ICE Agents Under Investigation for Allegedly Making False Statements About Minneapolis Shooting

In a significant development, two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been placed on administrative leave following revelations that they allegedly provided false testimony related to a shooting incident in north Minneapolis last month.

The case took a dramatic turn when the U.S. Attorney’s Office requested that a judge dismiss charges against two men previously accused of assaulting the ICE agents during the January 14 confrontation. The government’s reversal comes after new evidence emerged contradicting the agents’ sworn statements.

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons acknowledged the severity of the situation in a statement released Friday, noting that a review conducted by ICE and the Department of Justice found that “sworn testimony provided by two separate officers appears to have made untruthful statements.”

The consequences for the two ICE officers could be severe. According to Lyons, they now face potential termination from their positions or possible criminal prosecution. “Lying under oath is a serious federal offense,” Lyons emphasized, adding that “the U.S. Attorney’s Office is actively investigating these false statements.”

The incident initially garnered attention when Department of Homeland Security officials claimed that an agent had fired a shot in self-defense after being attacked with a shovel and a broomstick. However, witness accounts and video evidence tell a different story, suggesting that the two men, identified as Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis and Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna, were actually fleeing from ICE agents when one agent shot through a door, striking Sosa-Celis in the leg.

This discrepancy between official accounts and evidence has raised concerns about accountability within federal law enforcement agencies. Rachel Moran, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas, pointed to a troubling pattern: “We have seen a lot of claims by federal agents when they’ve engaged in violence where they say it’s justified and the evidence proves otherwise.”

The day following the shooting, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had publicly supported the agents’ version of events, stating, “Last night what we saw was three individuals weaponize shovels and brooms and attack an ICE officer that had to defend himself.” Neighbors in the area, however, immediately challenged this narrative.

This case bears similarities to other recent incidents involving federal law enforcement. Just hours after another controversial shooting involving an individual named Alex Pretti, DHS made definitive claims on social media suggesting the incident was an attempted “massacre” of law enforcement. These statements were later softened after multiple video angles of the shooting became public, with even President Trump appearing to moderate his initial position.

In another case from Chicago, federal agents shot a woman named Miramar Martinez five times, claiming she attempted to ram them with her vehicle. Weeks later, as in the Minneapolis case, the government asked a judge to drop the charges after video evidence emerged contradicting the agents’ account.

“Now it’s come out that video evidence proved no, the agent attacked her first,” Moran explained. “It’s hard to trust an agency that makes such quick, immediate pronouncements that are then somewhat routinely contradicted by evidence.”

The recurring nature of these incidents raises significant questions about transparency and accountability within federal law enforcement agencies. As Moran concluded, “What it should do for public opinion is cause people to doubt what the agents are saying.”

This developing case highlights growing tensions between law enforcement narratives and documented evidence, underscoring the importance of thorough investigations before reaching conclusions about use-of-force incidents.