"🚨 NATIONAL SECURITY SHOCKER! — ENERGY DEPT. OFFICIAL BUSTED, ACCUSED OF SUPPORTING IRAN-BACKED HOUTHIS!"
A Department of Energy engineer has been arrested on a federal terrorism-related charge after prosecutors accused him of attempting to provide technical assistance and equipment to Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi movement.
Ashton Hamed Ellaboudy, 51, of Richland, Washington, was arrested Thursday and charged with attempting to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
Federal prosecutors allege Ellaboudy traveled toward Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen, offered engineering assistance to improve the group’s communications capabilities and later worked with people he believed were connected to the organization.
If convicted, Ellaboudy faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison.
The charge is an allegation, and Ellaboudy is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
The case was investigated by the FBI’s Inland Northwest Joint Terrorism Task Force.
According to federal authorities, Ellaboudy traveled from Washington state to Oman in September 2025 and attempted to continue into Yemen.
Prosecutors say he used an official passport that had previously been issued to him while he worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Ellaboudy allegedly paid approximately $1,400 for assistance crossing from Oman into Yemen and intended to travel to Sanaa, the Houthi-controlled capital.
Investigators allege he hoped to establish connections with officials there.
He ultimately did not reach Sanaa, according to the government’s account.
When Ellaboudy returned to the United States, prosecutors say he told Customs and Border Protection officials that his travel was connected to official U.S. government business involving missile-defense systems.
Investigators subsequently contacted his Department of Energy supervisor.
According to prosecutors, the supervisor said Ellaboudy had not been authorized to travel internationally and had no assignment involving a missile inspection program.
That discrepancy became one component of the federal investigation.
Authorities also scrutinized Ellaboudy’s purchases of chemicals and equipment.
Investigators discovered purchases involving acetone, sodium bisulfate and drone components, according to the government’s allegations.
Prosecutors described some of the materials as chemical precursors that can have applications involving homemade explosives.
However, the criminal charge announced against Ellaboudy concerns attempted material support for a foreign terrorist organization. The allegations do not establish that he actually constructed an explosive device.
Investigators also examined a December 2024 incident in which Ellaboudy reportedly took sick leave after saying he had been exposed to highly concentrated nitric acid.
Federal authorities noted that nitric acid can be used in the production of explosives.
The government’s public allegations, however, do not establish why Ellaboudy possessed or encountered the chemical, nor do they by themselves demonstrate that the sick-leave incident was part of the alleged Houthi-support scheme.
As the investigation progressed, federal authorities introduced confidential human sources whom Ellaboudy allegedly believed had connections to the Houthis.
One source purported to work for a Houthi “Colonel,” according to prosecutors.
The government alleges Ellaboudy then began using his engineering expertise to assist what he believed was an effort benefiting the organization.
He allegedly tested and modified solar generators and communications equipment intended for a mobile communications center.
Prosecutors say Ellaboudy also provided schematics and technical diagrams showing how power-generation and communications equipment could be integrated.
Authorities further allege that he researched additional equipment capable of improving the Houthis’ communications infrastructure.
Those allegations form a significant part of the government’s material-support case.
The Justice Department’s account does not allege that Ellaboudy successfully transferred classified U.S. government information to the Houthis.
Nor has the government publicly identified a specific financial loss suffered by the United States as a result of his alleged activities.
Ellaboudy’s employment with the Department of Energy adds another national-security dimension to the investigation.
He worked at the Hanford Site in Washington, one of the country’s most significant nuclear cleanup facilities.
Hanford officials stressed that investigators found no indication Ellaboudy’s alleged activities involved an attack against the facility or its employees.
“This matter did not involve an attempt to harm the Hanford Site or its workforce,” Hanford Field Office Manager Ray Geimer said.
Geimer said neither the facility nor its employees were threatened.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
