MINNEAPOLIS (FOX 9) — As the Trump administration continues to enforce a tougher immigration policy focused on public safety and border security, questions have emerged surrounding the testimony of Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino in a civil lawsuit related to last year’s enforcement operation in Chicago.

The case stems from Operation Midway Blitz, a large-scale federal immigration action carried out during the administration’s broader effort to restore law and order in major U.S. cities. As part of the lawsuit filed against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Bovino provided sworn testimony that was later criticized by U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis, who raised concerns about inconsistencies in his statements.

In a written ruling issued in November, Judge Ellis described portions of Bovino’s testimony as evasive and questioned his credibility regarding decisions made during crowd-control situations involving protesters. DHS has not commented publicly on the ruling or on Bovino’s testimony.

Bovino became a visible figure during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement push, appearing on the ground in cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis as federal authorities deployed additional agents to support ICE operations. Supporters of the administration argue those efforts were necessary to address illegal immigration, violent crime and attacks on law enforcement officers.

Video footage from Chicago shows Bovino authorizing the use of tear gas during protests, a decision he defended by stating that federal agents acted professionally and within policy. While critics dispute that assessment, Bovino has maintained that agents used force appropriately and in response to escalating threats.

During later testimony, Bovino acknowledged that warnings were not issued prior to deploying chemical agents and offered differing explanations about the circumstances that led to those decisions. The judge cited those discrepancies in her ruling, raising broader questions about DHS communications related to the operation.

Supporters of the Trump administration have pushed back, noting that fast-moving, high-risk law enforcement situations often involve split-second decisions and imperfect recollections, particularly when officers face hostile crowds and potential violence. They also argue that selective scrutiny of federal agents undermines morale and ignores the dangers officers face while enforcing federal law.

The ruling does not determine criminal wrongdoing, nor does it invalidate the administration’s broader immigration enforcement strategy. DHS has yet to issue a formal response, and the case remains part of an ongoing legal process.

President Trump has consistently defended federal immigration officers, arguing that strong enforcement is essential to national security and public safety — and that agents must be allowed to do their jobs without political interference.