Did CBP get get finger bitten off in Minneapolis
Executive summary
Federal officials say a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) officer had part of a finger bitten off during the chaotic protests that followed a Border Patrol shooting in Minneapolis; the claim was publicized by DHS spokespeople and amplified across conservative and mainstream outlets [1][2][3]. Multiple federal officials posted photos and announced an arrest, but local authorities and independent witnesses have not provided corroborating forensic or medical confirmation in the reporting available [4][5][2].
1. What DHS and federal spokespeople publicly alleged
Department of Homeland Security figures — including Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin and Secretary Kristi Noem — said an HSI agent’s finger “was bitten off” amid a melee after the Border Patrol shot, and McLaughlin posted images on X she said showed the injured hand and a severed fingertip, a claim repeated in DHS statements and televised remarks [1][2][5]. Attorney General Pam Bondi and other federal-aligned voices later said an arrest had been made in connection with the alleged assault and that federal prosecutors would be directed to file charges [4][5].
2. How news outlets and political actors amplified the allegation
National and international outlets ranging from Fox News and USA Today to the Daily Caller, Mirror, Daily Mail and others ran headlines asserting that an HSI officer’s finger had been bitten off, often republishing the DHS images or quoting the agency’s social posts directly; conservative voices and the White House reshared the material, which magnified the story rapidly [6][7][3][8]. Those reports frequently framed the incident as part of a broader narrative about anti-ICE unrest and used graphic language that heightened public alarm [6][9].
3. What independent or local authorities have (not) confirmed
Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara and local investigators said they had not been provided with a full public-safety briefing by federal agents in the immediate aftermath, and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s access issues to the scene are noted in reporting, leaving a gap between federal claims and local verification in the sources reviewed [2][5]. Multiple pieces in the record explicitly note that officials “have provided no further evidence” beyond the images posted to social media by DHS and its spokespeople, and some outlets caution that the identities of people shown in released photos were unverified [4][10].
4. How to reconcile the competing signals and why uncertainty remains
The available reporting shows a clear, consistent claim from DHS and allied officials that an HSI officer was seriously bitten and that a severed fingertip was shared publicly as evidence; that claim has been widely reported and an arrest was announced by state-aligned officials [1][4][5]. However, those same reports also document that independent confirmation — such as a statement from local law enforcement, medical records, the BCA’s forensic report, or third-party eyewitness corroboration published in the record — is not present in the materials provided, which means the journalistic record contains assertion and photographic material but lacks standalone verification from neutral authorities [2][5][11]. Given the political stakes — federal officials are using the incident to underscore the dangers of protests and to justify enforcement posture, while local leaders have criticized federal operations — the claim sits at the intersection of official allegation, partisan amplification, and incomplete independent corroboration [6][2].
5. Bottom line answer to the question “Did CBP get finger bitten off in Minneapolis?”
Based on the reporting assembled, federal authorities assert that a Homeland Security (HSI) officer had part of a finger bitten off during the Minneapolis unrest and released graphic imagery and an arrest tied to that allegation; those assertions are widely reported in the press [1][3][5]. But the record available here does not include independent confirmation from local investigative agencies, medical examiners, or fully documented forensic reports, so while the federal claim appears to be the dominant public narrative, independent verification is not present in the cited sources [4][2][5].