Jurors in one of the most politically charged federal terrorism trials in recent Texas history are preparing to begin deliberations after closing arguments wrapped Wednesday — and the verdict could send shockwaves far beyond the courtroom in Alvarado.
Nine defendants stand accused of orchestrating a planned armed ambush on the Prairieland ICE Detention Center on July 4, 2025 — a date that was no accident, prosecutors say. The case has drawn national attention for its intersection of immigration enforcement, political activism, and federal terrorism statutes, raising uncomfortable questions about where protest ends and violence begins.
Nine Defendants, One Alleged Plan
The accused — Daniel Estrada, Ines Soto, Elizabeth Soto, Maricela Rueda, Bradford Morris, Savanna Batten, Benjamin Song, Zachary Evetts, and Cameron Arnold — are facing federal charges tied to what the government describes as a coordinated attack on the detention facility outside of Fort Worth. Fox4 documented the full list of defendants as the trial unfolded earlier this month.
Jury selection began on February 17, 2026, according to the defendants’ own press releases — an unusual transparency from a group whose supporters have maintained throughout that this was an act of political conscience, not terrorism. The trial has now stretched into its fourth week.
What allegedly brought these nine people together? A Signal group chat called “4th of July Party!” — and that detail alone tells you something about how this case has unfolded. According to accounts of the planning, participants used that chat to coordinate bringing fireworks, firearms, and medical kits to the facility. They also allegedly conducted reconnaissance of the detention center in the days before the attack.
Antifa, Evidence, and a Fine Legal Line
One of the more striking moments of the trial came during testimony from FBI Special Agent Kasey Bennett, who walked the jury through a careful but pointed distinction. Owning antifa-related materials, Bennett explained, isn’t illegal on its own. KERAN noted his exact framing: “But when acts of violence come from that belief, that’s when we investigate.”
That’s the catch. The prosecution has leaned heavily on ideology as context — not as the crime itself, but as a thread connecting the defendants’ alleged intentions to their alleged actions. Defense attorneys, meanwhile, have pushed back on the government’s characterization of their clients as terrorists, arguing that the political climate surrounding immigration enforcement has colored how law enforcement framed this case from the start.
Still, the Signal chat logs and the alleged pre-attack reconnaissance make it difficult to argue this was a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand.
Cooperating Witnesses Take the Stand
Not all of those originally charged went to trial. Several individuals who pleaded guilty earlier became cooperating witnesses, and their testimony proved to be some of the most emotionally raw moments of the proceedings. CBS News described the atmosphere inside the courtroom as tense and at times deeply personal, as former co-defendants took the stand against people they once organized alongside.
That kind of testimony — from someone who shared a Signal chat with the accused — carries weight with juries. It’s one thing for a federal agent to describe a plot. It’s another entirely to hear it from someone who was allegedly in the room.
Closing Arguments and What Comes Next
Closing arguments were heard Wednesday, March 11, with both sides making their final pitches before the case goes to the jury. KERAN recapped the preceding week’s testimony as the trial headed into its final stretch, and video of the proceedings has drawn significant online attention as well.
Deliberations are expected to begin imminently. A conviction on federal terrorism-related charges could mean decades in prison for some defendants. An acquittal — or a hung jury — would be interpreted by supporters as vindication and by critics as a failure of the justice system to protect federal immigration infrastructure.
Either way, the verdict won’t settle the larger argument. It never does.
