A Guardian review of 26 cases promoted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as evidence of a surge in 'vehicular attacks' has found that most claims have fallen apart under scrutiny. Only one of the 26 cases has resulted in an assault conviction, according to court records and information shared by prosecutors.
DHS claims under scrutiny
The Trump administration has repeatedly accused immigrants and protesters of 'weaponizing' their vehicles to 'assault' federal immigration agents, a claim used to justify arrests and deadly shootings by officers. DHS has claimed a '3,300% increase in vehicle attacks' under Donald Trump’s second term, but has not provided evidence to support that figure.
The Guardian reviewed the most detailed list DHS has put out: a February press release asserting agents have experienced 'more than 180 vehicle attacks' since Trump took office. The release provided summaries of 23 incidents from June 2025 to January 2026, saying it was a 'non-exhaustive list'. The Guardian identified 26 people accused in those cases.
Findings of the review
Fifteen of the 26 people accused of vehicle attacks never faced federal criminal charges. Eleven of the 26 people did face charges, but eight of those cases were dismissed, including one 'deferred prosecution'. One person has a pending assault charge; one pleaded guilty to assault; and one was convicted of 'destruction of government property' but acquitted of assault. The sole guilty plea for assault involves a man accused of reversing his car during a traffic stop and hitting an ICE officer in the leg.
Cases were dropped or never charged in California, Colorado, Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina, Maryland and Washington DC. The people on the list who never faced federal charges include one man who DHS claimed was 'at large' and one who was fatally shot by ICE during the encounter.
Pattern of unsubstantiated claims
The review reveals a pattern of DHS blasting statements to the press and on social media, painting subjects as violent assailants without evidence and then failing to correct the record when claims collapse. In many cases, DHS claimed drivers were attempting to flee or resist arrest and 'rammed' ICE vehicles. Some statements include unsubstantiated claims that alleged assaults were 'intentional' or 'deliberate'.
Reasons for dismissals or lack of charges varied. In one case, agents were found to have made contradictory statements. In another, prosecutors failed to meet deadlines to hand over evidence. In some instances, videos disproved DHS’s narratives.
Case study: Juan Carlos Rodriguez Romero
Juan Carlos Rodriguez Romero, a Minnesota father of two, was accused of committing a vehicle assault on 21 December. DHS claimed he struck an officer while driving away, but internal DHS records show the team leader repeatedly described the vehicle as 'almost hitting' an officer, not striking him. Four other agents gave interviews, and only one alleged Rodriguez Romero hit the officer. In June, the justice department moved to dismiss all charges, saying prosecutors were 'not confident' the government could secure a conviction.
Bruce Nestor, Rodriguez Romero’s lawyer, said: 'I can only believe the government moved to dismiss with prejudice because there was even more evidence ICE officers had engaged in misconduct, or at minimum a coverup of a bad shooting.'
Ongoing concerns
Federal immigration officials were reportedly instructed last week to stop pulling over vehicles until further notice amid outrage over recent fatal shootings, but Trump said soon after that the stops should continue. Critics argue these traffic encounters recklessly endanger lives and are unjustified for civil immigration enforcement.
E Paige White, attorney for Phillip Brown, a US citizen accused by DHS of making a 'deliberate attempt to run [officers] down', said: 'The scariest thing is we can’t get the truth from this administration even when it’s staring us directly in the face, even when the judges and courts and systems put in place to actually determine what happened make a very clear decision. They refuse to be honest and that’s terrifying.'
