FirstAlerts

ICE Agent Christian Castro Responds to Federal False-Statements Charges

Federal prosecutors have charged ICE agent Christian Castro with making false statements about a January shooting in Minneapolis; the case is at the charging stage and Castro has answered the allegations.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 3, 2026, 12:31 p.m. ETWritten Sep 3, 2026, 2:18 p.m. ET
have ICE agent Christian Castro with making false statements in connection with a January shooting in Minneapolis, according to reports from fox5ny.com, inforum.com, and newsweek.com. The charges stem from the non-fatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan man, during an immigration enforcement operation. Castro has responded to the allegations, and the matter is now at the charging stage, with the case proceeding in district court. Castro already faces state charges in the shooting. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty Castro on May 18 with four counts of second-degree assault and a misdemeanor charge for false reporting, according to inforum.com. Castro claimed he shot Sosa-Celis after being attacked with a shovel and broom while attempting to make an arrest, but surveillance video and witness statements contradicted his story, fox5ny.com reported. The federal charges, described as a , allege Castro lied to investigators about the shooting, newsweek.com reported. The specific allegations and the agency bringing the charges differ across reports: the , according to fox5ny.com; , according to inforum.com; and the DOJ, according to newsweek.com. The cause of the shooting and the full circumstances remain under investigation, and no finding has been made connecting Castro to the allegations beyond the charges themselves.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 13 Sept 2026, 18:18current

    First published.

  2. Version 13 Sept 2026, 17:01

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.