Video evidence in Minnesota has forced federal investigators to ask a question that cuts to the core of constitutional justice: Did ICE officers lie under oath to justify a shooting and criminal charges?
Quick Take
- ICE Director Todd Lyons said a joint ICE–Justice Department criminal investigation is examining whether two ICE officers made untruthful sworn statements about a Minneapolis shooting.
- Federal charges against two Venezuelan men tied to the encounter were dropped after video and other accounts contradicted the original officer’s narrative.
- The case has become politically charged amid clashes between federal immigration enforcement and Democratic leaders in Minnesota.
- Key facts remain unresolved, including the identity of the officer who fired and why some evidence has not been shared with state investigators.
What the Federal Investigation Is Actually About
ICE leadership says the central issue is sworn testimony, not politics. ICE Director Todd Lyons announced on February 13, 2026, that ICE and the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation after video evidence suggested “sworn testimony provided by two separate officers appears to have made untruthful statements.”
Lyons said the officers were placed on administrative leave and stressed that lying under oath is a serious federal offense that violates a “sacred sworn oath.”
The investigation matters because perjury is not a technicality—it is a direct threat to due process. Conservatives who demand secure borders also demand clean prosecutions, because the government’s power to arrest, charge, and imprison must be tied to truthful evidence.
When any federal agent is accused of bending facts under oath, the damage spreads beyond one case: it weakens public trust and hands ammunition to activists who want to delegitimize lawful immigration enforcement entirely.
Timeline of the Minneapolis Shooting and the Dropped Charges
The encounter began January 14, 2026, when ICE officers attempted a traffic stop involving two Venezuelan men, including a driver identified as Aljorna. Reporting indicates the driver crashed the vehicle and ran toward his apartment duplex.
Prosecutors initially relied heavily on an ICE officer’s account describing a violent struggle, including claims that the men attacked the officer with items like a snow shovel and a broom handle before the officer fired his handgun, wounding Sosa-Celis in the leg.
ICE says 2 of its officers may have lied under oath about shooting migrant in Minnesota https://t.co/9sxt1vzBg0
— Bo Snerdley (@BoSnerdley) February 15, 2026
A January 21 court hearing brought major discrepancies into focus. Accounts from defendants and eyewitnesses reportedly clashed with the officer’s version, and video evidence later became a decisive factor.
By February 14, the public learned that all charges against the two men had been dropped. The case illustrates how quickly a narrative can harden into formal criminal allegations—and how quickly it can collapse when objective footage contradicts sworn statements.
Why This Case Became a Political Flashpoint in Minnesota
The shooting unfolded amid stepped-up federal immigration enforcement in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area, a backdrop that guaranteed intense scrutiny. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem publicly criticized Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, accusing them of encouraging actions that impede or assault federal law enforcement.
That kind of rhetoric raises the stakes for everyone involved, because it frames legal proceedings as a broader referendum on cooperation with immigration enforcement.
For conservative readers frustrated with years of soft-on-illegal-immigration governance, the political temptation is to treat any criticism of ICE as just another “open borders” tactic. The facts here require more discipline.
The dispute is not whether border laws should be enforced. The dispute is whether the government’s evidence and sworn testimony met the standard Americans expect when liberty, prison time, and potential deportation consequences are on the line.
Unanswered Questions: Officer Identity, Evidence Sharing, and Competing Probes
Several key facts remain undisclosed, including the names of the two ICE officers and the identity of the officer who fired the weapon. State authorities have opened a parallel criminal investigation into the shooting itself.
According to reporting, the FBI has refused to share evidence, identify the shooter, or make the officer available for an interview with state investigators. Those gaps make it harder for the public to independently evaluate what happened and whether accountability is being applied evenly.
Defense attorneys for the Venezuelan men have argued that the original prosecution depended on the shooter’s testimony, and they welcomed the federal acknowledgment that statements may have been untruthful.
One attorney said the men were relieved the charges were dismissed, while also pushing for the shooter’s identity to be released and for further action. Conservatives can recognize two truths at once: enforcing immigration law is legitimate, and truthful testimony is non-negotiable when the state exercises force.
