(COLUMBIA, SC) — The body of a young woman was discovered inside a rented house in Columbia, South Carolina, over the weekend, according to a press conference held by Columbia Police Department on Monday.
She was later identified as Logan Federico, a 22-year-old from Waxhaw, North Carolina, police said. Her cause of death was a fatal gunshot wound to the chest, according to Columbia Coroner Naida Rutherford.
The college student was spending the weekend with friends in a rented house in South Carolina when she was “randomly murdered by a career criminal” who was “on a spree of thefts, break-ins and credit card fraud,” the CPD said.
Alexander Dickey, 30, allegedly broke into a neighboring home around 3 a.m. and stole a firearm, credit and debit cards, and keys to a vehicle, the CPD said.
The suspect then allegedly entered the house where Federico was staying, entered her room, and shot her, police said, before fleeing the scene in a stolen vehicle.
Dickey is believed to have used the stolen cards to make purchases across Lexington County before his stolen vehicle broke down, officials said. He had it towed back to a residence in Lexington County, where investigators said they tracked him down.
When law enforcement closed in, Dickey fled into nearby woods, leading to a manhunt in severe weather conditions, police said. He later broke into another home and set it on fire, they added.
Officers were able to extract Dickey through a window and take him into custody, the CPD said.
Federico’s father, Steve Federico, spoke through tears during the press conference.
“I am Logan Haley Federico’s father, better known as ‘Dad,’ or her hero. Unfortunately, that day, I could not be her hero,” he said. “My daughter, I cherished. She was a strong, fun-loving individual who did what she wanted to do and was spicy.”
“My daughter was working hard at school, working two jobs, to become a teacher. She loved and adored kids, children of all ages,” he said. “The message I wanted to send to Dickey, who took my daughter’s life — this is from her: ‘You can’t kill my spirit. You might be able to kill my body … but you cannot kill my love that my family and friends shared with me.'”
“Logan was not an intended target,” Columbia Police Chief Skip Holbrook said at the press conference, adding that her death “touches all of us in a way that it’ll never leave us.”
He said that the CPD issued warrants charging Dickey with murder, two counts of first-degree burglary, weapons possession and larceny. The Lexington County sheriff said Dickey was also charged with burglary first degree and arson second degree, and that he was denied bond.
(WASHINGTON) — Escalating an ongoing clash between President Donald Trump’s administration and Harvard University, the Department of Education announced an immediate pause on Harvard’s grant funding — making the school ineligible for new research grants until it agrees with compliance criteria.
“Harvard is not eligible for any new grants from the federal government until they demonstrate responsible management of the university,” a senior official from the Department of Education said on a call with reporters on Monday.
The pause extends to medical research funding, according to the senior official, but does not impact federal student aid.
The official said public confidence in the university is at an all-time low — and that Harvard has failed to combat antisemitism and discrimination on its campus.
It has also abandoned the rigor of academic excellence and has become a leftist institution with “zero viewpoint diversity,” according to the official, who said that only 3% of Harvard’s faculty identifies as conservative.
“Today, we received another letter from the administration doubling down on demands that would impose unprecedented and improper control over Harvard University and would have chilling implications for higher education,” Harvard said in a statement to ABC News.
The statement called the move retaliatory and implied that its efforts are illegal.
“Harvard will continue to comply with the law, promote and encourage respect for viewpoint diversity, and combat antisemitism in our community,” it said, adding that the school would “continue to defend against illegal government overreach.”
The weeks-long feud between Trump and Harvard stems from several investigations by federal agencies, including the Department of Education and the Health and Human Services Department. They are probing into accusations ranging from failure to disclose foreign gifts to discrimination on the basis of race within the Harvard Law Review.
The administration has also launched a wide-reaching antisemitism task force review, which froze 2.2 billion dollars in funding for the institution last month.
But the university has refused to comply with demands, with Harvard President Alan Garber claiming that Trump has exceeded his executive authority.
“No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Garber wrote in a statement to the Harvard community in April.
In order for Harvard to return to compliance under federal law, the university would have to come into agreement with the administration, according to the senior official.
There was no announcement about the university’s tax-exempt status, which Trump threatened to take away on May 2.
The president can’t unilaterally revoke a school’s tax-exempt status under federal law, but sources told ABC News that the Internal Revenue Service is considering revoking the school’s status.
A Harvard spokesperson told ABC News last week that there’s no “legal basis” to rescind the university’s tax-exempt status and that it would endanger the school’s ability to carry out its mission.
“The tax exemption means that more of every dollar can go toward scholarships for students, lifesaving and life-enhancing medical research, and technological advancements that drive economic growth,” the spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News.
The move would not only lead to “lost opportunities for innovation” for Harvard itself, the spokesperson said.
“The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America,” they explained.
(WASHINGTON) — After having his security clearance revoked by President Donald Trump, high-profile whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid on Monday filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking to have his security clearance restored — saying that it was revoked for “improper political retribution.”
“The Trump Administration is seeking to neutralize someone viewed as an adversarial threat,” the complaint, filed in Washington, D.C., stated.
In March, Trump issued a presidential memorandum that revoked the security clearances of more than a dozen individuals, including Zaid, former President Joe Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and Hillary Clinton — a move the complaint says is “a dangerous, unconstitutional retaliation by the President of the United States against his perceived political enemies.”
In his memorandum, Trump wrote he had “determined that it is no longer in the national interest” for Zaid and others to have access to classified information.
Zaid, according to his complaint, has represented “whistleblowers in every administration” dating back to Bill Clinton, doing so “without regard to party politics” — and that the revocation of his clearance is now “undermining” his ability to fully represent his clients.
According to the complaint, Zaid has had access to classified information in some capacity for about three decades, since approximately 1995. His first “fully approved” clearance, according to the complaint, came in 2002 as part of ongoing litigation. He was granted a “secret” clearance, which he maintained for years, until he was increased during the first Trump administration to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS-SCI) as part of a case he was handling for a DHS whistleblower. He was last “read out” of his security in 2024, though it was not fully processed until 2025.
“In summary, Mr. Zaid has been a practicing attorney for over thirty years and for most of his professional career he has maintained authorized access to classified information,” the complaint states. “Indeed, far from being a security risk, he has established himself and has been recognized by legal and non-legal entities as a leader in the legal community and in the national security field specifically.”
Zaid’s complaint says he has already suffered real-world harms as a result of Trump’s memo after it was “blindly implemented” by a number of agencies. In one instance, the complaint says Zaid was notified in an email from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s inspector general’s office that he was “denied access to a client’s classified complaint” because he no longer had a security clearance.
“In sum, Mr. Zaid currently represents multiple clients for whom he now cannot access relevant classified information as part of his effective and zealous representation,” the complaint states.
Attorneys for Zaid, including Abbe Lowell and Norm Eisen, say in the complaint that they suspect Zaid “came onto President Trump’s radar” when he represented a whistleblower in 2019 who filed a complaint about Trump’s 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, leading to his first impeachment.
The complaint says the revocation is a violation of First and Fifth amendments, and asks a judge to declare the presidential memorandum unconstitutional, block any further implementation, rescind the revocation, and “Require the Defendants to conduct a name-clearing hearing.”
“No American should lose their livelihood, or be blocked as a lawyer from representing clients, because a president carries a grudge toward them or who they represent,” Zaid said in a statement. “This isn’t just about me. It’s about using security clearances as political weapons.”
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump late Sunday proposed a 100% tariff on foreign-made films, saying the policy would counteract financial incentives that have drawn Hollywood productions overseas.
“WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!” Trump said in a post on social media.
Movie studios have increasingly moved production abroad in recent years as a means of cutting costs, industry analysts told ABC News, but it remains unclear how adding a tariff would succeed in boosting domestic production.
Instead, it could send costs soaring, the analysts said. It could also reduce the number of Hollywood films produced each year and potentially increase ticket prices, they explained.
“Essentially what Trump is trying to do is make it untenable for U.S. movie studios to produce movies abroad — and the whole idea is that will stimulate production in the U.S.,” said S. Mark Young, an accounting professor at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business who studies the movie industry.
“But it would cost more money for film production in the U.S.,” Young added. “Where’s that going to come from?”
Here’s what Trump’s proposed tariff on foreign-made films could mean for Hollywood and moviegoers:
Why are U.S. studios filming some movies overseas? The rise of streaming services over the past decade fostered a surge in demand for scripted television and movies, as well as a spike in spending among studios, London-based consulting firm Olsberg SPI found last year.
In 2022, 599 scripted series aired in the U.S., registering more than double the 288 scripted series aired in 2012, Olsberg SPI said, noting that growth ebbed in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic but the overall production rate still surpasses what it was a decade ago.
Alongside that growth, the provision of production incentives worldwide surged nearly 40% over the past seven years, Olsberg SPI said, as nations vied for about $250 billion in global content spending.
But the incentives drawing production away from Hollywood aren’t all originating overseas; a slew of states have also boosted financial incentives to compete with moviemaking mainstays California and New York.
Financial incentives abroad have caused some productions to shift overseas, but they’re hardly the only reason, Jennifer Porst, a professor of film and media at Emory University told ABC News.
COVID-19 lockdowns sent studios seeking alternative locations, as did widespread labor strikes in 2023 and the increasingly global audience with streaming subscriptions, Porst said.
“There are a whole range of reasons for why production comes and goes,” Porst added. “Part of that is due to financial incentives.”
What is Trump’s proposed tariff on foreign-made films?
In a social media post on Sunday, Trump sharply criticized the production of Hollywood films overseas, claiming the trend had “devastated” parts of the U.S.
Trump claimed without evidence that the use of financial incentives abroad amounted to a “national security threat,” saying that — in his view — such productions involve “messaging and propaganda.”
Trump ordered the United States Trade Representative to begin the process of implementing a 100% tariff on foreign-made films.
In a statement on Monday, the White House said the policy hadn’t been finalized.
“Although no final decisions on foreign film tariffs have been made, the Administration is exploring all options to deliver on President Trump’s directive to safeguard our country’s national and economic security while Making Hollywood Great Again,” White House deputy press secretary Kush Desai told ABC News.
The proposal of a tariff on an intangible product like films poses a challenge for policymakers, since the U.S. cannot impose a direct tax on a film as it would a durable good, Tejaswini Ganti, a professor of anthropology at New York University who studies global film, told ABC News.
“If it’s a tax on people going abroad to shoot, what is the tax on? Is it going to be, ‘Here’s the final budget and we’ll add a tax on it’?” Ganti said. “What is the thing being taxed?”
Ganti also questioned the notion of a national security risk posed by Hollywood productions made abroad.
“If a Hollywood film is shot, say, in the United Kingdom, I don’t understand how that is a national security threat,” Ganti said. “It’s still an American story, just shot somewhere else.”
What could Trump’s proposed tariffs mean for Hollywood and moviegoers?
It remains unclear whether Trump’s tariff proposal would bolster domestic movie production, analysts said. Instead, the policy may force movie studios to choose between the tax burden associated with foreign-made films or the elevated cost of U.S. production, resulting in more expensive projects, fewer overall films and even less domestic output, they said.
“President Trump figured out the fastest way to dramatically reduce the number of films produced each year in America,” Rich Greenfield, a media and technology analyst at LightShed Partners, said in a post on X.
Greenfield followed with multiple rocket ship emojis to indicate the anticipated rise in costs if the tariff plan moved forward.
“It would be a disaster,” Young said, noting the likely added cost burden of a potential 100% tariff. “You can’t wave a magic wand and expect more money to appear.”
In an effort to weather added costs, the film industry may become more reliant on big-budget franchise films, leaving less opportunity for midsize or small-budget movies, Young added.
The extra tax burden could even hit the pockets of U.S. moviegoers, Ganti said.
“Could it lead to higher ticket prices? Sure,” Ganti added.
(LOS ANGELES) — A man crashed his vehicle through the gates of actress Jennifer Aniston’s Los Angeles home on Monday, police sources confirmed to ABC News.
The “Friends” star was home at the time, police sources said.
Private security at the Bel Air home detained the driver and he is currently in LAPD custody, sources close to the investigation told ABC News. He will be booked Monday night for felony vandalism due to the damage, the sources said.
The incident does not appear to have been an accident, though there is also nothing to indicate yet that the driver was targeting Aniston, the sources said. The LAPD’s Threat Management Unit, which has handled cases involving Aniston before, is going to take this case out of an abundance of caution, the sources said.
The suspect, who has a minor criminal history, was not actively being investigated for anything involving Aniston before the incident, the sources said.
Investigators are currently looking into the suspect’s background and social media, the sources said.
Aniston’s representatives declined to comment on the incident.
Law enforcement sources told ABC News this incident highlights the need for celebrities and high-profile types to take prudent measures to have high-level, on-site security.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(BOSTON) — A first responder testified Monday in Karen Read’s murder retrial that she heard the defendant say, “I hit him,” multiple times after her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, was found unresponsive in the snow outside a Massachusetts home in 2022.
Prosecutors allege, following a night of drinking in Canton, that Read struck O’Keefe with her Lexus SUV outside of a get-together at another officer’s home and left him to die in a blizzard in January 2022. An autopsy found that the 46-year-old died of hypothermia and blunt force injuries to the head.
After a jury was unable to reach a verdict in the initial murder trial last year, Read is being retried on charges including second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of a collision causing death. She has pleaded not guilty and maintains her innocence, with her attorneys arguing the police investigation was “riddled with errors” and alleging that witnesses colluded on their narrative about O’Keefe’s death.
Katie McLaughlin, a Canton firefighter paramedic who responded to the scene after Read and two others found O’Keefe in the snow outside the residence, was one of several witnesses who testified Monday in the ongoing trial.
As she did when she testified during the first trial, McLaughlin told the court that Read told her, “I hit him,” while she was trying to get details on O’Keefe during the early morning of Jan. 29, 2022.
“I asked if there had been any significant trauma that happened that preceded this, and she answered with a series of statements that she repeated — ‘I hit him. I hit him,” McLaughlin testified.
McLaughlin testified that she heard Read say, “I hit him,” four times.
An officer who was also present then signaled for his sergeant to come down, she said.
McLaughlin said she didn’t ask Read to clarify what she meant.
“I felt at that point, given the situation and how disturbing — and it was a very emotional situation, the woman was very upset — I didn’t feel comfortable pushing and asking for more. I just didn’t think that it was the right time for that,” she said. “And it was also really not my place at that point, and I feel like that was something that the police were — that’s more their role.”
McLaughlin said she subsequently told two colleagues in the ambulance at the scene what Read allegedly said.
O’Keefe was found by a flagpole near the home of Boston police officer Brian Albert.
Similar to the first trial when McLaughlin testified, defense attorney Alan Jackson grilled the witness on her relationship with Albert’s daughter, Caitlin, while mentioning times the two have attended the same social functions.
McLaughlin described Caitlin Albert as someone she went to high school with, shares mutual friends and socializes with, but wouldn’t consider a friend.
“We’ve known each other for years, but we are not close friends,” McLaughlin said. “We don’t have a relationship, just her one-on-one. It’s just group settings.”
Jackson also questioned if McLaughlin took any notes on what she said she heard Read say. The paramedic said she didn’t, and had only jotted down demographic information on O’Keefe onto her glove, such as his name and date of birth.
Asked by the prosecutor how she remembered Read’s alleged remarks, she said, “I won’t ever forget those statements.”
Jennifer McCabe, a key witness for the prosecution, testified last week that she also heard Read say, “I hit him,” while standing with Read and McLaughlin.
(SAN FRANCISCO) — President Donald Trump’s surprise announcement over the weekend that he wanted to reopen and expand the notorious Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary in San Francisco Bay is drawing new attention to the infamous prison.
Alcatraz closed its doors as a federal prison 60 years ago after housing some of America’s most infamous criminals, including Al Capone and George “Machine Gun” Kelly. During its 29-year run as a federal penitentiary from 1934 to 1963, Alcatraz earned a reputation for being the final stop for inmates who couldn’t be controlled at other facilities, according to the Bureau of Prisons.
The island’s enduring mystique has also attracted Hollywood, most notably for the 1962 film “The Birdman of Alcatraz,” starring Burt Lancaster, and the 1996 action thriller “The Rock,” starring Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage. The production team filmed significant portions of “The Rock” on location at the actual prison.
Despite its fearsome reputation, Alcatraz was never the prison portrayed in Hollywood films. According to the Bureau of Prisons, the facility maintained a surprisingly small population, averaging between 260 and 275 inmates — less than 1% of the federal prison population at the time. Some inmates even requested transfers to Alcatraz, attracted by conditions that included single-occupancy cells.
What made Alcatraz unique was its strict regimen. Prisoners were granted just four basic rights: food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Everything else, from family visits to library access, had to be earned through good behavior.
The system was designed to teach compliance, with inmates typically spending five years on the island before being transferred back to other facilities, according to the BOP.
The prison’s isolation in San Francisco Bay contributed to its mystique, particularly regarding escape attempts. Over its operational history, 36 men attempted to flee in 14 separate incidents, according to the Bureau of Prisons. While officially no one ever succeeded in escaping, five prisoners remain “missing and presumed drowned” to this day.
Contrary to popular belief, the BOP said that man-eating sharks didn’t patrol the waters around Alcatraz. The real challenges for would-be escapees were the bay’s frigid temperatures (averaging 50 to 55 degrees Fahrenheit), powerful currents and the 1.25-mile distance to shore.
According to the National Park Service, Alcatraz Island receives approximately 1.2 million visitors annually as a national park site, offering tours of the former prison and serving as a symbol that prompts visitors to contemplate issues of crime, punishment and justice — themes that have resurged in the national conversation following Trump’s announcement.
The island’s history extends beyond its prison years. Fortified initially as a military installation in the 1850s, Alcatraz formed part of San Francisco Bay’s coastal defense system and housed the West Coast’s first operational lighthouse, according to the BOP.
The Spanish explorer Juan Manuel de Ayala first named the island “Alcatraces” in 1775, according to the BOP, meaning “pelicans” or “strange bird” — a far cry from the ominous reputation it would later acquire as America’s most notorious federal penitentiary.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump, a little more than 100 days after taking the oath of office, questioned whether he had a duty to uphold the Constitution and the Fifth Amendment right to due process as he expressed frustration on judicial pushback to his mass deportation effort.
During a wide-ranging interview with NBC News “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker, Trump was asked if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio that citizens and noncitizens alike are entitled to due process.
“I don’t know,” Trump responded. “I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.”
Welker noted that the Fifth Amendment, which states in part that “no person” shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” says as much.
“I don’t know,” Trump repeated. “It seems it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials. We have thousands of people that are some murders and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on earth, some of the worst most dangerous people on earth, and I was elected to get them the hell out of here and the courts are holding me from doing it.”
Asked a final time if, as president, he needed to uphold the Constitution, Trump again deflected.
“I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are obviously going to follow what the Supreme Court said,” in what’s become a new standard answer in interviews when confronted with similar questions about what the law requires him to do.
Legal experts told ABC News that the Fifth Amendment does not make any distinction between citizens and noncitizens. The Supreme Court has held that illegal immigrants are afforded due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
“Even Justice Scalia, for whom President Trump has expressed great admiration, acknowledged that the plain language of the Fifth Amendment clearly provides every ‘person,’ not just American citizens, are entitled to the protections of due process,” Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News.
Scalia’s 1993 ruling in which he wrote it was well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings” was referenced in a recent Supreme Court order mandating detained migrants be given “reasonable time” to challenge their removal.
“President Trump’s failure to acknowledge that he swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution is unprecedented in American history,” Gerhardt said. “Most presidents have not been lawyers, but every president, other than Trump, has acknowledged that every federal official, including the president, has the duty to uphold the Constitution.”
Trump, with his right hand raised, took the oath of office on Jan. 20 as prescribed by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
“I Donald John Trump do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Trump said during his inauguration.
In another escalation of his standoff with the courts, Trump later on Sunday told reporters that he would seek to appoint judges who won’t challenge his deportation plan.
“I mean, we need judges that are not going to be demanding trials for every single illegal immigrant,” Trump said while taking questions on Air Force One. “We have millions of people that have come in here illegally, and we can’t have a trial for every single person. That would be millions of trials.”
Immigration matters are routinely dealt with in a limited hearing or other court proceedings before an immigration judge, not a full-blown trial as Trump suggests, experts say. Those administrative judges are employees of the Department of Justice.
“It’s a minimal due process hearing, but it does provide due process,” said David Leopold, an attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Trump’s comments on Sunday were quickly criticized by Democrats and other critics, who pointed to it as what they said was another example of Trump’s disregard for constitutional boundaries.
“This is as un-American as it gets,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X.
Republican Sen. Rand Paul also pushed back that “following the Constitution is not a suggestion.”
“It is a guiding force for all of us who work on behalf of the American people. Do you agree?” Paul wrote on X.
“It is shocking that a sitting president would treat the Constitution as if it’s an inconvenience,” said Leopold.
“We can’t just assume that the government is judge, jury and executioner,” said Leopold. “That’s not what this country was founded on. That’s what an authoritarian country is. We are not an authoritarian country. We are a constitutional republic.”
(WASHINGTON) — Bird flu is continuing to spread in animals across the United States more than a year after the first human case was detected.
Since then, at least 70 people have fallen ill and at least one death was recorded in Louisiana, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The number of confirmed cases in humans has held steady for almost two months, but hundreds of dairy cows continue to be infected and raw milk samples in several states have tested positive for bird flu, according to federal health officials.
There is currently no evidence the virus is spreading between people, and the CDC has said the risk to the general public is low. However, some experts told ABC News fear the virus could still mutate or adapt to become more severe or transmissible.
Here’s the latest to know about the virus and current situation.
Bird flu in the U.S.
Bird flu, or avian influenza, is an infectious viral disease that primarily spreads among birds and is caused by infection with Avian Influenza A viruses
In March 2024, bird flu was reported in U.S. dairy cows for the first time. As of Friday, the virus has infected more than 1,000 herds across 17 states, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The CDC confirmed the first human case in April 2024 in a Texas dairy worker who was exposed to cows presumed to be infected. This is believed to be the first instance of mammal to human spread of the H5N1 strain.
Bird flu has also been causing outbreaks in poultry, leading to human cases among U.S. poultry farm workers and culling operations workers.
Three human cases have had no known or identifiable exposure to the virus.
Dr. Tony Moody, a professor of pediatrics and in immunology at Duke University School of Medicine, said there has been so much transmission of bird flu in animals that he wonders if mass immunity is far off.
“In terms of the cattle population and other animal reservoirs, I’m starting to wonder exactly how many more cases we’ll see because, at this point, we’re probably heading toward — and pun is intended here — herd immunity,” he told ABC News.
Moody said there is currently no evidence of human-to-human transmission, which he says raises the question of whether or not H5N1 is likely to make that jump.
What is the U.S. doing to fight bird flu?
According to the USDA, the agency is investing $1 billion to fight bird flu, including $500 million for biosecurity measures, $400 million in financial relief for affected farmers and $100 million for vaccine research.
Between March 2024 and now, the CDC said it — along with state and local health departments — have monitored at least 16,600 people exposed to infected animals and tested at least 880. Meanwhile, USDA is responsible for testing livestock herds.
Moody said ramping up testing on both sides would give public health workers better situational awareness.
“I think the real question comes down to: how much do we want to test animals and people in order to be able to nail down transmission events and really understand how frequently this is happening?” Moody said, “I would personally like to see better surveillance and more coordinated surveillance.”
He said he understands this might not be possible due to the allocation of limited resources, but it would provide a better national picture.
“I think that the problem we have right now is that we have an incomplete view because testing of animals falls under one department, testing of people falls under a different department,” Moody said. “They don’t necessarily communicate in real time with accurate information and, the two agencies in question here, they’ve got very different purposes.”
Dr. Dean Blumberg, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Davis Health, said he is worried that there has been a curtailing of testing and surveillance.
“If we don’t have the data then we don’t know what next steps to take,” he told ABC News. “There is increased likelihood that there will be increased spread among animals and humans and, by the time we become aware of increased transmission, then it may be too late for successful mitigation.”Under the USDA’s National Milk Testing Strategy to test raw milk samples for bird flu, the agency has identified at least seven affected states.
Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration announced last year it was beginning to sample aged raw cheese to test bird flu, with early results showing most samples were negative.
On the vaccine front, the U.S. has licensed three bird flu vaccines, targeting the H5N1 strain, which are being held in a national stockpile. They are not available to the public and would only be distributed in case of an emergency.
Last year, the World Health Organization it launched an initiative to help accelerate the development of a human bird flu vaccine using messenger RNA (mRNA) technology.
Earlier this year, Moderna was awarded approximately $590 million from the federal government to help speed up the development of an mRNA-based bird flu vaccine, alongside other influenza vaccines.
What we don’t know
Although there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission yet, or that the virus has mutated to become more infectious, Moody said he still worried about mutations and adaptations.
Earlier this year, a dairy cow was found to be infected with another type of bird flu for the first time, which experts have previously said is evidence that the virus is adapting.
“The thing about this virus is that it mutates every time somebody gets infected, right?” Moody said. “We know that there is an intrinsic rate of mutation that the virus has, and as with most mutations, the vast majority … don’t lead to any additional pathogenicity or transmissibility.”
He went on, “But the more cases that you have, whether that is in chickens or cows or people, the more of those random events are occurring and we know that eventually the virus will probably find a way to increase its transmissibility to people or increase some other property that makes it a problem.”
Moody said he is also concerned about reassortment, which is when a hybrid — or recombinant — virus, is formed. An example is an individual getting infected with bird flu and seasonal influenza at the same time and a hybrid virus forming as a result.
He clarified that there is no evidence this has happened yet, and that he believes the U.S. is in a better position to respond today if a pandemic-like situation arises, “but nature has a way of surprising us.”
Police officers are seen on the University of Washington campus during an occupation of a building by protesters, in this screengrab from a video supplied by Students United for Palestinian Equality and Return UW on March 5, 2025. (Students United for Palestinian Equality and Return UW)
(SEATTLE) — More than 25 people were arrested after a group occupied an academic building at the University of Washington, demanding the school sever ties with Boeing as the war in Gaza continues, according to the university and a spokesperson for the group.
A group called Students United for Palestinian Equality and Return claimed it was behind the takeover, with a spokesperson telling ABC News that all of the people who entered the building were arrested.
”They were all arrested and legal and political support is ongoing for them,” the spokesperson, Oliver Marchant, said in a text, adding, “All arrested except one were inside the building — some of those arrested were also injured during arrest and need medical attention.”
About 30 people were arrested on charges that included trespassing, property destruction and disorderly conduct, Victor Balta, a university spokesperson and assistant vice president for communications, said in a statement. Some of those arrested were charged with conspiracy to commit all three of those charges, Balta said, adding that they would be referred to the King County Prosecutor’s Office.
“Any students identified as being involved will also be referred to the Student Conduct Office,” Balta said.
The school said in an earlier press statement that “a few dozen individuals” had entered the Interdisciplinary Engineering Building just prior to its 5 p.m. closing. Campus police were called to the scene, the university said in a statement to ABC News.
Campus police, which were working with several other agencies, began clearing the area outside the building at about 10:30 p.m., Balta said. Protesters had worked to block the doors and also lit two dumpsters on fire in the street, he said. By 11 p.m., police had entered and began clearing the building.
Prior to the arrests, the school said the “trespassers are mostly covering their faces and stacking building furniture near entryways.”
“To the best of our knowledge, everyone connected to the UW who does not want to be inside the building has left,” the university said in a statement. “Individuals remaining in the building are trespassing and will face legal and student conduct actions.”
The group, which goes by SUPER UW and which identified itself as Pro-Palestinian, issued a series of demands for school administrators, including taking “Boeing out of the IEB,” as the building they’ve occupied is known.
The group asked for the building to be renamed.
Boeing, an airplane manufacturer and one of the largest defense companies in the United States, has a long history with the University of Washington.
The company, which previously was headquartered in Seattle, supplied about $10 million as a donation to aid in the construction of that $90 million engineering building, the school said in 2022, prior to construction. A press release from that time noted that “Boeing’s relationship with the UW dates back more than a century.”
The group that’s occupying the building sought, more broadly, to stop all donations from Boeing to the school.
“Return any existing donations, financial investments, and eliminate all other material ties to Boeing,” the group said. “Prohibit Boeing executives and employees from teaching classes or having any influence over curriculum.”
Balta in a statement said the school was “committed to maintaining a secure learning and research environment, and strongly condemns this illegal building occupation.” The school also condemned the strong language in the protesters’ press release, with Balta saying it “will not be intimidated by this sort of offensive and destructive behavior.”
ABC News’ Tristan Maglunog and Erica Morris contributed to this report.
