Little was known about how federal immigration enforcement operations were coordinated in Los Angeles last year. But that changed this week when hundreds of pages of court exhibits — released through discovery in a federal lawsuit — provided a glimpse into the operations.They revealed random, rather than targeted, stops, a casual use of racial slurs, and apparent frustration among a few officers who feared they were being asked to break the law.The exhibits were included in a motion for a preliminary injunction filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union, Public Counsel, and other groups and private attorneys seeking to bar an “ongoing campaign of suspicionless and discriminatory detentive stops” in the Central District of CaliforniaAmong the newly released records is the testimony of a Border Patrol agent who described how officers selected the site of a June 18 raid at a Whittier car wash. According to the agent, the team searched Google for nearby car washes and the Whittier business was chosen because “that was one of the places that came on the list as the nearest location.”The following month, when a phalanx of Border Patrol agents showed up outside a news conference held by leading California Democrats — including Gov. Gavin Newsom — a Homeland Security Investigations agent texted another HSI agent that the operation was “political” and “a stunt.”A Homeland Security spokesperson at the time claimed that agents were “focused on enforcing the law, not on [Newsom].” But the agent saw it otherwise, observing that Border Patrol “essentially raided the Newsom press conferences.”“We got pulled off the [Home Depot] and car wash to run this stunt,” the agent said. “We’re told to assist with targeted enforcement … That is not target enforcement.”“That was just a political agenda,” the agent said. “Hopefully I can get replaced soon.” A text exchange between two Homeland Security Investigations agents focuses on the operation outside an Aug. 14 L.A. news conference involving Gov. Gavin Newsom. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California) The court filing also included body camera footage and text messages that captured the casual manner in which some immigration agents discussed operations, including using slurs against immigrants.In a text chain from June 2025, an agent said they were driving by Huntington Park where streets “were packed with possibles” — in references to potential targets. In another operation the same month, agents discussed making 31 apprehensions.“Damn good s— fellas,” an agent responded.Texts and body camera footage revealed agents referring to potential targets as “wet,” a derogatory term for Latino immigrants, and “tonk,” a word reportedly derived from the sound an agent’s utility flashlight makes when hitting a migrant’s head. When asked about the slurs, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said “agents are focused on protecting the American people — not entertaining performative outrage. Where is the media’s outrage for Angel families who lost a loved one to illegal alien crime?”Here are other key revelations contained in the recently released court filings about how the “Operation at Large” immigration crackdown in Los Angeles was orchestrated last year.‘They only know one way to operate’In an August 2025 text thread, the two HSI agents who texted about the Newsom ‘stunt’ complained to each other about being asked to perform immigration operations that they felt violated a federal court order.The prior month a federal court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking agents from using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate arrests in Southern California. The ruling was intended to stop agents from targeting Home Depots and car washes and detaining brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking day laborers.“I complained about the Home Depot stuff saying I think it violates the TRO,” a male HSI agent wrote on Aug. 11, 2025, referring to the temporary restraining order.“Yeah I’m pretty sure it does,”a female HSI agent responded.When questioned in court about these texts, the male agent said that he complained to HSI management after an Aug. 3 Home Depot raid in Paramount, which he felt violated the judge’s order.In the same August 2025 text thread, the female agent wrote that she was glad she recently bought professional liability insurance, which provides coverage for legal claims arising from mistakes or negligence, to which the male agent responded, “For sure. Still they shouldn’t ask us to do anything that violates a court order.”The female agent expressed skepticism that DHS would meaningfully change its enforcement tactics in response to the order.“I think they only know one way to operate,” she wrote. “See bodies, chase bodies.” Agents discuss concerns that immigration operations in Los Angeles are violating a court order. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California) In his deposition, the male agent explained that this was how Customs and Border Patrol agents operated during the immigration crackdown in Los Angeles.“Border Patrol presence is going to cause people to want to be out of the area they are in,” he said. “And then [agents are] going to see people running, and they are just going to chase them whether they are targets or not.”He said that, over time, it appeared that operations became less and less targeted until the Aug. 14 operation at the Newsom news conference, which had no targets at all.“They marched to a democratic governor’s press conference. It seemed to be purely political,” he said in his deposition. “It did not seem like there was a good operational basis to be doing that.”He characterized the news conference operation as a final straw that made him want to be taken off of Operation at Large. He had worked in immigration enforcement since 2008 and said in court that the “overall aggression” with which Border Patrol carried out the 2025 Los Angeles raids seemed “a little intense for like a large city.”Baseball cardsEarlier this year, civil rights attorneys deposed two ICE deportation officers and learned the agency had shifted from conducting targeted enforcement operations to making collateral arrests.The testimony of Eusebio Ortiz, who was involved in a shooting in Ontario in October, and Carey Crook, revealed that ICE had replaced detailed operational dossiers with “baseball cards.” The one-page documents, generated by a software program, took the place of the thoroughly researched files that federal immigration agents had traditionally prepared.According to the court documents, ICE previously relied on the dossiers — known as “target folders” — to carry out targeted arrests. The files included a person’s background information, criminal and immigration history, surveillance notes, list of addresses, known addresses, employment and driving records and other identifying details.The target folders ensured that agents apprehended the correct person. But under Trump, the court documents alleged, immigration officers increasingly relied on using the so-called baseball cards, which included a photograph and summary of the person’s background.Civil rights attorneys alleged in the recent court filing that the baseball cards increased the likelihood that agents would pursue and arrest people who were not the intended targets.Ontario shootingA May deposition of Ortiz, the ICE deportation officer, revealed more information about a shooting that unfolded in Ontario in October. According to the deposition, Ortiz was out on an operation when he shot Carlos Jimenez, whom he testified had put his car in reverse and started coming toward officers. Jimenez was later indicted for assault on a federal officer using a deadly or dangerous weapon. He has pleaded not guilty. Attorneys representing Jimenez say he was just trying to leave. They said Jimenez had stopped to warn the agents that a group of school-age children would soon be coming. Jimenez put his car in reverse because he was afraid, they contend, and then was unnecessarily shot in the back of his right shoulder, where a bullet remains lodged.After the shooting, Ortiz said he was out on worker’s compensation for three weeks. Asked if he was injured in the incident, Ortiz responded, “Physically injured, no, but emotionally, yes.” He said he later returned to work. Ortiz testified that he was not disciplined after the shooting, that he did not receive additional training as a result of the incident, nor did his job duties change.‘American culture’Depositions among the newly released court records also provided insight into what prompted agents to approach potential targets for arrest.In a February 2026 deposition, an acting deputy chief with Border Patrol, identified only by the initials G.L., testified about “culturally different” behavior that would cause an agent to suspect that a person was in the country illegally.Suspicion might be raised “[i]f they were encountering someone for a consensual encounter and that person doesn’t make eye contact or is turning away from the agent or is something that’s culturally different than American culture where eye contact is normal,” the agent testified. An acting deputy chief with Border Patrol testified about lack of eye contact as a tipoff that someone is “culturally different.” (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California) In referencing an agent who said a person “shouting in Spanish” further raised their suspicion, G.L. testified that “typically when someone shouts in an engagement like this, they are going to their native language, which in the United States is typically English.”In another deposition, an unnamed Customs and Border Patrol agent testified that looking nervous, looking left and right, having shaky hands and a shaky voice when responding to agents were “indicators” that the person might be in the country illegally.TikTok facial recognitionIn a July 2025 text chain, an agent pondered whether facial recognition tools could be used to identify people on TikTok who admitted to being in the country illegally.“This b— good enough to facial rec?” an agent asked, after sending an image of a profile picture. “She’s literally commenting about how she’s not a criminal and just hard working lmao.” A custodian said they would try and then responded soon after that there was “no match.”“Figures,” the agent responded. “Some of these people are stupid. Why would you post on social media that you’re wet”?In another text chain, an agent flagged “tonks everywhere selling food for the 4th festivities in long beach right now.”
