As federal immigration enforcement expanded in several U.S. cities this year, disputed accounts of arrests and use-of-force incidents drew increasing scrutiny. In Minneapolis, one of the clearest examples emerged after officials described Julio Sosa-Celis as a violent assailant during an ICE operation on January 14, 2026. Video later released by the city showed a much shorter confrontation than federal authorities first described and became central to the collapse of the criminal case.
Federal account unraveled after Minneapolis video release
Federal authorities initially said Julio C. Sosa-Celis and Alfredo A. Aljorna assaulted an immigration agent outside a north Minneapolis duplex before the agent fired. According to early federal statements cited by the Minnesota Star Tribune, officials said the men attacked the agent with a snow shovel and a broomstick, and the shooting was described as self-defense. The encounter left Sosa-Celis, 25, wounded in the leg on January 14.
When Minneapolis released traffic-camera footage on April 6, that account began to fall apart. The Minnesota Star Tribune reported the nine-minute video captured roughly 12 seconds of struggling near the duplex entrance, and a snow shovel visible at the start of the clip was thrown aside before the scuffle. MPR News also reported that the footage contradicted the agent’s claim that the men assaulted him with a broom and shovel.
The fallout reached the criminal case. The Star Tribune reported that federal prosecutors later dropped felony charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna after it became clear the federal agents involved had lied during sworn testimony. The paper also reported that the unnamed officers were suspended pending an internal investigation that could lead to termination or criminal prosecution.
The shooting happened in north Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s large-scale immigration enforcement effort in the Twin Cities. Reuters reported the operation had brought about 3,000 armed immigration agents to Minnesota by late January, making Minneapolis a national focal point in the debate over immigration arrests, protest response and federal accountability.
What is confirmed in Minneapolis is narrower than the larger political rhetoric around the operation. City-released video showed a brief struggle before the shot was fired, and published reporting established that prosecutors abandoned the assault case tied to that incident. What remains unresolved publicly is the full outcome of the internal federal review, including whether any agent was ultimately fired or criminally charged.
The case also intensified local distrust because it followed other disputed encounters involving federal agents in Minneapolis. Reuters and other outlets documented broader challenges to official accounts during Metro Surge, including other incidents in which video later raised questions about whether public descriptions from authorities matched what happened on the ground.
The Sosa-Celis case did not emerge in isolation. ProPublica reported in February that videos from several immigration arrests around the country showed agents using prohibited chokeholds or other neck restraints despite a 2023 Department of Homeland Security policy restricting those tactics to situations where deadly force is authorized. DHS told ProPublica that agents had followed training and used the least amount of force necessary.
That reporting matters here because it shows why video evidence has become central in reviewing immigration arrests. In the Minneapolis shooting case, The Guardian reported that newly released surveillance footage supported key parts of the men’s account and showed there was no prolonged fight in which an ICE officer was repeatedly battered with tools. That public contradiction between official statements and video became a defining fact in the case.
For Minneapolis residents, the practical effect is that one of the highest-profile cases from Metro Surge no longer rests on the original federal narrative. The city video, the dismissal of charges and the suspensions reported by local media established that the government’s first version of events did not hold up under review. The broader questions about federal tactics in Minnesota remain tied to ongoing legal and administrative scrutiny.