What do official ICE and DHS statements say about Ross’s injuries and his work status after the June 2025 incident?

1. What DHS and ICE officially confirmed about the June 2025 injuries

DHS publicly confirmed that the officer involved in the June Bloomington arrest attempt was “seriously injured” when he was dragged by a vehicle while trying to make an arrest, and ICE reporting described that he was taken to a hospital for treatment and released, though DHS did not disclose more granular medical records or timing beyond that treatment ^{[1] [2] [8]}. Court records and multiple news outlets, while not themselves DHS press releases, specify the June incident involved the officer’s arm getting stuck in a fleeing suspect’s car and being dragged, with the officer receiving dozens of stitches and sustaining large cuts and abrasions — details that DHS confirmed only in broad strokes as significant injuries rather than providing a full clinical summary ^{[3] [2] [9]}.

2. What DHS/ICE said about Ross’s role and employment status after the June incident

DHS spokespeople framed the officer as a career ICE employee with more than a decade of service and as a member of ICE’s Special Response Team, signaling continued affiliation and operational status with the agency; officials repeatedly defended his conduct and emphasized his experience while refusing to release his name publicly, citing safety concerns ^{[3] [1] [6]}. Reporting indicates he remained a functioning federal law-enforcement officer after the June incident — testifying in court related to that very case months later — which suggests he continued to perform duties or legal obligations tied to employment, but DHS has not issued a formal, detailed administrative-status statement such as duty restrictions, medical leave dates or personnel actions in available public statements ^{[3] [9] [10]}.

3. How DHS characterized his condition after the January 2026 shooting and the limits of those statements

Following the January 7 shooting in Minneapolis, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin and other DHS sources confirmed the officer suffered internal bleeding related to that encounter and that he had been treated at a hospital; officials, however, declined to expand on the extent of the bleeding or provide a full medical update, leaving key clinical questions unanswered in public statements ^{[4] [5] [8]}. DHS’s language has been both defensive — asserting the officer “acted according to his training” and declining to expose his name because of doxxing threats — and circumscribed, offering factual confirmations (serious injury in June; internal bleeding in January) without releasing comprehensive personnel or medical records ^{[6] [1]}.

4. Contrasts, alternative accounts and implicit agendas in official messaging

While DHS emphasizes the officer’s experience and injuries to bolster a justification narrative, local officials and witnesses contest the self-defense account around the January shooting, and independent media and court records provide more granular injury descriptions from June that DHS left largely unelaborated; DHS’s insistence on withholding the officer’s name and asking outlets to delete reporting reflects an institutional priority to protect personnel and control narrative amid intense public scrutiny ^{[7] [6] [3]}. The net effect of official statements is narrow confirmation of serious June injuries and of internal bleeding after the January incident, paired with categorical claims about the officer’s training and service — but without the full suite of administrative-status details (medical leave, return-to-duty assessments, or disciplinary actions) that would clarify his official work status post–June 2025 ^{[1] [2] [3]}.