MINNEAPOLIS, MN – Amidst a significant deployment of federal immigration agents across Minnesota, Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino has emerged as a central, controversial figure in the Trump administration's ongoing immigration enforcement strategy. However, new scrutiny from investigative reporting reveals serious judicial findings regarding Bovino’s conduct and leadership during previous high-profile operations, specifically in Chicago.
The FOX 9 Investigators, reviewing court filings, depositions, and body camera footage, uncovered a scathing assessment from a federal judge concerning Bovino’s testimony during a civil lawsuit related to the "Operation Midway Blitz" in Chicago last fall. Judge Sara Ellis delivered a written ruling in November that characterized Chief Bovino’s sworn statements as deeply problematic.
Judicial Findings: 'Evasive' and 'Not Credible' Testimony
The core of the controversy stems from Bovino’s questioning under oath regarding the use of force by agents under his command, including his own actions. Judge Ellis concluded that Bovino’s account of events did not align with the evidence reviewed.
Lies Under Oath Regarding Force
According to the ruling, Judge Ellis stated, "Bovino appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing ‘cute’ responses… or outright lying." This finding is particularly significant given Bovino's high-ranking position overseeing federal immigration operations.
Evidence reviewed by investigators included video footage showing Bovino actively deploying tear gas against a crowd of protesters in Chicago. In a startling contrast to his later testimony, video captured Bovino instructing an agent, "If you need to deploy gas, deploy [expletive] gas," suggesting an aggressive posture.
Months later, during recorded depositions, Bovino admitted he "did not give a warning" before deploying the tear gas canisters toward the public. Yet, despite this admission, Bovino maintained during testimony that "all uses of force have been more than exemplary." This contradiction formed a key part of the judge’s assessment of his credibility.
Denial of Physical Engagement
The judicial review extended to Bovino’s direct involvement in confrontations. Judge Ellis found that Bovino "lied multiple times" when questioned about a specific video showing him utilizing physical force against a protester. The video evidence clearly depicted Bovino tackling the individual to the ground, a series of actions Bovino repeatedly denied during his deposition.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reportedly not responded to requests for comment or questions regarding Chief Bovino’s conduct following these judicial findings.
Bovino's Role in Current Immigration Operations
Chief Bovino’s presence in the Twin Cities coincides with a massive influx of federal immigration agents into Minnesota. Bovino has risen to prominence as the face of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement operations, which have targeted major metropolitan areas including Los Angeles and Chicago.
His recent visibility in the area includes standing alongside Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, where they defended the actions of an ICE agent involved in a fatal shooting of a 37-year-old individual last week.
For residents and local officials in Minnesota, the revelations about Bovino’s conduct in Chicago raise significant concerns about the leadership guiding the current federal surge. The credibility issues highlighted by Judge Ellis cast a long shadow over the transparency and justification for the ongoing immigration enforcement actions taking place across the state.
The context of Bovino’s testimony—under oath, concerning the use of force against the public during civil unrest—suggests a pattern of misleading investigators and the courts. As thousands of federal agents operate on the ground in the US, the accountability of their leadership remains a critical public interest topic, especially when judicial bodies have explicitly questioned the honesty of those in command.
This evolving situation places increased pressure on federal agencies to provide clear, verifiable accounts of their operations, moving beyond claims of exemplary conduct when documentary evidence suggests otherwise. The focus now shifts to how the current Minnesota deployment will be monitored, given the documented history of untruthfulness under oath by its commanding federal officer.
The article highlights a significant disconnect between the official narrative of 'exemplary' conduct and the judicial findings based on video evidence and sworn testimony. This story underscores the ongoing tension between federal immigration mandates and the rights of the public during enforcement actions across the United States.
