Did the president of Oglala reservation lie about ice?
Executive summary
The Oglala Sioux Tribe president, Frank Star Comes Out, initially asserted that four enrolled tribal members were detained by ICE in Minneapolis and that federal officials conditioned information on an “immigration agreement,” but subsequent reporting shows the tribe could not verify ICE custody and Star Comes Out issued revised statements walking back some claims; federal agencies denied detaining or encountering tribal members and disputed the request for an agreement, leaving no clear evidence that he intentionally lied [1] [2] [3] [4]. The record shows a mix of urgent tribal concern, limited information, and conflicting official accounts rather than definitive proof of deliberate falsehood [5] [6].
1. The original claim: public alarm and a formal memorandum
Star Comes Out released a memorandum and public statements saying four Oglala Lakota men living in Minneapolis were taken into custody during immigration enforcement activity and that three remained at the Fort Snelling ICE facility, demanding their release and citing treaty protections for enrolled tribal citizens [1] [7] [8]. The memorandum alleged the tribe was given only first names and that federal authorities insisted additional information would be provided only if the tribe “entered into an immigration agreement with ICE,” a claim framed as both a legal and sovereignty concern by tribal officials [1] [7].
2. Federal pushback and factual contradictions
Within days the Department of Homeland Security and ICE issued statements saying they had not been able to verify that DHS law enforcement arrested or even encountered members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and that they had not asked the tribe for any kind of agreement—saying only that they had sought basic information on individuals—directly contradicting parts of the tribe’s initial memorandum [2] [1]. Multiple news outlets cited DHS denials and the agency’s claim that it had not found anyone in its detention centers identifying as Oglala Sioux members, undermining the assertion that those tribal citizens were in ICE custody [2] [9].
3. The tribe’s follow-up and apparent walkback
Following the federal responses, tribal leaders and Star Comes Out acknowledged that they were still working to verify details and that the tribe “has yet to verify” if those four individuals were taken into ICE custody, and the president issued revised materials and statements as the search for confirmation continued—language characterized by several outlets as a walkback of earlier, firmer claims [6] [4] [10]. Reporting across local and national outlets recorded that tribal officials were cooperating with state and federal contacts while simultaneously refusing to enter into an immigration agreement they view as a surrender of sovereignty [5] [11].
4. Media narratives, partisan framing and motive signals
Conservative and partisan outlets framed the episode as proof the Oglala president “lied,” citing DHS denials and the absence of detainees in ICE records, while tribal and Indigenous-focused outlets emphasized historical mistrust, patterns of ICE encounters with Native Americans, and the tribe’s refusal to accept conditional information—an important context given earlier tensions between Star Comes Out and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem when she was governor [9] [12] [13]. Both frames reveal implicit agendas: some sources seek to discredit tribal leadership, others to spotlight systemic targeting and treaty concerns, and both influence how the same set of facts is interpreted [12] [8].
5. Verdict: lie, misstatement, or unresolved reporting?
Based on available reporting, it cannot be concluded definitively that Star Comes Out intentionally lied; he made public, specific accusations that were later contradicted by federal statements and that he partially retracted or revised while acknowledging verification efforts, which supports a conclusion of an initially inaccurate public claim that was walked back amid conflicting information rather than documented deliberate deception [1] [2] [3] [4]. The record is clear that serious trust and verification problems exist between the tribe and federal authorities, but the sources provided do not prove bad faith on the president’s part—they show urgency, incomplete information, and institutional disagreement over facts and processes [5] [11].