The Trump administration has repeatedly accused immigrants and protesters of “weaponizing” their vehicles to “assault” federal immigration agents, a claim used to justify arrests and deadly shootings by officers.
But a Guardian review of 26 cases that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has promoted as evidence of a surge in “vehicular attacks” reveals most of those claims have fallen apart under scrutiny, with the accusations consistently disproven by evidence or rejected in court. Only one of the 26 cases has resulted in an assault conviction, according to court records and information shared by prosecutors.
The findings come as DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are facing intense scrutiny over the back-to-back fatal shootings of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and Joan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Maine. In both cases, ICE officers killed the men during attempted traffic stops, with DHS arguing the men had endangered officers and the public with their vehicles – claims that witnesses have rejected.
DHS has repeatedly claimed its officers have faced a “3,300% increase in vehicle attacks” under Donald Trump’s second term, but has not provided evidence to support that figure and has not responded to requests for a list of cases.
To better understand how the government’s vehicle assault allegations have been adjudicated over time, the Guardian reviewed the most detailed list DHS has put out: a February press release asserting agents have experienced “more than 180 vehicle attacks” since Trump took office. The 2,100-word release provided summaries of 23 incidents from across the country from June 2025 to January 2026, saying it was a “non-exhaustive list”.
The Guardian looked at records for each case and contacted local and federal authorities and immigration and defense attorneys for more details. We identified 26 people accused in the cases of using their vehicles to threaten, assault or injure immigration officers. Five of them were shot by officers during the encounters, one fatally.
The review reveals a stunning failure by DHS and prosecutors to prove the government’s initial allegations of violence in those cases.
The review showed:
-
Fifteen of the 26 people accused of vehicle attacks never faced federal criminal charges over the incidents, and 11 of the 26 people did.
-
Eight people who were charged had their cases dismissed, including one person who received a “deferred prosecution”, meaning charges will be dropped if the defendant meets certain conditions.
-
One person has a pending assault charge; one pleaded guilty to assault; and one was convicted of “destruction of government property”, but acquitted of assault.
-
DHS has repeatedly continued to promote people’s cases as evidence of violence long after the original claims fell apart.
-
Cases were dropped or never charged in California, Colorado, Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina, Maryland and Washington DC.
The people on the list who never faced federal charges include one man who DHS claimed was “at large” and one who was fatally shot by ICE during the encounter. The sole guilty plea for assault involves a man accused of reversing his car during a traffic stop and hitting an ICE officer in the leg.
…
Even when people accused of assault are cleared of wrongdoing, the allegations can have lasting impacts.
Phillip Brown, a US citizen in Washington DC, was accused by DHS of making a “deliberate attempt to run [officers] down” during a traffic stop in October. An officer fired shots at him during the stop, but missed. DHS’s February press release continued to cite his case, even though the government’s story fell apart days after the incident – and the only charge he ever faced was in DC superior court, accused of “fleeing” law enforcement. A judge quickly tossed that charge after learning that a police report had omitted the fact that an officer had shot at him.
Brown has been forced to deal with the double trauma of nearly losing his life and having the government repeatedly spread falsehoods about the encounter, said his attorney, E Paige White.
“The scariest thing is we can’t get the truth from this administration even when it’s staring us directly in the face,” she said, “even when the judges and courts and systems put in place to actually determine what happened make a very clear decision. They refuse to be honest and that’s terrifying.”
Well now you are hearing it’s kinda good, from me, so yeah