What internal DHS or CBP investigations exist into the conduct of Border Patrol operations led by Greg Bovino?
Executive summary
Federal reporting and court records show multiple external lawsuits, judicial rulings and public scrutiny tied to Border Patrol operations led by Gregory (Greg) Bovino, but public, detailed accounts of formal internal DHS or CBP disciplinary investigations specific to his conduct are sparse in the reviewed reporting; reporters document court-ordered oversight, DOJ and local criminal prosecutions tied to operations he led, and agency responses such as releasing body-worn camera footage, while watchdog analyses and judges have publicly criticized agents under his command [1] [2] [3] [4]. The available sources document legal pressure and oversight but do not provide a clear, public inventory of ongoing internal CBP or DHS investigative files against Bovino himself.
1. Court-driven oversight and restrictions, not necessarily internal probes
Federal litigation stemming from “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago produced a series of judicial orders that imposed oversight on the operations Bovino led: Judge Sara Ellis found elements of the government’s account not credible, issued restrictions on use of force, and required daily meetings about immigration operations — measures arising from civil suits rather than publicly identified internal CBP disciplinary files [1] [2]. Reporting by POGO and the American University Investigative Reporting Workshop recounts the judge’s skepticism of agency narratives and the court’s restriction on force, and news outlets describe Bovino’s repeated depositions in those suits [1] [2].
2. External criminal cases and depositions have functioned as de facto investigations
Nearly three dozen criminal cases and multiple federal prosecutions grew out of the same surge operations, generating depositions, body‑worn camera reviews and courtroom findings that amount to investigative scrutiny of tactics and decision‑making; several cases were dismissed or ended in acquittal, and at least one prosecution that relied heavily on Bovino’s testimony faltered, adding to questions about credibility and the factual record [4] [5] [6]. Local and national outlets reviewed depositions and footage and reported that a federal judge described Bovino as “evasive” and “not credible” on the witness stand [7] [4].
3. Agency responses publicly reported — footage release and appeals — but not a named internal probe
When incidents drew public outrage, DHS and CBP took some public actions — releasing body‑worn camera video tied to Little Village events in Chicago and issuing public statements about operations — and DHS announced legal appeals of judicial orders that constrained agent tactics [2] [1]. Those public steps are evident in press accounts, but the reporting reviewed does not cite a publicly acknowledged internal CBP Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) or DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation expressly naming Bovino as the subject; if such formal internal investigations exist, those files are not detailed in the sources provided.
4. Watchdog analyses and media investigations document patterns that could prompt internal probes
Investigative work by watchdogs and news organizations documented a high use‑of‑force rate in Bovino’s El Centro sector and catalogued incidents ranging from mounted operations to tear gas deployments, which watchdogs say was disproportionate compared with other sectors — findings that typically trigger internal reviews in federal agencies, though the articles stop short of naming active internal disciplinary cases against Bovino [1] [3]. The reporting notes DHS and CBP spokespeople declined to comment to some outlets, a gap that leaves agency internal actions opaque in public sources [1].
5. Two narratives — agency defense and judicial skepticism — shape the public record
Public statements from DHS and Bovino portray operations as necessary enforcement actions and cite threats to agents, while judges and watchdog reporters have found portions of the government’s account lacking credibility and have restricted tactics; these competing narratives explain why external oversight (courts, prosecutions, watchdogs, media) dominates the documented scrutiny, and why the existence or status of confidential internal disciplinary investigations remains unclear in open reporting [8] [1] [4]. The sources reviewed reveal extensive external scrutiny but do not provide conclusive public evidence of named, active internal OPR or OIG investigations specifically charging Bovino.