What official statements have Argentina's federal prosecutors released about suspects in the January 2026 Patagonia fires?
Executive summary
Federal prosecutors in Chubut have publicly described the January 2026 Patagonia blazes as likely deliberate, reporting the discovery of fuel or accelerant at ignition points and framing one large fire as intentionally set [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, local judicial offices have pushed back on politically charged claims about specific perpetrators — notably saying investigations have not linked Indigenous Mapuche communities to the origin of the fires — and prosecutors have not issued a public identification of individual suspects [4].
1. Prosecutors: physical evidence points to arson, not accident
Chubut’s chief prosecutor Carlos Díaz Mayer and other local prosecutors have stated investigators found traces of accelerants — described in reporting as lighter fluid or gasoline — at the ignition point of at least one principal fire, and have said that those findings support the hypothesis that the fire was set deliberately rather than started accidentally [1] [2] [3]. Díaz Mayer publicized that an ignition occurred in a “strategic location” near a primary access route, a detail prosecutors used to emphasize the elevated risk to populated areas and to frame the blaze as purposeful rather than incidental [4].
2. No public naming of suspects; prosecutors have stopped short of attributing blame
Despite firm language about intentional ignition, reporting from provincial judicial offices shows prosecutors have not publicly identified or formally charged specific individuals in federal announcements; the public statements have focused on the forensic finding of fuel residue and on the arson hypothesis rather than on naming or producing accused suspects [1] [3]. Where national political figures and commentators have pointed to particular groups or nationalities, judicial sources in Chubut have repeatedly qualified that the law‑enforcement evidence gathered so far does not substantiate those attributions [4].
3. Judicial rebuttal to political and media attributions — Mapuche and others
When national government officials and the Security Ministry publicly suggested Mapuche groups could be involved, the head of the Lago Puelo prosecutor’s office explicitly dismissed those public assertions for lack of evidence, saying prosecutors had not linked Indigenous communities to the origin of the fires [4]. That judicial pushback demonstrates a rift between political messaging and the narrower evidentiary claims being made by prosecutorial authorities, with prosecutors emphasizing forensic findings over politically charged identifications [4].
4. Viral claims — Israelis, grenades and conspiracy theories — not endorsed by prosecutors
A torrent of social‑media posts and fringe outlets alleged that Israeli tourists or former soldiers were filmed or otherwise implicated in setting fires, and some stories even claimed the discovery of military‑style grenades; these versions proliferated online and in some partisan reporting [5] [6]. Major Argentine judicial spokespeople cited in mainstream coverage, however, have not confirmed those sensational allegations; mainstream reporting records prosecutors’ emphasis on accelerants and intentional ignition but also notes that the investigation has not publicly produced evidence tying the blazes to foreign nationals or to the specific conspiratorial narratives circulating online [4] [7]. Jewish communal leaders warned that unverified claims about “two Israelis” were dangerous and irresponsible, underscoring that prosecutors have not publicly validated such identity‑based accusations [7] [8].
5. What prosecutors have done (and not done): rewards, forensics and the investigative posture
Prosecutors and local authorities have publicized a reward for information and stressed continuing forensic work — the messaging combines an assertion of deliberate crime with an investigatory posture aimed at collecting more evidence, witness statements and forensic confirmation before pursuing criminal charges [2] [3] [5]. That posture helps explain why public prosecutor statements to date emphasize accelerant residues and intentionality but stop short of naming, arresting or formally accusing specific suspects in federal press statements, a gap that leaves space for political actors and social media to fill with competing narratives [1] [4].