What makes a firework an incendiary device on federal property?

The federal question is not whether the object began life as a firework. It is whether, once assembled and used, it fits the statutory definition of an “explosive or incendiary device.” Under 18 U.S.C. § 232(5), that term includes three categories: a dynamite-type explosive or similar device, a bomb or grenade-type device, and “any breakable container including a flammable liquid or compound, and a wick composed of any material, which, when ignited, is capable of igniting such flammable liquid or compound.” [1]

That third category is the important one for the July 20, 2026 incident at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan. Public reporting described Andrew Arrabaca using a “large firework in a canister” to ignite gasoline poured from a bucket at the entrance to the federal building; three people were reported injured, and the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force was involved in the investigation. [2] AP reporting likewise described the firework as the ignition source for gasoline deployed outside the building entrance and reported that Arrabaca also fired a pellet gun. [3]

Those facts matter because the statute does not require the wick to be a cloth rag or a traditional fuse. It requires a wick “composed of any material” that, when ignited, can ignite the flammable liquid or compound. A firework used to carry flame into gasoline can do that work. If the gasoline is in a breakable container, the assembly moves out of ordinary fireworks vocabulary and into the statutory language of § 232(5)(C).

The statutory line is drawn by the assembled object

A consumer firework standing by itself is not automatically an incendiary device under § 232(5). The definition does not say that every pyrotechnic article is an incendiary device. It asks whether the thing in question falls into one of the listed categories. For a simple consumer firework, the answer may be no: it may be regulated as a firework, or unlawful under some other provision depending on where and how it is possessed or used, without becoming the breakable-container device described in § 232(5)(C).

The analysis changes when the firework is no longer the whole object. If it is inserted into, attached to, or otherwise used as the ignition mechanism for a container holding gasoline or another flammable liquid, the legally relevant object is the combination. The firework supplies ignition. The liquid supplies the fuel. The container supplies the statutory vessel. If the container is breakable, the fit with § 232(5)(C) is direct.

That last category is worth keeping separate. Federal criminal analysis should not treat proximity as assembly. A firework in the same cart as gasoline is one fact. A firework used to ignite gasoline in a container is a different fact. Public reporting on the 26 Federal Plaza incident describes the latter, but the exact pyrotechnic content and technical characteristics of the firework had not been publicly confirmed by ATF testing in the materials available for this article.

Why consumer-firework status does not end the inquiry

ATF’s fireworks guidance distinguishes consumer fireworks from display fireworks and illegal explosives. Consumer fireworks are generally classified as 1.4G and are exempt from ATF regulation for storage and distribution, while display fireworks are classified as 1.3G and are regulated under 27 C.F.R. Part 555. [4] ATF also identifies illegal explosives such as M-80s and M-1000s, and notes CPSC flash-powder thresholds of 50 milligrams for certain ground devices and 130 milligrams for aerial devices. [5]

Those classifications help keep the first question clean: a lawful consumer firework does not become a federal incendiary device merely because it burns, sparks, or makes noise. But ATF’s fireworks categories do not give the firework immunity after it is repurposed. The statutory definition in § 232(5)(C) is not asking whether the ignition component was originally sold as a consumer product. It is asking what the completed device consists of and what it is capable of doing.

A household match can be lawful. Gasoline can be lawfully possessed. A glass bottle can be ordinary trash. The criminal-law question changes when those parts are combined into a breakable container of flammable liquid with an ignition mechanism. The same reasoning applies when the ignition mechanism is a firework.

What the classification changes under 18 U.S.C. § 844

Section 844 is where the definition starts to carry punishment consequences. Section 844(j) incorporates the § 232(5) definition into the federal explosives chapter, so the “explosive or incendiary device” label is not just descriptive language; it is a charging hook. [6]

For federal property, § 844(f) is the obvious place to look. It covers malicious damage or destruction, or attempted damage or destruction, by fire or explosive, of property owned, possessed, or leased by the United States or by an institution receiving federal financial assistance. The baseline penalty is imprisonment for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years. If personal injury results, the range becomes not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years. If death results, the statute permits imprisonment for any term of years, life, or death. [6]

Section 844(g) separately makes it a federal offense to possess an explosive or incendiary device in, or in proximity to, a building owned, possessed, or leased by the United States, or in a building used in interstate or foreign commerce, with imprisonment of up to 5 years. [6] That matters when the government can prove possession of the device on federal property even apart from completed damage.

Section 844(h) adds another consequence: anyone who uses fire or an explosive to commit a federal felony, or carries an explosive during the commission of a federal felony, faces a mandatory 10-year term of imprisonment imposed in addition to the punishment for the underlying felony. The statute requires that term to run consecutively. [6]

That is why the line between “firework” and “incendiary device” cannot be treated as a matter of phrasing. If the item remains a standalone consumer firework, the federal explosives analysis is different. If the firework is part of a gasoline-filled breakable-container device, the § 844 framework comes into view.

The 26 Federal Plaza facts that matter, and the facts that remain open

The legally material reported facts are compact. The site was 26 Federal Plaza, a federal building in Manhattan. The alleged device involved gasoline and a large firework in a canister. The firework was reportedly used to ignite the gasoline at the entrance. Three people were reported injured. CNN also reported that Arrabaca had a cart containing “six incendiary devices.” [2]

Other reported facts may matter to motive, investigation, detention, or public understanding, but they do not do the same work in the statutory definition. ABC13 reported that the FBI described Arrabaca as an “anti-American, anti-government extremist,” identified him as an Army veteran, and described additional recovered materials. [7] Those details may be relevant in a broader case record. They are not necessary to decide whether a gasoline container ignited by a firework fits § 232(5)(C).

There are also limits. The publicly available reporting does not supply a lab-confirmed composition of the firework, a full inventory analysis, or an indictment setting out the government’s final charging theory. As of July 21, 2026, this article treats the matter as statutory analysis based on reported facts, not as a statement that any particular charge has been filed or will be proved.

A brief note on “destructive device” language

Federal law also uses the term “destructive device” in the National Firearms Act. Under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f), that definition includes explosive, incendiary, or poison-gas bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines, and similar devices, along with certain weapons and combinations of parts. The same provision excludes devices that are “neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon,” and certain devices designed or redesigned for signaling, pyrotechnic, line-throwing, safety, or similar purposes. [8]

That vocabulary can overlap with the public discussion of improvised fire devices, but it is not the main definition needed here. For the federal-building scenario described above, § 232(5), incorporated through § 844(j), supplies the cleaner route: a breakable container, a flammable liquid, and a wick or ignition component capable of lighting that liquid.

Where the line falls

A consumer firework, by itself, is not the statutory incendiary device described in 18 U.S.C. § 232(5)(C). Once that firework is used as the ignition mechanism for flammable liquid in a breakable container, the assembled object fits the definition. On federal property, that classification is what can move the conduct from a fireworks violation or ordinary fire offense into the federal explosives provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 844.

This is statutory analysis, not legal advice. Case-specific exposure depends on the final evidence, the charging instrument, jurisdictional facts, defenses, and the government’s proof.

References

1. 18 U.S. Code § 232 - Definitions, Cornell Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/232
2. CNN coverage of the July 20, 2026 26 Federal Plaza incident, CNN, https://www.cnn.com/
3. AP coverage of the July 20, 2026 26 Federal Plaza incident, Associated Press / WEAU, https://www.weau.com/
4. Fireworks, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, https://www.atf.gov/explosives/fireworks
5. Illegal Explosives, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, https://www.atf.gov/explosives/illegal-explosives
6. 18 U.S. Code § 844 - Penalties, Cornell Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/844
7. ABC13 coverage of the July 20, 2026 26 Federal Plaza incident, ABC13, https://abc13.com/
8. 26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions, Cornell Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845