Dallas arrests suspect in TikTok bounty plot against ICE agents

(DALLAS, TEXAS) Federal agents arrested a 23-year-old man in Dallas after a TikTok plot called for a cash reward to kill immigration officers, drawing swift condemnation from prosecutors and a fast-moving multi-agency investigation.

According to court filings and officials, the suspect—identified as Eduardo Aguilar, an undocumented Mexican national living in North Texas—allegedly posted a video in Spanish on October 9, 2025, offering a $10,000 bounty on ICE—a promise of cash payment for each U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent killed. He reportedly asked for “10 dudes in Dallas with determination who aren’t afraid to [die],” using skull emojis to emphasize the point.

Aguilar was arrested on October 14, 2025, and made his first appearance in federal court in Dallas the same day. He was ordered to remain in custody while the case moves forward. If convicted of transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), he faces up to five years in federal prison.

Federal response and investigation

Acting U.S. Attorney Nancy E. Larson (Northern District of Texas) said the government will not tolerate threats against law enforcement:

“Threats against our law enforcement officers are completely unacceptable. All threats against our agents and officers will be investigated thoroughly, and anyone who threatens or puts a bounty on agents will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.”

The FBI’s Dallas Field Office led the case with assistance from multiple local, state, and federal partners:

• Dallas Police Department
• Texas Department of Public Safety
• U.S. Marshals Service
• Homeland Security Investigations
• ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
• Garland Police Department
• Federal Protective Service
• ATF

Officials said there was no evidence that any specific ICE officer was singled out in the TikTok post, but described the message as a serious threat that required immediate response.

Charges, legal standard, and current status

• The charge rests on a federal criminal complaint; Aguilar is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The complaint alleges the message traveled in interstate commerce because it used the internet and a social media platform.
• Prosecutors emphasize speed: posts that call for killings—especially those tied to a dollar figure—can spur copycats or inspire individuals to act even without direct contact.

Key legal points under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c):

• The statute prohibits transmitting threats in interstate or foreign commerce.
• Prosecutors must show the communication was a “true threat” rather than protected political speech or hyperbole.
• In this case, the complaint alleges an offer of $10,000 per ICE agent killed and a call for “10 dudes in Dallas,” which officials say constitutes a plain call to violence.

Broader pattern of threats in 2025

This Dallas arrest is part of a wider pattern of online threats against immigration officers in 2025:

• Late September: Two men from Tennessee and New York were charged in Georgia for social media threats that named an ICE officer and his spouse and urged people to “catch him when he’s alone.”
• Early October: A federal grand jury charged three women in California and Colorado for allegedly following an ICE officer from work, livestreaming the pursuit, and posting his home address (doxxing).

Department of Homeland Security has warned that anyone who doxxes or threatens ICE agents will face prosecution.

Officials also report intelligence—unrelated to the Dallas complaint—suggesting Mexican drug cartels have discussed a tiered bounty system aimed at federal immigration personnel, with potential payouts rising for higher-level targets. In the Dallas case, investigators say they have not found ties to cartels or organized crime.

Safety measures for officers and families

Investigators say the volatile climate around immigration enforcement affects officers at work and at home. Recommended precautions include:

• Varying travel routes and avoiding agency-branded gear in public
• Limiting personal information shared online and using strong privacy controls
• Installing alarms and cameras; conducting periodic neighborhood check‑ins
• Removing identifiable details from social posts (license plates, school mascots, neighborhood landmarks)

Advocates emphasize that even seemingly innocent posts—like a child’s soccer photo—can reveal location patterns.

Law enforcement procedures and digital evidence

When a threatening post is flagged, agents act fast to:

1. Secure warrants or subpoenas for account data (IP addresses, phone numbers).
2. Preserve digital evidence and identify the poster using open-source research (e.g., matching visible tattoos or clothing).
3. Seek approval from prosecutors and, if warranted, move to arrest.

Prosecutors note that once a threat is posted online, it can spread across state lines in seconds, increasing the risk that strangers could act on it.

Speech vs. threat: legal and academic views

Officials and scholars note the distinction between protected speech and punishable threats is fact‑specific. Courts typically consider:

• The content and context of the statement
• Whether a reasonable person would view it as a serious expression of intent
• The presence of an inducement to third parties (e.g., cash incentives)

The alleged bounty on ICE raises stakes because adding a price encourages third-party action and increases the risk of unpredictable retaliation.

Public guidance and platform responsibilities

• TikTok’s rules bar violent threats, but harmful content can appear before moderators or users report it.
• Authorities urge anyone who sees a post calling for violence to:
  • Capture screenshots and note usernames/timestamps
  • Report the post to platform moderators and law enforcement
  • Avoid sharing or engaging with the post (to prevent wider spread)

The FBI recommends prompt reporting because delays can allow content to spread and complicate tracing original accounts.

Community impact and reactions

Community leaders in North Texas stressed the case is painful for many immigrants who fear being blamed for one person’s actions. Their points:

• Most newcomers seek safety and stability and do not endorse violence.
• The case underscores how quickly online posts can escalate from a stunt to serious legal consequences.
• Enforcement debates should remain within the bounds of peaceful speech.

Local advocates work with churches, schools, and neighborhood centers to educate young people about the risks of impulsive online posts.

Detention, court process, and potential penalties

• Dallas officials said the decision to hold Aguilar without bond followed routine threat-case criteria (criminal history, community ties, nature of alleged conduct).
• Defense options may include seeking release with conditions (GPS monitoring, internet bans), but courts weigh community safety.
• If convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), the defendant faces up to five years in federal prison.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys will litigate whether the post was a “true threat,” whether the accused intended serious harm, and whether the evidence links the account to the defendant. A grand jury may later consider indictment; a trial would decide guilt or innocence.

Why swift arrests matter

Officials say quick arrests serve several goals:

• Remove an alleged source of danger
• Deter would-be imitators by showing legal consequences
• Reassure officers and families that threats are taken seriously

Even when a threat turns out to be “just words,” intervening before harm occurs is counted as success by law enforcement.

Where to get updates

For official case information and press releases, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas posts updates on the Department of Justice website: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx. Officials encourage the public to use verified government pages for reliable case status updates and to avoid rumor-driven social media threads.

Key takeaways

• Calls for violence—especially those offering cash bounties—cross a bright legal line and can lead to federal charges.
• Speed in reporting and investigation is critical because online content can spread across state lines instantly.
• Community education can help prevent impulsive posts that have severe legal and safety consequences.

The case of Eduardo Aguilar will be tested in court, but federal officials have sent a clear message: bounties, doxxing, and threats have no place in the public square—on TikTok or anywhere else.