Former Vassar student Nigel Trenh arrested in campus bomb/active-shooter hoax — what the federal charges mean and how to defend them

On December 8–10, 2025, federal authorities arrested 22-year-old Nigel Trenh in Los Angeles and charged him in the Southern District of New York after an anonymous social-media post allegedly warned of a bomb and an active shooter at a Vassar College dormitory on move-in day (August 29, 2025). The post prompted an evacuation and a multi-agency law-enforcement response. The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint that charges Trenh under two federal statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 844(e) (false information involving an explosive) and 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1) (hoaxes involving explosives and firearms). Department of Justice+1

What the complaint alleges (short version)

According to the federal complaint, the defendant posted an anonymous message on a campus-focused social app claiming a bomb was in a third-floor restroom of a dormitory and warning of an active shooter. That message triggered an evacuation, K-9 sweeps, and an emergency response. Prosecutors also describe a pattern of threatening and harassing communications directed at Vassar personnel. The complaint charges two counts corresponding to the statutes below. Department of Justice+1

The statutes charged — plain English

18 U.S.C. § 844(e) — False information involving an explosive

Section 844(e) makes it a federal crime to use the mail, telephone, or other instrument of interstate commerce to willfully make a threat or maliciously convey false information that a violent or destructive act (for example, an attempt to kill or to damage/destroy a building with an explosive) is taking place or will take place. In practice, posting an anonymous bomb threat online that prompts a real emergency response is the kind of conduct covered by this provision.

Typical statutory penalty: violations of the relevant portions of § 844 are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment (penalty depends on the subsection and facts). aggravated subsections of §844 can carry higher mandatory terms when actual explosives or injuries are involved, but the portion charged here (false information) usually carries the 10-year statutory maximum.

18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1) — False information and hoaxes (explosives/firearms)

Section 1038(a)(1) criminalizes intentionally conveying false or misleading information under circumstances where a reasonable person might believe it, when the false information suggests that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would be a serious federal offense (this includes hoaxes about explosives or firearms). The statute was created to target “swatting-style” hoaxes and other false reports that could induce fear, panic, or unnecessary emergency responses.

Typical statutory penalty: the base offense of § 1038(a)(1) generally carries up to 5 years imprisonment. However, higher penalties apply if the hoax causes serious bodily injury (up to 20 years) or death (up to life), or in other specified aggravating circumstances; fines and restitution for costs of the emergency response are also possible.

How prosecutors usually prove these crimes

Prosecutors commonly rely on a combination of:

• The electronic evidence tying a particular account or device to the alleged post(s) (IP logs, metadata, platform records).
• Statements from victims or witnesses showing the post was believed and caused a response (evacuation, law-enforcement deployment).
• Evidence of intent or a pattern (multiple threatening communications, later messages, or admissions).
• Technical forensics (cell-tower records, device seizure) to corroborate identity and timing.

Because both statutes require intent — maliciously conveying false information in §844(e) and intentionally conveying false or misleading information in §1038(a)(1) — proving what the defendant knew and intended is a focal point for prosecutors. The complaint will typically allege facts intended to show willfulness and intent.

Possible defenses

No two cases are identical, but commonly raised defenses include:

• Lack of intent: showing the defendant believed the information was true (or lacked the specific intent required) can negate the mens rea element.
• Mistaken identity / insufficient technical proof: challenging the government’s attribution of the posting to the defendant (weak or circumstantial digital-forensic linkage).
• Protected speech / overbroad evidence issues: while threats and hoaxes are not protected, careful constitutional and First Amendment analysis can sometimes limit what the government may rely upon, especially where messages are ambiguous.
• Entrapment or coercion (rare): if law enforcement inducement were present (rare in hoax prosecutions), entrapment could be a defense.
• Mitigation and context: in plea negotiations, mitigating context (mental health issues, lack of prior record, prompt acceptance of responsibility) can reduce exposure.

Because intent and technical attribution are often disputed, an aggressive forensics, metadata, and witness analysis is critical.

Potential penalties and collateral consequences

If convicted on both federal counts charged in the complaint, a defendant faces significant incarceration exposure: up to 10 years on §844(e) and up to 5 years on §1038(a)(1). Sentences could run consecutively or concurrently depending on the judge’s decision and statutory directives. In addition to prison, fines, mandatory restitution (including reimbursement for emergency responses), supervised release, and a criminal record with long-term collateral consequences (education, employment, immigration) can follow a federal conviction.

Why experienced federal defense counsel matters — and why Matthew Galluzzo is a fit

Federal hoax and false-information cases combine technical digital evidence, nuanced statutory elements (intent, interstate commerce), and high public and prosecutorial interest when the alleged conduct sparks community fear. That mix makes careful, experienced federal defense essential. Matthew Galluzzo is an experienced federal criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. His strengths include:

• Digital-forensics expertise: scrutinizing log files, metadata, account records, and chain-of-custody issues to challenge attribution.
• Criminal procedure and motion practice: filing targeted motions (e.g., to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence, to require the government to disclose identification proofs, or to narrow indictment language).
• Plea bargaining skill and sentencing advocacy: federal sentencing involves guidelines and statutory considerations; an experienced counsel negotiates to reduce exposure and argues for reasonable outcomes at sentencing.
• Trial advocacy: Mr. Galluzzo has won numerous trial acquittals in state and federal courts across New York in a wide range of complex criminal matters.

Matthew Galluzzo has represented clients in high-stakes federal matters across New York and Connecticut federal courts and brings the litigation experience, forensic orientation, and strategic advocacy needed in cases like this. Whether the case is resolved through motions, trial, or a plea, experienced counsel helps maximize procedural protections and pursue every available defense and mitigation. (If you’d like, I can draft a firm contact blurb or call-to-action tailored to your website or blog.)

Bottom line

False bomb and shooter hoaxes are treated seriously by federal prosecutors because they endanger people, waste emergency resources, and cause trauma to communities. If you — or someone you know — is charged in a federal hoax case like the complaint filed against Nigel Trenh, securing experienced federal defense counsel immediately is critical: the early months of a federal investigation are when evidence is collected and legal strategy is set. Matthew Galluzzo (or another seasoned federal defense attorney) can challenge attribution and intent, push back on the government’s technical case, and advocate for the best possible outcome under difficult facts.