Federal Agents Shoot and Wound Two People in Portland Amid Rising Tensions

9 January 2026

Stephen Maturen / Credit: Getty

In early January 2026, Portland, Oregon became the focal point of another volatile encounter between U.S. federal agents and civilians when at least two people were shot and wounded by law enforcement during an immigration enforcement operation, a development that intensified local unrest and underscored the broader national debate over federal enforcement tactics. The incident, which occurred on January 8 in the Hazelwood neighborhood of Portland, sent both victims to the hospital and prompted urgent calls from city and state officials for calm as authorities worked to piece together what happened.

According to official statements from the Portland Police Bureau, the wounded individuals were taken to local hospitals after being struck by gunfire in the afternoon encounter, though their precise conditions were not immediately disclosed following the initial reports. Police emphasized that they were not directly involved in the shooting but were providing perimeter support as the Federal Bureau of Investigation led an investigation into the conduct of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. An ABC News affiliate early on reported that the agents involved were from Customs and Border Protection, a component of the Department of Homeland Security tasked with border security and immigration enforcement.

Portland Police Chief Bob Day urged the community to remain calm in the aftermath. In a public statement, Day acknowledged the heightened emotions swirling through the city, pointing to a fatal shooting in Minneapolis the day before that had already sparked protests and outrage nationwide. Portland officials were keenly aware of the potential for the Portland shooting to intensify demonstrations, and they appealed for restraint while facts were assembled.

As details continued to emerge, federal officials offered a different account of the shooting. The Department of Homeland Security released information stating that the encounter began as a vehicle stop and that the driver had “weaponized” the vehicle by attempting to use it against the agents, prompting an agent to fire in what the agency described as self-defense. This framing reflects the broader federal narrative that law enforcement officers can resort to lethal force when they reasonably believe their lives are in danger, even as local critics and civil liberties advocates question such justification and call for greater accountability.

In the days that followed, the identities of the two people injured in the shooting were revealed by federal authorities. They were named as Luis David Nico Moncada and Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras, both Venezuelan nationals who had entered the United States without legal authorization. Officials alleged that they were linked to the Tren de Aragua gang and that the situation escalated when Moncada allegedly drove the vehicle in a threatening manner toward the federal agents. These claims, however, have been met with skepticism by some local leaders and legal advocates who press for independent verification of federal assertions given the absence of publicly available video footage due to the lack of body-worn cameras on the agents.

The Portland shooting took place against a backdrop of heightened tensions over immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Just a day earlier in Minneapolis, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent had fatally shot 37-year-old activist Renee Nicole Good during another enforcement action, catalyzing nationwide protests and public criticism over federal tactics. The Portland incident offered fresh fuel for demonstrations and deepened longstanding debates about the presence and conduct of federal agents in local communities.

Local and regional reactions were swift. Elected officials, community organizers and immigrant advocacy groups condemned the use of force and called for transparency and investigation into both the Minneapolis and Portland shootings. Some critics framed these episodes as symptomatic of a broader trend toward militarized immigration enforcement that prioritizes aggressive tactics over community safety and respect for civil liberties. In Portland, where many residents already express wariness toward federal intervention, the shooting reinforced deep divisions and energized calls for policy change.

Protests in Portland followed shortly after the shooting, with demonstrators gathering outside federal facilities and police cordons to voice their anger and demand accountability. Images circulated of crowds holding signs, chanting and calling for an end to what they describe as unnecessary and excessive force by immigration authorities. While many of the protests remained peaceful, city officials also prepared for the possibility of more confrontations given recent unrest in the region tied to immigration policy disputes.

The FBI’s involvement in investigating the shooting highlighted the legal complexities of incidents involving federal law enforcement officers. As the lead investigative body, the FBI was tasked with gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses and attempting to reconstruct the sequence of events that led to the shots being fired. Local police maintained a perimeter and offered logistical support, but pointedly left the matter to federal authorities, illustrating the layered jurisdictional challenges that arise when local communities intersect with federal operations.

In the broader national landscape, the Portland shooting became one of several incidents drawing scrutiny of U.S. immigration enforcement strategies. Civil rights organizations and lawmakers in several states called for congressional hearings and independent probes into patterns of behavior by federal agents, arguing that repeated shootings by immigration authorities demand greater oversight and potential reform. These voices amplified concerns that immigration enforcement had moved beyond routine detentions into a zone of heightened conflict with civilian populations.

Amid protests and political debate, questions about the future of federal enforcement approaches gained traction. Advocates for reform pointed to the risks of escalated force and the chilling effect such incidents have on immigrant communities who may already live in fear of encounters with authorities. Meanwhile, supporters of aggressive enforcement argued that federal agents must have the authority to protect themselves and others when they face perceived threats with limited information and rapid decision-making requirements.

The shooting in Portland and the resulting fallout underscored how a single act of violence can reverberate through local communities and into national discourse, shaping opinions, policy debates and protests across the country. As investigations continue and public sentiment evolves, the incident remains a touchstone in ongoing discussions about law enforcement practices, immigration policy and the balance between safety and civil rights in American life.