Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What criminal charges could a Border Patrol chief face for lying under oath?
Executive summary
Federal court reporting shows Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino admitted to false statements in depositions and has been accused by a judge of repeated lies in official reports about use-of-force and raids [1] [2]. Available sources detail civil litigation, judicial findings and agency accountability debates, but they do not describe any specific criminal charges filed against him in current reporting [1] [2] [3].
1. Judiciary finds deceptive testimony and reports — civil consequences first
A U.S. district judge’s 233‑page ruling concluded that agents and senior officials “falsely asserted” in court and in official reports that they faced life‑threatening violence during operations — and that includes findings about Gregory Bovino’s statements in depositions and reports [1]. Reporting shows Bovino admitted in a deposition to lying about firing tear gas and tackling a protester, and a judge used those admissions in an order limiting federal agents’ use of force in Chicago [2] [3]. Those facts are central to ongoing civil litigation and to judicially imposed operational restrictions [1] [3].
2. Perjury and false statements: the statutes that could apply
Federal law criminalizes making false statements to the government (18 U.S.C. § 1001) and perjury in judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. § 1621 and related statutes) — statutes commonly discussed when officials are accused of lying under oath. While none of the provided sources say prosecutors have charged Bovino under those statutes, the judge’s finding and the deposition admissions are the kinds of factual predicates that could, in theory, trigger a criminal investigation if prosecutors chose to pursue them [1] [2]. Available sources do not report any indictment or criminal filing against Bovino as of the current reporting [1] [2] [3].
3. Civil-law remedies and administrative discipline are already visible
The immediate consequences documented in reporting are judicial limits on operations and civil litigation outcomes rather than criminal prosecutions. A judge’s lengthy ruling both detailed the alleged falsehoods and led to orders restricting agents’ use of force — concrete remedies in the civil/judicial sphere [1]. Media outlets also describe depositions being released and witness testimony shaping public and legal scrutiny, which often precede internal administrative reviews by agencies [4] [5].
4. Prosecutorial discretion and political context matter
Whether criminal charges are brought would depend on federal prosecutors’ judgments about intent, materiality, and the availability of admissible evidence; those are prosecutorial decisions the sources don’t report on (not found in current reporting). Contextual reporting highlights political and institutional frictions: Bovino is a prominent figure in the administration’s immigration operations and has been publicly praised internally while simultaneously facing criticism from advocates and judges — a dynamic that affects whether federal authorities decide to pursue criminal or administrative accountability [6] [7].
5. Historical and institutional barriers to criminal accountability
Advocacy groups and historical reporting note longstanding accountability issues within Border Patrol and CBP, including claims that agents rarely face criminal convictions for on‑duty misconduct [7]. The ACLU piece says no agent had been convicted for on‑duty wrongdoing despite documented abuses; that history matters because it reflects institutional resistance, investigatory complexity, and political considerations that shape prospects for criminal charges [7]. These are structural realities referenced in the reporting, not legal conclusions about any individual case [7].
6. What the reporting documents, and what it does not
The sources document judicial findings of falsehoods, deposition admissions by Bovino, released deposition videos and restrictive court orders tied to use‑of‑force — all concrete civil‑court developments [1] [2] [4] [3] [5]. They do not state that federal prosecutors have filed perjury or false‑statement charges against Bovino, nor do they show an ongoing criminal indictment in public filings [1] [2] [3]. Absent such reporting, it is correct to say available sources do not mention criminal charges being brought at this time [1] [2].
7. Competing viewpoints and hidden agendas in coverage
Mainstream outlets report judicial criticism and depositions [1] [3]. Advocacy sources like the ACLU frame the situation as part of a wider “accountability crisis” within Border Patrol, suggesting systemic evasion of legal restraints and arguing for stronger discipline [7]. Other coverage reflects administration or DHS messaging highlighting enforcement results and security priorities; those political framings can obscure or amplify different facts depending on the outlet [6] [8]. Readers should note that legal actors — judges, prosecutors, agency officials — have differing incentives: judges seek adherence to law, prosecutors balance enforcement priorities, and agency leaders defend operational strategies.
8. Bottom line for readers
Judicial findings and deposition admissions create a plausible factual basis for potential criminal inquiry — the federal false‑statement and perjury statutes are the obvious legal avenues — but current reporting documents civil rulings and operational limits, not criminal indictments [1] [2] [3]. Whether criminal charges will follow remains unreported; available sources do not mention prosecutions being filed as of the latest coverage [1] [2].