By Jordan Hayes, Senior Financial Correspondent

DHS Keeps Making False Claims About People. It's Part of a Broader Pattern

A demonstrable pattern has emerged from the Department of Homeland Security under the Trump administration: the agency is repeatedly making severe, and often false, public accusations against private individuals. These claims, frequently labeling U.S. citizens and others as "domestic terrorists" or violent criminals, are often issued rapidly before any formal investigation is complete and, in many cases, are later contradicted by evidence or quietly dropped by prosecutors.

This communications strategy, which leverages official press releases and social media, has created a public record of unsubstantiated allegations that persists online even after individuals are cleared, raising significant questions about due process, government accountability, and the weaponization of information.

The Case of Marimar Martinez

The ordeal of Marimar Martinez, a 30-year-old Montessori teacher from Chicago, serves as a clear case study. In early October, Martinez, an American citizen with no criminal history, observed federal immigration agents in her neighborhood. She followed them in her car, honking and shouting "la migra" to alert neighbors.

The situation escalated when her vehicle and a Chevy Tahoe driven by Border Patrol agents made contact. While the sequence of events is disputed, a Border Patrol agent responded by firing at her five times. Martinez survived the shooting.

• The Accusation vs. Reality: DHS immediately issued a press release, complete with her mug shot, alleging she was a "domestic terrorist" who had "rammed" the federal vehicle. High-level administration officials amplified this narrative on X (formerly Twitter). However, federal prosecutors ultimately dropped all charges against her. Despite her exoneration, the DHS press release and accusatory social media posts from officials remain publicly accessible online, one of which was reshared by FBI Director Kash Patel with a link to video from an entirely different incident.

A Pattern of Premature Judgment

The Martinez case is not an isolated incident but part of a broader, months-long pattern of mischaracterization by the administration, particularly on immigration-related issues.

In recent weeks, the administration employed a similar playbook following the fatal shootings of Renee Macklin Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents. In both instances, DHS swiftly claimed the individuals were engaged in acts of domestic terrorism at the time they were killed. These statements were made without the benefit of a full investigation and in the face of conflicting witness accounts and video evidence.

• The Administration's Playbook: Officials have repeatedly accused individuals—from U.S. citizens protesting immigration policies to people simply driving near an enforcement operation—of violently attacking federal agents or impeding their work. These accusations are disseminated widely for public consumption, yet the corresponding criminal charges are often never filed or are later dismissed.

The Language of Justification

While law enforcement agencies often release initial allegations about suspects, the language used by DHS has been noted by legal experts for its hyperbolic and political nature.

"It seems to me that they are not writing these statements with the intention of ever supporting them in court, but just to try and convince officers and their voter base," said Greg Jackson, a Southern California attorney representing clients who have been shot at by federal immigration agents.

This rhetoric extends beyond incidents on U.S. soil. Administration officials frequently celebrate the deportation of the "worst of the worst." This language was used to describe a group of Venezuelan men deported to El Salvador's notoriously brutal CECOT prison last spring, who were framed as dangerous "terrorists."

• Data vs. Rhetoric: An analysis by Human Rights Watch of 252 men sent to CECOT revealed a starkly different picture. Nearly half had no criminal history whatsoever. Only eight had convictions for offenses that were violent or potentially violent, directly contradicting the administration's "worst of the worst" characterization.

Eroding Credibility in the Courts and Public Square

The administration's pattern of misrepresentation has not gone unnoticed by the judicial system. In dozens of cases, federal judges have admonished federal officials for providing statements in court that were false, contradictory, or unreliable.

This trend has alarmed experts who study political misinformation, who see it as a systemic threat to the rule of law and public trust.

"There are armed masked men in the streets acting as paramilitary agents of the state being directed to grab people up on behalf of false claims, and the government is lying about what happens before, during and afterward," said Brendan Nyhan, a professor at Dartmouth College.

• Erosion of Trust: Nyhan and other experts warn that when a government agency systematically misinforms the public, it corrodes the foundation of accountability. "Every American should be worried about that," Nyhan cautioned. "Because if they can lie about this, what else could they lie about? And if it's your family member who gets killed, what recourse do you have?"

The Official DHS Position

When presented with these findings, the Department of Homeland Security provided a general statement that did not address the specific cases or the allegations of falsehood.

• DHS Official Stance: An unnamed DHS spokesperson stated, "DHS law enforcement is prioritizing the arrest and removal of dangerous public safety threats. Under President Trump's and Secretary Noem's leadership, DHS has always been steadfast in targeting dangerous criminal illegal aliens, including murderers, rapists, pedophiles, drug traffickers, gang members, and terrorists." The statement did not respond to questions about the specific individuals who were mischaracterized and later cleared.

The Bottom Line

The evidence points to a coordinated communications strategy within DHS to publicly vilify individuals with serious, unproven allegations. This tactic serves to immediately justify the actions of federal agents, shape public opinion, and appeal to a political base.

The lasting implications are severe. For individuals like Marimar Martinez, an official government declaration of "domestic terrorist" remains online, permanently damaging her reputation despite legal exoneration. For the public, this pattern degrades the credibility of a critical government institution, making it difficult to discern fact from political narrative. The key unresolved question is what mechanisms for accountability exist when a government agency is found to be the source of a persistent and damaging falsehood.