently, hoax threats to schools proliferated as pranks by students seeking disruption, with studies indicating up to 90% of such calls false by the late century, though they necessitated full evacuations and strained resources. This evolution culminated in formalized threat assessment guidelines by century's end, recognizing most as non-credible yet disruptive, driven by ease of anonymous delivery over evolving infrastructures like airlines and educational facilities. In the 21st century, bomb threats have surged in frequency and evolved in delivery methods, primarily due to the widespread adoption of digital communication technologies that enable anonymity and rapid dissemination. Data from the United States Bomb Data Center (USBDC) indicate a marked rise, with 3,203 bomb threat incidents reported in 2023, representing a 26% increase from 2022. This trend builds on earlier patterns, such as an uptick noted since 2015, particularly targeting educational institutions and minority-serving organizations. Most incidents remain hoaxes, yet they impose substantial costs through evacuations, investigations, and resource diversion, with schools receiving the highest volume of threats among all sectors. Educational facilities have been especially affected, reflecting broader societal anxieties amplified by media coverage of shootings and accessible platforms for propagation. The FBI reported approximately 6,000 school-related threats in , a 60% increase from 2021, often conveyed via posts, text messages, or anonymous apps. Higher education saw bomb threats against campuses multiply more than fivefold in compared to 2021, rising from 64 incidents. These threats frequently originate from juveniles seeking disruption or attention, but international actors have also exploited digital channels, as seen in coordinated campaigns against U.S. polling locations during the 2024 elections, where many threats traced to Russian domains. The integration of cyber elements has transformed threats into a hybrid tool for and disruption, often at minimal cost to perpetrators. Mass cyber hoaxes, involving floods of automated emails or online posts claiming explosives in public spaces, emerged prominently in the during autumn 2023, prompting widespread evacuations and tying into broader geopolitical tensions with . Such tactics leverage spoofed domains, VPNs, and bots for attribution evasion, allowing state or non-state actors to generate chaos without physical risk, as evidenced by similar patterns in U.S. incidents reported to CISA's system. This shift underscores a causal link between digital infrastructure proliferation and threat scalability, where traditional verbal or written methods have been supplanted by scalable online vectors, complicating tracing and response protocols.

Motivations and Perpetrator Profiles

Personal and Psychological Drivers

Perpetrators of bomb threats, particularly hoaxes, frequently exhibit motivations rooted in personal grievances or a quest for immediate psychological gratification, such as or disruption without the risks of actual . Analyses of school-related incidents, which constitute a significant portion of reported threats, indicate that offenders—predominantly students—often seek to assert control over their environment or evade obligations like examinations by triggering evacuations and closures. For instance, empirical reviews of threat patterns describe motives including humor, self-assertion, , and manipulation, where the act provides a sense of or retaliation against perceived authority figures without requiring follow-through. Psychological profiles lack a singular archetype, as no comprehensive criminological studies definitively link specific disorders to hoax threats, but recurring patterns emerge from assessments. Many perpetrators display or poor emotional regulation, driven by underlying frustrations or a desire to provoke for personal amusement or validation, distinguishing them from actual bombers who prioritize stealth over announcement. factors, including untreated conditions like or substance influence, contribute in cases involving delusional threats or erratic behavior, often amplifying a perceived power disparity where the individual feels marginalized and uses the threat to reclaim agency. Retaliatory impulses frequently stem from interpersonal conflicts, such as disciplinary actions or , leading to threats as a maladaptive expression of . U.S. Secret Service analyses of targeted , encompassing threat-making behaviors, reveal that 75% of cases involved premeditated planning tied to accumulated grievances, with offenders confiding in peers rather than adults, underscoring isolation or distorted social dynamics as amplifiers. While ideological elements can intersect, purely personal drivers dominate non-political hoaxes, reflecting causal chains of unmet needs for recognition or rather than organized intent.

Ideological and Political Motivations

Bomb threats have been employed by ideological extremists to intimidate political adversaries, disrupt government functions, and amplify grievances without the logistical risks of actual explosives. According to the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism, such threats involve the unlawful use or threat of force or violence to coerce or intimidate civilians or influence government policy by ideological means. Perpetrators often target symbols of authority, such as polling stations or legislative buildings, to erode public confidence and advance agendas ranging from anti-government rebellion to partisan obstruction. Data from the University of Maryland's START Center indicates that between 1970 and 2016, ideological motivations drove thousands of terrorist incidents in the U.S., including threats, with right-wing extremism—defined as violence defending a perceived threatened way of life—accounting for a plurality of attacks in later decades, though left-wing and single-issue extremism also featured prominently. Left-wing groups have historically used bomb threats as asymmetric tactics in broader campaigns against or . The , a radical faction splintered from , issued threats alongside bombings in the 1970s to protest U.S. involvement in and domestic policies, aiming to provoke revolutionary upheaval; by the mid-1980s, the group had largely disbanded amid internal fractures and FBI pursuits. Similarly, animal rights and environmental radicals affiliated with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and (ELF) have issued threats to coerce corporate or governmental policy shifts, such as halting construction projects deemed ecologically harmful; the FBI classified these as due to their intent to intimidate through fear of violence. Right-wing and anti-government extremists frequently issue bomb threats to counter perceived encroachments on or . movements and sovereign citizen adherents have targeted federal buildings, as seen in threats during standoffs like the 2014 Bundy ranch dispute escalation, where anonymous calls aimed to deter . The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reports a rise in such incidents post-2016, correlating with partisan polarization, including threats against election infrastructure; for instance, over 100 bomb threats to polling locations on November 5, 2024, originated from Russian domains but echoed domestic anti-government by seeking to suppress . Religious and ethno-nationalist ideologies also motivate threats, often intersecting with political aims. Jihadist-inspired actors have issued threats against Western symbols, as outlined in DHS assessments, to instill terror and compel policy retreats from foreign interventions. Domestically, antisemitic threats to synagogues spiked in 2022-2023, with over 100 incidents linked to ideological hatred rather than personal grudges, per FBI tracking. Single-issue campaigns, such as those by anti-abortion militants, have resulted in threats; the Army of God network claimed responsibility for 1990s-2000s actions, including threats to coerce legislative bans on procedures. These cases underscore how threats serve as low-barrier tools for ideological signaling, though empirical from CSIS shows actual remains rare compared to threats' disruptive impact.

Economic and Extortion-Based Motives

Bomb threats motivated by economic gain or seek to compel victims—typically businesses, institutions, or individuals—to pay ransoms or provide other valuables in exchange for assurances that no will be detonated or further disruption caused. These incidents exploit the substantial operational costs of evacuations, investigations, and heightened measures, which can exceed hundreds of thousands of dollars per event, thereby amplifying pressure on targets to comply swiftly.<grok:render type="render_inline_citation"> 5 </grok:render> Perpetrators often select high-profile commercial or infrastructural targets where financial vulnerability is presumed, using anonymous delivery methods to demand untraceable payments such as cash, wire transfers, or .<grok:render type="render_inline_citation"> 5 </grok:render> While less prevalent than psychological or ideological drivers, extortion-based threats have persisted across decades, frequently involving lone actors facing personal financial distress rather than syndicates.<grok:render type="render_inline_citation"> 5 </grok:render> The 1980 Harvey's Resort Hotel incident in , exemplifies classic via a functional . On August 26, John Birges Sr., a Hungarian immigrant whose restaurant business had collapsed amid debts, directed accomplices to wheel a 1,000-pound —disguised as an copier—into the casino's executive boardroom. Accompanying notes demanded $3 million for disarmament instructions, with threats of remote detonation if mishandled; Birges's motive stemmed directly from needing funds to rescue his failing enterprises, as he had previously lost heavily at the casino itself. The device, equipped with anti-tampering mechanisms including liquid mercury switches and drilling-blocked access plates, evaded safe removal, leading authorities to detonate it remotely on August 27, destroying part of the building but causing no fatalities; Birges was convicted in 1981 and sentenced to .<grok:render type="render_inline_citation"> 20 </grok:render> In a 2012 case targeting retail infrastructure, Robert G. MacLean of , planted a viable containing black powder and nails at a Long Island Home Depot store on October 13, then issued threats via phone and notes to detonate additional devices at other locations unless paid $2 million. MacLean's scheme aimed to exploit the chain's vast operations for maximum leverage, but the plot unraveled through footage and forensic traces; he pleaded guilty to and weapons charges, receiving a 10-year sentence. This incident highlighted the tactic of combining real explosives with threats to enhance perceived credibility and urgency. Contemporary examples increasingly blend digital anonymity with demands. In December 2023, William A. Giordani, 55, from , emailed a bomb threat to , falsely claiming devices planted on campus and demanding payment to avert detonation; motivated by financial desperation, Giordani's triggered evacuations and a federal probe, culminating in his April 2024 sentencing to three years' probation after pleading guilty to conveying false information. Similarly, bomb threats have facilitated broader cyber- schemes, such as those tied to online fraud groups employing or threats to coerce payments from minors or businesses, often demanding to resolve fabricated crises. These cases underscore a shift toward low-risk, high-reward over physical devices, enabled by VoIP technology and tools, though they still impose verifiable economic burdens through response protocols.

Methods of Delivery

Traditional Verbal and Physical Methods

bomb threats, the predominant traditional verbal method, involve perpetrators calling target locations—such as businesses, schools, or offices—to announce the presence or impending detonation of an , often including details on , , or demands to heighten perceived urgency. These calls historically relied on public payphones or untraceable lines for , with perpetrators using disguised voices or accents to obscure identity, though advancements in call tracing reduced their over time. Recipients are trained to prolong conversations, note caller characteristics like or speech patterns, and avoid to extract evidentiary details without escalating risks. In-person verbal threats, a rarer subset, occur when individuals directly confront staff or leave spoken warnings at sites, sometimes during intrusions or protests, enabling immediate psychological impact but exposing the perpetrator to visual identification and swift apprehension. Such methods were documented in early labor disputes and anarchist actions predating widespread , where agitators shouted warnings to disrupt operations, though empirical data shows they comprise a minority compared to telephonic delivery due to heightened . Physical methods center on tangible written communications, including handwritten or typed notes placed inconspicuously at target premises—such as in restrooms, vents, or desks—or mailed letters containing threat descriptions, diagrams, or symbolic items like powder to simulate explosives. Mailed threats, exemplified by the U.S. anarchist campaign targeting officials with over 30 packages (some containing threats alongside devices), allowed remote delivery via postal systems, evading direct contact but permitting forensic analysis of paper, ink, postmarks, and handwriting for perpetrator profiling. These approaches persisted into the mid-20th century for or ideological disruption, with advantages in permanence for evidence but disadvantages in logistical exposure, as postal intercepts and fingerprinting technologies improved detection rates. Both verbal and physical traditional methods prioritize simplicity and low technological barriers, enabling lone or small groups to impose evacuation costs—estimated at thousands per incident in labor and time—without material resources, though their efficacy wanes against protocols emphasizing over automatic compliance.

Modern Digital and Anonymous Techniques

In the 21st century, bomb threats have shifted toward digital delivery methods that facilitate anonymity and scalability, allowing perpetrators to issue threats remotely with minimal risk of immediate identification. These techniques leverage internet-based communication channels such as email, social media platforms, and voice-over-IP (VoIP) services, often combined with tools like virtual private networks (VPNs), the Tor network, and disposable accounts to obscure origins. Such methods enable mass distribution of hoax threats, as seen in campaigns targeting multiple sites simultaneously, which amplify psychological impact while straining response resources. Email remains the predominant digital vector for bomb threats due to its ease of use and pseudonymity features. Perpetrators frequently employ temporary or disposable services, accessed through anonymizing proxies or Tor to mask IP addresses, rendering traceability challenging without advanced forensic analysis. For instance, threats often originate from foreign domains or services like Russian email providers, as in the November 2024 bomb threats to U.S. polling locations, where the FBI identified patterns suggestive of overseas operations. Vague or scripted messages lacking specific details are common, designed to provoke evacuations without requiring physical presence. Social media and messaging applications provide additional avenues for anonymous dissemination, including direct messages, posts, or automated bots that can be deleted post-delivery. Platforms' reporting tools and ephemeral features further hinder preservation of evidence, while pseudonymous accounts exacerbate attribution difficulties. VoIP services and enable voice threats mimicking traditional calls but routed digitally, often integrated into "swatting" tactics where hoax bomb or active shooter reports trigger deployments. These methods have proliferated in hoax campaigns against schools and infrastructure, with VPNs and Tor complicating investigations by routing traffic through multiple jurisdictions. Case studies illustrate the persistence of these techniques despite countermeasures. In December 2024, over 100 schools received bomb threats via emails routed through VPNs and proxy servers, evading initial geolocation efforts. Similarly, January 2025 threats to Hungarian schools traced to Ukrainian IPs using Russian email services highlighted cross-border anonymity chains. While tools like Tor provide layered and onion routing for perceived , operational security lapses—such as accessing from monitored networks—have led to arrests, as in a 2013 U.S. university hoax where Tor usage was flagged by institutional logs. Overall, digital lowers barriers to entry, contributing to a rise in volume, though most prove non-credible upon investigation.

Primary Targets

Educational Facilities

Educational facilities, including K-12 schools and universities, represent a primary target for threats due to their large concentrations of vulnerable populations and the potential for widespread disruption. The overwhelming —approximately 90 percent—of such threats are hoaxes, involving no actual or only a non-functional imitation, yet they compel evacuations, building searches, and deployment of specialized response teams. These incidents strain local resources and interrupt academic activities, often for hours or days, while fostering anxiety among students and staff. Incidence rates have risen notably in recent decades. U.S. agencies have recorded an uptick in threats targeting schools since 2015, with variants persisting at high volumes. By 2023, threats disrupted U.S. schools at a minimum rate of 30 incidents per week, predominantly affecting public K-12 institutions where 98 percent of threats occur. Historical data illustrates the scale: in the 1997-1998 school year, one district alone fielded 150 threats, yielding 55 arrests, many linked to student perpetrators seeking to avoid classes or attract . Among incidents, roughly 35 percent target high schools, though middle schools account for 20 percent, indicating broader vulnerability across age groups. In higher education, threats mirror K-12 patterns but often leverage digital for broader reach. A 2025 wave of hoax bomb threats struck at least a U.S. campuses, forcing evacuations that affected over one million students and generated operational costs surpassing $60 million. Certain episodes reflect targeted motives, as seen in early 2022 when 49 bomb threats hit , prompting federal investigations amid suspicions of racially motivated harassment, though most proved unfounded. Perpetrators in educational settings are frequently juveniles or young adults, driven by psychological factors like thrill-seeking or retaliation rather than intent to detonate devices, underscoring the nature but not diminishing the real-world burdens of response protocols.

Government and Public Officials

Government and public officials represent high-profile targets for bomb threats, often selected for their symbolic authority and influence over policy decisions. These threats aim to intimidate, disrupt operations, or coerce changes in governance, with perpetrators leveraging the officials' visibility to amplify impact. According to the (CISA), government facilities rank among the most common recipients of such threats, alongside schools and commercial sites. In recent years, threats against U.S. public officials have surged, driven by and ideological grievances. A review of federal data from 2013 to 2023 indicates rising incidents of threats, including bomb hoaxes, against officials communicating grievances over political or social issues. Local officials faced increased harassment and threats in 2023, with data showing escalation in politically motivated actions. The Department of Homeland Security's 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment highlights domestic violent extremists as the primary physical threat to government officials, election personnel, and infrastructure. Notable clusters include election-related incidents, such as over 100 threats to polling locations on November 5, 2024, many originating from Russian domains, which prompted evacuations but caused no disruptions due to prior coordination. Post-election, incoming Trump administration nominees and appointees received numerous threats and attempts by November 27, 2024, investigated jointly by the FBI and local . In September 2025, hoax threats targeted Democratic lawmakers' homes and offices in states like , , , and [Rhode Island](/page/Rhode Island), with some referencing political ideologies like "MAGA." A physical was placed at the on October 22, 2025, leading to evacuations and an ongoing investigation into suspects captured on security footage. Prosecutions underscore enforcement efforts, such as a Romanian citizen's June 2025 guilty plea for leading a conspiracy involving swatting and bomb threats against U.S. Congress members and other officials from 2020 onward. A Roswell, New Mexico, man pleaded guilty in September 2025 to multiple interstate bomb threats against government offices. These cases often involve anonymous digital methods, complicating attribution but revealing motives tied to extortion, ideology, or foreign disruption.

Commercial and Infrastructural Sites

Bomb threats directed at commercial sites, including retail outlets, corporate headquarters, and business districts, typically aim to inflict economic disruption, coerce policy changes, or exact revenge against specific entities. These incidents often manifest as hoax calls or emails prompting evacuations that halt operations and incur substantial costs for security sweeps. For instance, in June 2023, stores in at least five U.S. states—, , New York, , and —were evacuated following anonymous bomb threats tied to customer backlash over merchandise displays; no explosives were found, but the events forced temporary closures and heightened security measures. Such threats exploit the high foot traffic and operational vulnerabilities of retail environments, where even unsubstantiated claims necessitate protocol-driven responses to mitigate potential risks. The Bomb Data Center (USBDC) tracks these as part of broader hoax patterns, noting their prevalence in commercial settings for their low perpetrator effort and high disruptive yield. Infrastructural targets, encompassing transportation hubs like and railways, utilities such as power grids, and other critical facilities, face threats intended to undermine , , and essential services, often amplifying fear through media coverage of delays or shutdowns. infrastructure is particularly susceptible due to its concentrated populations and international connectivity; historical U.S. data from documented numerous threats against , frequently delivered via phone to maximize panic and resource-intensive searches. More recently, the USBDC reported 1,089 threat incidents nationwide in , with transportation sectors bearing a disproportionate share owing to their systemic importance and visibility. Globally, the (IATA) logged 97 threats to between January 2021 and August 2023, predominantly hoaxes that nonetheless triggered evacuations, flight groundings, and multimillion-dollar losses in operational . Threats to or infrastructure, while less frequently detailed in aggregates, align with broader physical attack vectors documented by federal agencies, where even false alarms strain responders and expose dependencies on robust threat validation. These threats' impacts are magnified by mandatory response protocols from agencies like the (CISA), which classify most as low-credibility hoaxes yet require thorough assessments to rule out genuine devices. In commercial cases, perpetrators may leverage ideological grievances or competitive , as evidenced by retailer-targeted spikes amid cultural controversies, while infrastructural hoaxes often stem from anonymous digital methods exploiting public fear of cascading failures. Overall, USBDC data reflects a surge, with over 3,200 incidents reported in recent years, underscoring the persistent challenge of distinguishing nuisances from actionable risks without verifiable intelligence.

Credibility Assessment and Response

Evaluating Threat Validity

Evaluating the validity of a bomb threat requires and security personnel to systematically assess its credibility using established criteria, as most such threats—estimated at over 90% in historical data from federal investigations—prove to be hoaxes intended for disruption rather than genuine intent to harm. This assessment informs response decisions, such as evacuation versus continued operations, to avoid unnecessary panic or resource drain while mitigating real risks. Guidelines from agencies like the (CISA) emphasize evaluating the threat's realism, plausibility, and supporting evidence without dismissing any communication outright. Key factors in credibility assessment include the specificity and directness of the threat's details, such as exact within a building, type of , or detonation timeline; vague or inconsistent wording, like generic claims without feasible execution plans, typically indicates lower . Immediacy and urgency are also weighed, with threats implying imminent action or providing perpetrator identity signaling higher compared to delayed or conditional ones. Delivery method influences evaluation: telephone threats permit recording caller traits (e.g., accent, , emotional state) via checklists, aiding traceability, whereas anonymous emails or posts often score lower due to ease of fabrication but may elevate if tied to verified accounts or patterns. Contextual elements further refine validity, including alignment with on pending attacks, the target's of threats, or observable preparatory actions like ; for instance, a threat corroborated by reliable from sources such as the FBI elevates it to high risk. Assessments categorize threats into levels—low (non-specific, disruption-motivated), moderate (feasible with some details but lacking execution evidence), and high (realistic, detailed, with indicators of capability)—to guide protocols like for low-risk scenarios versus full sweeps for high-risk ones. Challenges arise with hoax epidemics, such as incidents exploiting 911 systems, where rapid digital anonymity complicates initial , underscoring the need for inter-agency verification to prevent false positives that strain emergency responses.

Standard Protocols and Resource Allocation

Standard protocols for responding to bomb threats prioritize rapid information gathering, threat evaluation, and calibrated action to protect lives while conserving resources against predominantly non-credible incidents. Recipients of verbal , typically via , are instructed to remain calm, avoid interrupting the caller, and elicit key details using a predefined covering , type, method, timeline, reasons for the , and observable caller traits such as accent, voice stress, or . This process includes silently notifying authorities via an alternate line or colleague without disconnecting the call, preserving any recording or data for forensic analysis. Upon notification, assumes lead, conducting an initial credibility assessment informed by the threat's specificity, the caller's apparent knowledge of the target, consistency with known threats, and any intelligence indicators of elevated risk. Low-specificity threats lacking verifiable details or from anonymous sources are often categorized as lower risk, prompting minimal immediate disruption to operations, whereas detailed claims corroborated by or patterns trigger heightened scrutiny. Protocols discourage automatic evacuations or fire alarms, which could aid perpetrators by confirming impact, and instead favor site-specific decisions balancing safety against operational continuity. Resource allocation scales with assessed credibility to mitigate the strain from hoax threats, which constitute the majority of incidents and can exhaust personnel, equipment, and budgets if over-responded to uniformly. For low-risk evaluations, responses limit to perimeter security and trace investigations, deploying basic patrol units rather than specialized assets. Medium- to high-risk scenarios activate bomb squads, explosive detection canines, or federal explosive ordnance disposal teams, coordinated through incident command systems involving local, state, and federal agencies like the FBI or ATF. Pre-established mutual aid agreements and threat matrices guide this tiering, ensuring efficient use of limited resources such as hazardous materials suits, render-safe vehicles, and technical experts, while post-incident debriefs refine allocations based on empirical outcomes. In public facilities, such as schools or government buildings, protocols integrate with broader emergency plans, incorporating shelter-in-place options to avoid unnecessary mass movements that heighten vulnerability to secondary threats.

Technological Aids in Detection

Technological aids play a critical role in tracing the origin of bomb threats and verifying their credibility by detecting potential explosives during response operations. For communication-based threats, such as phone calls or emails, employs to trace sources, including analysis of IP addresses, metadata, and electronic communication patterns to identify perpetrators, as demonstrated in investigations of threats where deleted and origin tracing led to suspect identification. In cases involving anonymous online threats, subpoenas to internet service providers enable retrieval of logs, while voice recordings from calls may undergo forensic audio analysis, though effectiveness depends on circumvention attempts like VoIP masking. To assess threat validity through physical verification, explosive trace detection (ETD) systems are widely deployed during searches of targeted sites. These portable devices, utilizing or , detect nanogram-level residues of explosives on surfaces, clothing, or objects via swipes or air sampling, enabling rapid screening without disrupting operations extensively. Handheld ETD units, such as those from manufacturers like FLIR or , have been integrated into protocols since the early 2000s, with advancements improving sensitivity to homemade explosives and reducing false positives from interferents like lotions or perfumes. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's evaluations highlight their role in secondary screening for high-threat scenarios, including post-bomb threat sweeps at facilities. Data analytics platforms further aid detection by identifying patterns in threat reporting. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) operates the Bomb Arson Tracking System (BATS), a web-based database aggregating national incident data from over 20,000 agencies, which uses statistical analysis to link serial hoaxers or predict escalation based on historical trends, such as geographic clustering or similarities. This system supports real-time intelligence sharing, as seen in annual reports like the Explosives Incident Report, which in documented over 1,000 bombing-related events, informing proactive tracing. Additionally, robotic systems equipped with cameras and manipulators, alongside portable scanners, allow remote inspection of suspicious packages during threats, minimizing human risk while providing visual confirmation of device absence. These tools collectively enhance response efficiency, though their deployment requires trained personnel to interpret results amid potential false alarms from environmental contaminants.

United States Legislation and Enforcement

In the , federal legislation addressing bomb threats primarily falls under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, with key provisions criminalizing the willful conveyance of false regarding explosives or attempts to property. Section 844(e) prohibits, through the use of or any facility of interstate or foreign , willfully and maliciously imparting false information—knowing it to be false—concerning an attempt or alleged attempt to commit acts that would constitute felonies under sections 844(d) (distribution of explosives) or 844(f) (malicious by or ). Violations carry penalties of fines, imprisonment up to 10 years, or both; if the offense results in death, the maximum is . This applies to threats affecting interstate , such as those targeting transportation hubs or public facilities, and has been designated a federal crime of terrorism when calculated to influence government conduct by intimidation or coercion. Complementing Section 844(e), 18 U.S.C. § 1038 criminalizes intentionally conveying false information about attempts to commit crimes involving weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, or other threats reasonably believed to endanger human life, including hoaxes. Convictions under this section result in fines and up to 5 years' , with enhanced penalties—up to 20 years or —if the hoax causes serious injury or death. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 35 addresses imparting false information concerning attempts to damage civil aircraft or facilities by explosives, with penalties including fines and up to 5 years' for non-malicious violations, escalating for willful and malicious acts. These s emphasize intent and the potential for public harm, distinguishing hoaxes from genuine threats based on the perpetrator's knowledge of falsity and the threat's credibility. Enforcement is led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which investigates bomb threats as potential federal crimes, particularly those involving interstate communications, terrorism designations, or threats to federal interests like airports or government buildings. The FBI collaborates with local law enforcement for initial responses and uses tools like phone tracing, IP analysis, and tips from the public via 1-800-CALL-FBI to identify perpetrators. Prosecutions are handled by the Department of Justice, often under the U.S. Attorneys' offices, with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) providing expertise on explosives-related elements. State laws supplement federal statutes, typically classifying bomb threats as felonies with penalties varying by jurisdiction—such as up to 7 years in prison in some states—but federal jurisdiction prevails for cross-state or commerce-impacting incidents. No major legislative amendments specific to bomb threats have occurred since the post-9/11 expansions under the USA PATRIOT Act, which enhanced investigative powers without altering core prohibitions.

International Laws and Variations

The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the on December 15, 1997, and entering into force on May 23, 2001, obligates states parties to criminalize the unlawful and intentional use of explosives or lethal devices in or against public places, as well as preparatory acts and attempts that aim to cause , , or significant for terrorist purposes. While primarily targeting actual bombings, the convention's provisions on attempts and participation extend to threats intended to instill terror, requiring penalties of at least four years for such offenses, with 172 states parties as of 2023. This framework influences national laws but does not uniformly cover non-terroristic hoax threats, which often fall under domestic penal codes rather than binding international obligations. In the aviation sector, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of (Montreal Convention), signed on September 23, 1971, and effective from January 26, 1973, explicitly criminalizes the communication of false information known to be false that endangers an in flight, including hoax bomb threats under Article 13, with states required to establish over offenses committed on board their registered aircraft or in their territory. Ratified by 189 states, it mandates severe penalties to deter disruptions, treating such acts as threats to international civil aviation safety, though enforcement relies on national implementation. Related instruments, such as the 1963 on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, further support responses to in-flight threats but emphasize suppression over specific hoax criminalization. National variations in non-aviation bomb threat laws reflect differing priorities on public safety, resource strain, and terrorism thresholds, with penalties ranging from misdemeanors to felonies tied to disruption costs or intent. In the , the 2002 Framework Decision on combating (updated by Directive 2017/541) requires member states to penalize threats of terrorist acts, including bombings, with minimum sentences of 5–15 years for aggravated cases, though hoax enforcement varies by country—e.g., up to 5 years in under anti-disruption statutes versus lighter fines in some Eastern European states for unsubstantiated calls. In contrast, countries like classify aviation-related es under the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Act (1982), with penalties up to life imprisonment if linked to terror, amid recent surges in threats prompting stricter tracking via the , while non-aviation es may incur only short detentions under laws. and integrate hoax threats into broader , with potential 10–25 year terms if deemed preparatory to violence, emphasizing restitution for response costs, whereas some developing nations treat isolated threats as minor offenses with fines under 1,000 USD unless proven malicious. These disparities highlight uneven global harmonization, with wealthier nations imposing harsher deterrents due to higher operational impacts.

Impacts and Consequences

Psychological and Social Effects

Bomb threats, even when determined to be hoaxes, induce acute psychological distress in targeted individuals and communities by simulating imminent danger, triggering the body's and elevating levels associated with stress. Victims often report immediate symptoms including heightened anxiety, , , and physiological reactions such as rapid heartbeat and sweating, as the perceived threat overrides rational assessment of credibility. In cases of repeated or prolonged threats, such as serial hoax calls to schools or transportation hubs, individuals may develop chronic anxiety disorders, with studies on terrorism-related threats indicating increased risks of , vulnerability, and anger persisting beyond the event. For emergency responders, exposure to frequent bomb threats correlates with elevated burnout and secondary traumatic stress, compounded by the uncertainty of validation, leading to and reduced efficacy in genuine crises. Children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable, as bomb threats in educational settings disrupt routines and foster long-term fears of public spaces; research on threat exposure in youth shows associations with post-traumatic stress symptoms, including avoidance behaviors and sleep disturbances, even absent physical harm. Perceived life threat during evacuations—where individuals believe their safety is compromised—predicts PTSD-like outcomes, with brain imaging studies post-terror events revealing hyperactivity attuned to potential dangers, a applicable to scenarios inducing similar dread. Socially, bomb threats erode communal trust in institutions and infrastructure, fostering widespread skepticism toward security protocols and amplifying media-driven panic that extends effects beyond the immediate site. In contexts, threats have led to flight diversions and passenger reluctance, straining social cohesion through repeated disruptions, as seen in India's 2024 surge where over 100 false alarms caused operational chaos and public outrage. targeting democratic processes, such as polling stations, undermine civic participation by instilling fear of vulnerability, potentially skewing turnout and perceptions of safety. Over time, recurrent threats may induce societal desensitization or , where communities normalize evacuations but incur indirect costs like interpersonal conflicts from false alarms and diminished faith in threat-reporting mechanisms.

Economic and Operational Costs

Bomb threats, predominantly hoaxes, generate substantial economic costs through mandatory evacuations, inspections, and disruptions to operations across sectors such as , , and . In the United States, a single school threat response averages over $38,000 in taxpayer expenses in , encompassing overtime for , lost instructional time, and administrative recovery efforts. Swatting incidents, often involving fabricated bomb or shooter scenarios, can escalate to $78,000–$1.4 million per event for schools due to prolonged closures and remediation, diverting funds from core educational priorities. For businesses, costs hinge on factors like daily revenue forfeiture and facility sweeps; a University of Nebraska Omaha analysis developed a CISA tool estimating losses from interrupted sales, employee wages during evacuations, and potential halts, with no fixed average but scalable to millions for large operations. In , hoax threats necessitate grounding, passenger offloading, and security scans, with each incident costing airlines approximately ₹3 (about $357,000 USD) in amid a 2024 surge of over 90 threats in one week, totaling hundreds of millions in aggregate delays and compliance. These expenses include fuel waste from holding patterns, crew overtime, and rebooking logistics, amplifying broader economic ripple effects like reduced flight capacity and impacts. Operationally, responses strain public safety resources, with deployments costing $125–$150 per officer per hour, often requiring bomb technicians, canine units, and specialized equipment for hours-long searches. A typical sweep involves multiple teams, diverting personnel from duties and investigations into genuine crimes, as noted in FBI assessments of disruptions. Cumulative effects include backlog in non-emergency services and heightened fatigue among responders, particularly during waves of coordinated threats, which erode operational readiness for credible risks.

Broader Security and Policy Implications

Bomb threats, predominantly es, impose significant strains on security infrastructure by diverting critical resources from genuine emergencies, thereby creating potential vulnerabilities in national defense postures. In the United States, frequent hoax incidents necessitate the mobilization of bomb squads, teams, and other specialized units, which can tie up emergency services for hours or days per event, reducing overall readiness for actual threats. This diversionary effect is explicitly recognized in federal assessments, where hoax threats are noted as tactics that strain missions amid evolving terrorist risks. For instance, violent extremists employ low-cost hoax methods like —false reports prompting armed responses—to harass targets and overload , amplifying disruptions without physical action. Such tactics exploit the imperative to treat all threats seriously, as failure to do so risks missing real attacks, yet repeated false alarms erode response efficiency and public confidence in security systems. Policy responses have evolved to mitigate these implications through refined threat evaluation frameworks and legislative deterrents. Agencies like the (CISA) advocate for risk-based decision-making in bomb threat management, emphasizing pre-established protocols to assess credibility via factors such as threat specificity and originator intent, rather than reflexive evacuations that amplify efficacy. In the U.S., federal statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 35 criminalize conveying false bomb information, with prosecutorial guidelines prioritizing cases that endanger public safety or transportation, reflecting a policy shift toward harsher penalties to discourage perpetrators. Internationally, bomb threats have prompted adaptations in and security; for example, surges in cyber-enabled threats have led to enhanced tracing capabilities and interagency coordination, as seen in responses to foreign-originated emails targeting U.S. polling sites in November 2024. These measures aim to balance vigilance with resilience, incorporating technological aids like IP tracking for online threats to reduce false positive burdens. On a broader scale, persistent bomb threats underscore the need for policies addressing hybrid threats, where serve as precursors or diversions for coordinated attacks, as outlined in intelligence community analyses of tactics. This has influenced national strategies to integrate hoax mitigation into planning, including public awareness campaigns to report suspicious patterns and investments in AI-driven for early hoax identification. However, the asymmetric nature of these low-effort, high-impact actions—often amplified by anonymous digital channels—challenges traditional security paradigms, prompting calls for international norms against state-sponsored that weaponizes fear. Empirical patterns from annual threat assessments indicate that while domestic hoaxes dominate, foreign actors exploit them for geopolitical disruption, necessitating robust attribution mechanisms to deter escalation. Failure to adapt risks systemic fatigue, where over-response to fabrications compromises capacity against verifiable dangers like improvised explosive devices.

Notable Incidents

Pre-2000 Historical Cases

One prominent early case involved the hijacking of Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305 on November 24, 1971, by a man using the alias Dan Cooper, later known as . Cooper handed a note to a claiming he had a in his briefcase, displaying a device with wires and red sticks to substantiate the threat, and demanded $200,000 in ransom along with four parachutes. The plane landed in , where he released passengers after receiving the money, then ordered a refueling and flight to , parachuting out mid-flight over the with the ransom; no was found, indicating the device was likely a , though the case remains unsolved. Another significant incident occurred on September 10, 1976, with the hijacking of TWA Flight 355 from New York to Chicago by Croatian nationalists led by Zvonko Bušić. The hijackers claimed to possess a bomb on board and forced the pilot to fly to Newfoundland, demanding the airdrop of anti-communist leaflets over Europe and threatening detonation if demands were unmet; they also instructed authorities to retrieve a separate bomb from a New York locker, which proved to be a hoax containing flares rather than explosives. After the airdrop, the plane diverted to Paris, where the hijackers surrendered following assurances of safe passage; one detonated a real explosive on board during the standoff, killing himself, but no other fatalities occurred. Bomb threats to schools proliferated during the , with thousands reported annually, the vast majority—estimated at over 90%—proven to be hoaxes perpetrated by students seeking to disrupt classes or evade exams. For instance, schools documented numerous such incidents in the 1999-2000 academic year under "disturbing schools" reports, often involving phoned or written threats without devices, leading to evacuations and heightened responses amid growing concerns over . These events underscored the low credibility of most threats but imposed substantial operational burdens, prompting early development of standardized response protocols by educational authorities.

21st Century Examples Including Recent Hoaxes

In , a series of bomb threats targeted Jewish Community Centers (JCCs), synagogues, and day schools primarily in the United States, with over 100 incidents reported between January and March, prompting evacuations across multiple states and countries including and . The threats, made via using voice-altering technology, were perpetrated by Michael Kadar, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen diagnosed with conditions including and autism spectrum disorder, who confessed to over 2,000 such calls globally, including attempts and schemes. Israeli authorities arrested Kadar in March , and he was extradited to the U.S. on related charges, highlighting how individual actors with technological access could amplify disruptions without ideological motives tied to anti-Semitism, despite initial media attributions. In December , anonymous emails containing threats were sent to schools, businesses, and offices in at least 10 U.S. states, leading to widespread evacuations and temporary closures, such as in and Maryland courthouses. The FBI classified these as hoaxes after no devices were discovered, attributing them to a single actor using spoofed addresses, which underscored vulnerabilities in mass communication tools for low-effort disruptions. A wave of hoax bomb threats struck (HBCUs) in the U.S. starting in January 2022, with at least 49 incidents reported by late February, often timed during and affecting institutions like and Florida A&M. These anonymous threats, delivered via email and phone, resulted in lockdowns and class cancellations but yielded no explosives, prompting federal investigations into potential racially motivated actors; the FBI and DHS enhanced monitoring, revealing patterns of coordinated harassment rather than credible plots. Early saw a surge in bomb threats emailed to U.S. synagogues, Jewish community centers, schools, hospitals, and government buildings, with the FBI, DHS, and issuing alerts on January 12 about malicious actors, possibly state-sponsored from , exploiting cyber tools for without physical follow-through. No bombs were found in these cases, which disrupted operations at sites like Children's Hospitals in and , emphasizing the role of foreign influence operations in amplifying domestic tensions. During the November 2024 U.S. presidential election, hoax bomb threats numbering at least 227 targeted polling sites, election offices, and vote tabulation centers in battleground states like Georgia, , and , often emailed anonymously and traced to overseas IP addresses. Despite causing brief evacuations and heightened security, no devices materialized, and state preparations—such as rapid threat assessments—mitigated widespread voter suppression, with investigations pointing to attempts to undermine trust in the process. In , airlines and airports faced 999 hoax bomb threats in 2024 through November 14, with more than 500 occurring in the final two weeks of , forcing evacuations of terminals at major hubs like and and delaying hundreds of flights. These email-based hoaxes, often claiming explosives on board, were largely traced to foreign servers and juveniles, reflecting a pattern of opportunistic cyber harassment that strained aviation security resources without credible intent. September 2024 brought over 30 bomb threats to schools and public facilities in , following amplified political rhetoric about local migrant communities, resulting in closures of elementary schools and city buildings. Authorities confirmed no explosives after searches, attributing the threats to coordinated online actors seeking to exploit social divisions, which further eroded community stability amid unrelated debates. Autumn 2023 cyber bomb hoaxes targeted government and public sites in the —, , and —via mass emails demanding actions like halting aid to , leading to evacuations but no devices, as part of broader tactics by actors linked to to sow panic and test response capacities.

References

  1. https://www.cisa.gov/bomb-threats
  2. https://www.tdi.texas.gov/pubs/videoresource/stpbombthr.pdf
  3. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/Increase%2520in%2520Bomb%2520Threats%2520and%2520Suspicious%2520Packages.pdf
  4. https://www.atf.gov/file/143481/download
  5. https://www.nj.gov/njsp/division/homeland-security/pdf/sp-952a_bomb_threat_guidance_schools.pdf
  6. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1427-imparting-or-conveying-false-information-bomb-hoax-18-usc-35
  7. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/hoax-threats-awareness-100518
  8. https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460481/bomb-threat-guide.pdf
  9. https://www.usf.edu/public-safety/emergency-management/hazards/bomb-threat.aspx
  10. https://www.cisa.gov/topics/physical-security/bombing-prevention/bomb-threats
  11. https://ready.uic.edu/emergency-guidelines/physical-threats/bomb-threat/
  12. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1038
  13. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875
  14. https://www.palegis.us/statute?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0.&chpt=27.&sctn=15.&subsctn=0.
  15. https://www.atf.gov/file/136971/download
  16. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/24_0930_opa_swatting-hoax-threats-final.pdf
  17. https://tripwire.dhs.gov/system/files/2025-04/2022%2520Explosives%2520Incident%2520Report%2520%2528EIR%2529%2520_0.pdf
  18. https://lsp.org/media/nyjjndi2/bomb.pdf
  19. https://www.worldhistory.org/Gunpowder_Plot/
  20. https://scholarworks.harding.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1296&context=tenor
  21. https://www.raysecur.com/mail-threat-history/
  22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2021.1924692
  23. https://borealisthreatandrisk.com/may-5-1881-fenians-bomb-chester-barracks-in-the-uk/
  24. https://www.theirishstory.com/2014/05/14/book-review-war-in-the-shadows-the-irish-american-fenians-who-bombed-victorian-britain/
  25. https://wamu.org/story/18/10/25/like-1919-all-over-again-a-brief-history-of-threats-by-mail/
  26. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/baptist-street-church-bombing
  27. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/16th-street-baptist-church-bombing
  28. https://www.historians.org/news/bomb-threats-against-hbcus-a-history-of-domestic-terrorism/
  29. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/bomb-threats-against-us-airports-1974
  30. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/hijacked-1970-hijackings/
  31. https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/bomb-threats-schools-0
  32. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/Increase%20in%20Bomb%20Threats%20and%20Suspicious%20Packages.pdf
  33. https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/articles/2023/01/amid-bomb-threats-schools-seek-support-and-resources/
  34. https://www.axios.com/2024/09/24/bomb-threats-schools-closures-evacuations
  35. https://abc7.com/post/school-threats-fbi-students-teachers/13129281/
  36. https://www.chronicle.com/article/campus-bomb-threats-increased-more-than-fivefold-last-year
  37. https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-bomb-threats-to-polling-locations
  38. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/mass-cyber-bomb-threats-cyberwarfare/
  39. https://rems.ed.gov/docs/COPS_Bomb_Threats_in_Schools.pdf
  40. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-act-violence/201304/bombers-or-bomb-threat-makers
  41. https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Protecting_Americas_Schools.pdf
  42. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report.pdf
  43. https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf
  44. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/weather-underground-bombings
  45. https://www.csis.org/analysis/rising-threat-anti-government-domestic-terrorism-what-data-tells-us
  46. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/24_0930_ia_24-320-ia-publication-2025-hta-final-30sep24-508.pdf
  47. https://www.csis.org/analysis/pushed-extremes-domestic-terrorism-amid-polarization-and-protest
  48. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/harveys-casino-bomb
  49. https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/newss-harveys-casino-bomb/view
  50. https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/nye/pr/2012/2012nov08.html
  51. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/new-hampshire-man-sentenced-harvard-university-bomb-extortion-case
  52. https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA250723-3
  53. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/Bomb%2520Threat%2520Guide_v1.9_508.pdf
  54. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/24_1205_fps_bomb-threat-procedures-card-508.pdf
  55. https://emergency.ucmerced.edu/plan-procedures/bomb-threat
  56. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/Bomb%20Threat%20Guide_v1.9_508.pdf
  57. https://www.rediff.com/news/report/why-bomb-threats-through-vpns-dark-web-evade-detection/20250716.htm
  58. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/articles/harvard-bomb-threat
  59. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2024/Dec/19/vpns-proxy-servers-complicate-bomb-threat-investigations-says-delhi-police-2
  60. https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/swatting
  61. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/himachal-pradesh-bomb-threat-emails-sent-using-vpn-10062166/
  62. https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA250429
  63. https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/hungarian-bomb-threats-cybersecurity-email-adress-ip/
  64. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/12/tor_user_identi.html
  65. https://www.nasro.org/news/2023/12/21/news-releases/limit-school-disruption-from-hoax-threats/
  66. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2024-08224-001.html
  67. https://eschoolsafety.org/bir
  68. https://universitybusiness.com/hoax-threats-disrupt-more-than-a-dozen-colleges-this-week/
  69. https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2022/08/30/addressing-bomb-threats-historically-black-colleges-and-universities
  70. https://ctc.westpoint.edu/rising-threats-to-public-officials-a-review-of-10-years-of-federal-data/
  71. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/local-officials-threats-harassment-data-rcna146063
  72. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/preparation-kept-bomb-threats-disrupting-2024-elections
  73. https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-statement-regarding-threats-to-nominees-and-appointees
  74. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/romanian-citizen-pleads-guilty-swatting-numerous-members-congress-churches-and-former-us
  75. https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/roswell-man-pleads-guilty-federal-charges-making-bomb-threats-government-offices
  76. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/12/target-bomb-threat-pride/
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038012125001235
  78. https://www.ncsl.org/energy/human-driven-physical-threats-to-energy-infrastructure
  79. https://www.aus.com/blog/minimizing-business-disruption-amid-rising-bomb-threats
  80. https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/bomb-threat-checklist
  81. https://www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/jcat/firstresponderstoolbox/160s-First-Responders-Toolbox-Evaluating-and-Responding-to-Violent-Extremist-Hoax-Threats.pdf
  82. https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/bomb-threat-guide
  83. https://www.schoolsafety.gov/resource/bomb-threat-guidance
  84. https://www.theiacp.org/resources/policy-center-resource/bomb-threats-and-response
  85. https://leppardlaw.com/criminal-law/gun-crime-lawyer/how-florida-prosecutors-handle-fake-bomb-threat-cases/
  86. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/october/RCFL-report
  87. https://www.forensicfocus.com/webinars/bombs-swats-anonymity-and-forensics/
  88. https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2022/10/06/feature-article-next-generation-explosives-trace-detection-here
  89. https://defense.flir.com/detection/explosive/
  90. https://www.leidos.com/markets/aviation/security-detection/aviation-checkpoint/explosive-trace-detection
  91. https://www.dhs.gov/medialibrary/assets/videos/22999
  92. https://www.atf.gov/explosives/enforcement-tools-services/us-bomb-data-center
  93. https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/data-statistics
  94. https://www.fbi.gov/fun-games/tools_of_the_trade/tools-of-the-trade-bomb-technicians-text-version
  95. https://www.gao.gov/assets/a307835.html
  96. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/844
  97. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1445-discussion-selected-section-844-offenses
  98. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1446-other-statutes-affected-18-usc-844-offenses
  99. https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/convey-false-information
  100. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/35
  101. https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-is-the-fbis-responsibility-in-bombing-cases
  102. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/threat-intimidation-guide
  103. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-are-the-consequences-for-making-bomb-threats-31836
  104. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
  105. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-9&chapter=18&clang=_en
  106. https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/terroristbombing.html
  107. https://www.un.org/counterterrorism/international-legal-instruments
  108. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XVIII-4&chapter=18
  109. https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/541479-hoax-bomb-threats-as-the-acts-of-unlawfu-479b1312.pdf
  110. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-global-criminal-law-enforcement-policy-on-false-information-bomb-hoax-13178.html
  111. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358184853_Hoax_bomb_threats_as_the_acts_of_unlawful_interference_that_endanger_aviation_safety_and_air_transportation
  112. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221640/
  113. https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/archives/?p=20834
  114. https://capmh.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1753-2000-7-36
  115. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/thinking-that-ones-life-was-in-danger-perceived-life-threat-in-individuals-directly-or-indirectly-exposed-to-terror/2CDEFCC3892134D6E10EC13432164454
  116. https://www.washington.edu/news/2014/07/15/brain-responses-to-emotional-images-predict-ptsd-symptoms-after-boston-marathon-bombing/
  117. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kz84kgj0o
  118. https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/services/protecting-canada-general-election-2025/hoax-threats-implications-general-election-45.html
  119. https://www.wfsb.com/2025/01/31/i-team-study-finds-ct-school-threats-costs-taxpayers-38000-per-threat/
  120. https://volt.ai/blog/the-hidden-costs-of-swatting-threats-why-false-alarms-cost-schools-nearly-dollar1-million-per-incident
  121. https://www.unomaha.edu/ncite/news/2024/04/mba-capstone-students-create-tool-estimating-costs-of-bomb-threats.php
  122. https://m.economictimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/3-crore-down-the-drain-every-hoax-bomb-threat-causes-airlines-financial-turbulence/articleshow/114366823.cms
  123. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/one-bomb-hoax-can-cost-an-airline-over-rs-3-crore/articleshow/114364615.cms
  124. https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/news/school-swatting-threats-how-common-what-do-they-cost/132470/
  125. https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/springfield/news/fbi-springfield-reminds-the-public-there-are-consequences-to-hoax-threats
  126. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-63000-protection-public-order
  127. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2024-Unclassified-Report.pdf
  128. https://www.dni.gov/nctc/jcat/index.html
  129. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2006/november/dbcooper_112406
  130. https://archives.law.virginia.edu/dengrove/writeup/croatian-nationalists-trial-1976-hijacking-twa-flight-355
  131. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/usisraeli-man-charged-connection-threats-jewish-community-centers-conveying-false-information
  132. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/24/israel-michael-kadar-jewish-centre-bomb-threats
  133. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/us/jcc-bomb-threats.html
  134. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/bomb-threats-schools-businesses.html
  135. https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2024/PSA240112
  136. https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2024-01-16-agencies-hospitals-among-recent-bomb-threat-recipients
  137. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/hoax-bomb-threats-made-dozens-polling-locations-swing-states-rcna178889
  138. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05z3v0jp49o
  139. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/30-bomb-threats-made-springfield-ohio-false-pets-claims-rcna171392
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.