What federal investigations or DOJ probes are underway into ICE use-of-force complaints in 2025?
Executive summary
Federal criminal probes into use-of-force complaints involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2025 were limited but active in select, high-profile cases, with the FBI leading investigations into agent-involved shootings while calls for broader Department of Justice accountability went largely unanswered in public reporting [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, internal ICE oversight pathways and congressional pressure created parallel accountability claims even as critics alleged DOJ inertia or politicized responses [4] [3] [5].
1. FBI criminal investigations have been opened in at least the most serious agent-involved shootings
Reporting shows the FBI opened and led criminal investigations into fatal and nonfatal shootings involving ICE agents late in 2025, including the high-profile Minneapolis case that the FBI agreed to handle exclusively and barred Minnesota state investigators from accessing evidence [1] [6]. Canadian and U.S. outlets noted the FBI was investigating multiple agent-involved shootings and that the bureau’s role has been central to determining whether federal criminal charges or civil-rights probes are warranted [2] [1].
2. The Department of Justice’s broader criminal intervention is disputed and criticized
Legal commentators and immigrant-rights advocates say the publicly available facts in many use-of-force incidents in 2025 created plausible grounds for DOJ civil-rights investigations under Section 242, yet argue DOJ showed “dangerous silence” and insufficient initiation of such probes beyond the most visible shootings [3]. Critics point to patterns where, historically, DOJ would step in on reasonable Fourth Amendment force claims, and contend the 2025 response fell short of that precedent [3].
3. Internal agency reviews and OPR channels operate in parallel but are limited
ICE and Customs and Border Protection maintain Offices of Professional Responsibility that can investigate serious misconduct, and advocacy groups have urged use of OPR complaint mechanisms as a route to accountability [4]. Reporting stresses these internal avenues exist but do not substitute for independent DOJ criminal or civil probes, and advocacy groups and some state officials have pushed for external investigations because OPR processes are administrative rather than criminal [4] [3].
4. Political dynamics shaped who investigated and how evidence was shared
Coverage documents that federal authorities, citing agent safety and distrust of state partners, blocked state participation in at least one probe—an unusual move that heightened controversy about impartiality and access to evidence [6]. Congressional leaders and local officials publicly demanded investigations and expressed mistrust of federal objectivity, while the federal executive branch and Homeland Security leadership framed some actions as lawful self-defense, underscoring conflicting narratives that have influenced investigative posture [5] [6].
5. Other federal actions and memos complicated oversight and public scrutiny
Beyond criminal probes, leaks and reporting in 2025 indicated DOJ and DHS policy moves that affected oversight and public interaction with enforcement operations—examples include a reported DOJ memo about treating recording of immigration operations as potential domestic-terrorism activity and disputes over access to ICE facilities and footage, developments that critics say chill independent documentation and complicate accountability [7] [8]. These policy signals, combined with selective federal control over investigations, fed concerns among civil-rights advocates and some members of Congress that systemic review by DOJ was insufficient [3] [8].
Conclusion and reporting limits
Available reporting establishes that the FBI led the principal criminal investigations into the gravest ICE use-of-force incidents in 2025 and that internal OPR processes were available but seen as inadequate by advocates; however, comprehensive DOJ-wide civil-rights probes beyond the most visible shootings are not well-documented in the public record cited here, and assessments of whether Section 242 referrals were made or are pending are contested in public commentary [1] [4] [3]. The sources show clear political contention over investigative control and access to evidence, but they do not provide a complete inventory of all DOJ referrals, pending grand-jury actions, or the full slate of OPR reviews across the agency—information that DOJ or DHS could confirm in official disclosures not present in these reports [9] [3].