Two ICE officers face criminal probe after video evidence contradicts their sworn testimony in Minneapolis shooting

Two ICE officers are under criminal investigation and have been placed on administrative leave after a joint review by ICE and the Department of Justice found that video evidence contradicts sworn statements the officers made about a January 14 confrontation in Minneapolis — a confrontation in which one of the officers shot a Venezuelan national in the leg.

Felony assault charges against the Venezuelan nationals involved have been dismissed. The officers who filed those charges may now face prosecution themselves.

U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen moved to dismiss the charges against Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, citing "newly discovered evidence" that was "materially inconsistent" with the criminal complaint and earlier court testimony. A federal judge granted the motion on Friday.

What DHS Originally Said Happened

The original account went like this: ICE officers attempted a targeted traffic stop on Sosa-Celis in Minneapolis on January 14. He allegedly fled in his vehicle, crashed into a parked car, and ran on foot. A physical confrontation followed. DHS alleged that Aljorna and a third man, Gabriel Alejandro Hernandez-Ledezma, struck an officer with a snow shovel and broom handle. An ICE agent fired a single shot, hitting Sosa-Celis in the leg. All three men retreated into an apartment and were taken into custody. Both the officer and Sosa-Celis were hospitalized.

According to Fox News, Felony assault charges were filed against Aljorna and Sosa-Celis. On paper, it looked like a straightforward case of illegal immigrants attacking federal officers during an arrest.

Then the video surfaced.

The Story Falls Apart

ICE Director Todd Lyons said Friday that newly reviewed video evidence suggests the officers made "untruthful statements" under oath about what happened that day. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin laid it out plainly in an email to Fox News Digital:

"A joint review by ICE and the Department of Justice (DOJ) of video evidence has revealed that sworn testimony provided by two separate officers appears to have made untruthful statements."

The officers' names have not been released. What the video actually shows has not been publicly detailed — only that it was "materially inconsistent" with the narrative those officers swore to under oath.

McLaughlin did not mince words about the consequences:

"Lying under oath is a serious federal offense. The U.S. Attorney's Office is actively investigating these false statements."

"Upon conclusion of the investigation, the officers may face termination of employment, as well as potential criminal prosecution. The men and women of ICE are entrusted with upholding the rule of law and are held to the highest standards of professionalism, integrity and ethical conduct. Violations of this sacred sworn oath will not be tolerated."

Why This Matters for Conservatives

Here's the uncomfortable but necessary truth: this is accountability working exactly as it should.

Conservatives have spent years — rightly — arguing that the rule of law is non-negotiable. That oath-breaking by government officials corrodes public trust. The enforcement apparatus must be credible to function. You cannot demand that illegal immigrants respect American law while shrugging when federal officers fabricate testimony under oath. The standard is the standard.

The Trump administration, to its credit, handled this correctly. ICE and DOJ conducted a joint review. When the evidence contradicted the officers' testimony, the administration didn't circle the wagons. It placed both officers on administrative leave, moved to dismiss the charges they had secured through apparently false statements, and opened a criminal investigation into its own people. That's not a weakness. That's an enforcement agency that takes its own credibility seriously.

The left will inevitably try to weaponize this story — to paint ICE broadly as rogue agents brutalizing immigrants. They've been building that narrative for years, and two bad officers in Minneapolis will fuel months of fundraising emails. Expect every open-borders advocacy group in the country to treat this as confirmation that immigration enforcement itself is illegitimate.

Don't let them. Two officers lying under oath is a scandal. An agency catching it, exposing it, and pursuing criminal charges against its own personnel is the system working. The distinction matters enormously, and the left has no interest in drawing it.

Open Questions

Several things remain unresolved. It is unclear whether the three Venezuelan nationals — who are, regardless of the officers' misconduct, illegal immigrants — could face deportation. The charges were dismissed because the sworn testimony was tainted, not because their immigration status changed. That question deserves an answer.

The nature of the video evidence — whether it came from body cameras, surveillance footage, or bystander recordings — has not been disclosed. Neither has what it actually depicts. The gap between the officers' sworn account and the video record could range from exaggeration to wholesale fabrication. The severity of the misconduct will determine whether this ends in termination or a courtroom.

Whether Hernandez-Ledezma, the third man taken into custody, faced charges — and what happened to those charges — remains unaddressed.

The Credibility Stakes

Immigration enforcement is the centerpiece of this administration's domestic agenda. Every fraudulent arrest report, every false statement under oath, every shortcut that sacrifices integrity for a collar — it doesn't just harm the individual case. It hands ammunition to every activist, judge, and Democratic attorney general looking for reasons to obstruct lawful enforcement operations.

The vast majority of ICE officers do dangerous, thankless work with integrity. Two who apparently didn't have now jeopardize not just their own careers but the credibility of every case their colleagues build. McLaughlin's statement captured the institutional stakes precisely — the oath is sacred, and violations won't be tolerated.

The administration drew that line fast and drew it publicly. Now the investigation has to follow through.