Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna was on shift in Minneapolis on a Wednesday evening last month, making deliveries as a DoorDash driver, when he realized he was being followed by ICE agents, his attorney said.

He drove home and was tackled by an agent but broke free and ran into the house where his cousin Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis was standing, the attorney said. As he shut the door and was trying to lock it, Sosa-Celis said he was shot in the leg by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

Coming just seven days after a federal agent fatally shot Renee Good, the incident spawned renewed protests and heated clashes with police. An account of the events from the Department of Homeland Security soon after the incident conflicted with the narratives from the two men and their family members.

DHS claimed Sosa-Celis was driving the car and he, Aljorna and another man assaulted the agent before the agent fired his weapon.

The first inkling of the government questioning the DHS account came from the US Department of Justice. In a January 16 court filing supporting criminal charges against the two men, the DOJ asserted Aljorna was the one driving the vehicle.

In a stunning reversal, the Justice Department on Thursday filed a motion seeking to drop criminal charges against the two Venezuelan men. In it, the DOJ said federal prosecutors provided incorrect information to the court, while ICE issued a statement admitting its federal agents made “false statements” under oath.

The two federal agents involved have been placed on administrative leave while the Justice Department investigates their “untruthful statements,” which were revealed by a review of video evidence, ICE Director Todd Lyons said in a statement.

The two officers may be fired and potentially face criminal prosecution, Lyons said.

DOJ’s motion cited “newly discovered evidence” contradicting statements the agency included as the basis for filing criminal charges against the men.

It’s not clear what video evidence was uncovered, described in the motion as “materially inconsistent with the allegations” from federal prosecutors in the charging document. CNN has reached out to DHS for further clarity on the evidence and whether it stands by the initial statement following the shooting but did not hear back. The DOJ declined to comment on the motion when contacted by CNN.

“This was an absolute unreasonable use of force, and the officer was fabricating claims against my client to justify that,” said Aljorna’s attorney, Frederick J. Goetz.

The dismissed case fits into a larger pattern in which the federal government has been quick to release accounts after a shooting by its law enforcement agents, which were later proven to be false, misleading or incomplete, according to CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. Examples include video evidence after federal agents fatally shot Good and Alex Pretti, which appeared to undermine elements of the government’s accounts of what happened.

Similarly, prosecutors last year filed to drop charges against Marimar Martinez in Chicago, who the government said rammed a federal agent’s vehicle before he shot her several times. A judge, who noted the government’s case included omissions that caused her to tread carefully, dismissed the charges against Martinez last year.

Martinez asked for evidence in the case to be released. When it was put out last week, the evidence bolstered Martinez’s account that hers was the vehicle rammed, not the agent’s. And text messages from the agent showed him bragging about the number of times he shot her. In a news release, the DHS called the shots “defensive fire.”

The shifting narratives from the federal government in the case of Sosa-Celis and Aljorna have further chipped away at the Trump administration’s credibility, as the motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice is a more dramatic admission from federal prosecutors because it indicates they put forth wrong information and means the case cannot be brought back, Honig said.

Lawyers for both Sosa-Celis and Aljorna commended the department’s motion, calling it “extraordinary” and “exceedingly rare” in statements to CNN.

Here’s what we know about the case and how it fell apart:

In a January 15 news release, DHS claimed federal agents were targeting Sosa-Celis in a traffic stop – not Aljorna – as part of an immigration enforcement operation on January 14 when he attempted to evade arrest, crashed into a parked car and tried to flee on foot.

Sosa-Celis allegedly began to “resist and violently assault” one of the officers and the two were in a “struggle on the ground,” then “got loose and began striking the officer with a shovel or broom stick,” at which point the officer fired a “defensive shot,” DHS said. Two other people came out of a nearby apartment and attacked the officer, the agency said.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem described the men’s actions as “an attempted murder of federal law enforcement.” The agency stood by its initial statement a few days after the shooting when contacted by CNN.

On January 16, however, the Justice Department offered an account painting a different picture of the events in a filing supporting criminal charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna. That document said the driver of the car was Aljorna, who prosecutors said was zigzagging through traffic while agents pursued the vehicle.

Aljorna, the affidavit claimed, hit a light pole before fleeing from the car, with an ICE agent chasing him on foot toward the home. Both Sosa-Celis and Aljorna were accused of hitting one of the agents with a shovel or broom before the agent pointed his weapon at the two men, causing them to run toward the home, the affidavit said.

As Sosa-Celis and Aljorna ran inside, the agent fired one round from his pistol “towards the vicinity” of the two men but at the time, the officer was “uncertain if his shot struck any of them,” the DOJ’s affidavit said.

Aljorna’s attorney told CNN the Trump administration’s claims his client and Sosa-Celis attacked federal agents with a broomstick or shovel “never happened.”

Sosa-Celis, speaking from a hospital room on a livestream video on his Facebook account, described engaging in some sort of struggle with federal agents as he was helping his cousin escape arrest and get inside their shared home.

As Aljorna was being followed in his car, the fatal shooting of Good the week prior was fresh in his mind and he was fearful, according to Goetz, his attorney. Aljorna called his family members, who told him to get home.

Approaching his home, Aljorna lost control of the car due to ice on the roadway and hit a snowbank, Goetz said. Aljorna was then tackled by an ICE agent after running from the car, just 10 feet away from the door, where Sosa-Celis had walked out and called for him to get inside, the attorney said.

Aljorna was able to slip out of his jacket, freeing himself from the agent’s grasp, and ran to his cousin, Goetz said. They both got behind the door and closed it when a shot rang out, he added.

The accounts from the two men were reiterated by their family members in interviews and livestream videos of their 911 calls, which differed from DHS’ statement.

One of them showed a video call made by Sosa-Celis’ partner and reviewed by CNN, frantically describing to family members what she says happened, according to Alicia Celis, Sosa-Celis’ mother, who spoke to CNN.

In one video call, Sosa-Celis’ partner said, “Julio arrived first. They were chasing Alfredo – he had to jump from his car.”

“He ran and they threw themselves on top of him. After, Julio threw open the door, and they shot,” she added.

A different video obtained by CNN shows what was happening outside the home while the family waited inside, revealing agents approaching the home and setting off a flash-bang. Smoke can be seen, and ramming sounds are heard as someone says, “They’re in! There’s more than a dozen of them.”

“He told me, ‘Mom, ICE was chasing me,” Aljorna’s mother Mabel Aljorna later said. “Once we were inside, they shot at Julio,’” she added.

In his livestream from the hospital, Sosa-Celis said, “The shot that was fired happened when my cousin managed to escape, and he entered inside. I closed the door and as I was locking it, I heard the shot, and that’s when I realized I had been shot in the leg.”

Sosa-Celis is “relieved that the federal criminal case is over,” his attorney Robin Wolpert said on his behalf, adding he is “determined to seek justice and hold the ICE officer accountable for his unlawful conduct.”

Confrontations involving federal agents have routinely been captured on video from multiple angles, which later served to discount parts of the government’s narrative of events. Videos from the killing of Renee Good, a mother of three, in her vehicle, raised questions about the federal agent’s tactics and decision to use deadly force.

Similarly, footage showing federal agents killing Alex Pretti revealed the ICU nurse was holding a phone in his right hand, and an officer removing a gun from his back waistband before the shooting. The Trump administration claimed an agent “fired defensive shots” and asserted Pretti was “brandishing” a firearm.

“It’s mind-boggling that DHS continues this pattern of making immediate, definitive statements about what happened that are very quickly disproved by actual evidence,” said senior CNN legal analyst Honig.

Judges across the country who were appointed to the bench by presidents of both political parties have made findings on record about DHS not being forthcoming, truthful or credible, according to Honig.

The Trump administration has faced mounting credibility issues as its immigration crackdown has rolled out in blue cities nationwide. Even as several judges have acknowledged parts of its narratives may be true, others have described the government’s claims in court as “unreliable,” “untethered to the facts” and “simply not credible,” CNN previously reported.

The motion to dismiss the charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna with prejudice is “remarkably unusual,” said Honig. It speaks to how the government has rushed to put out possibly premature statements, which are at times incomplete or inaccurate, only later to be contradicted by emerging facts, he added.

Federal prosecutors are put in a “very difficult position” when they realize later “that something they’ve said to a court is not true,” Honig said, but they nevertheless have a duty to correct the record.

“While judges ordinarily give the Justice Department a lot of deference and a lot of implied credibility, that’s changing now,” he continued. “You have credibility only until you give it away.”

The four members of NASA’S SpaceX Crew-12 mission docked at the International Space Station on Saturday afternoon.

The crew blasted off before dawn on Friday morning from Cape Canaveral in Florida.

The Crew-12 mission includes two NASA astronauts, Jessica Meir and Jack Hathaway, French astronaut Sophie Adenot, and Russian cosmonaut Andrey Fedyaev. During their eight-month mission, the crew will conduct scientific research to prepare for human exploration beyond earth’s orbit and enhance food production in space.

“With Crew-12 safely on orbit, America and our international partners once again demonstrated the professionalism, preparation, and teamwork required for human spaceflight,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said in a statement.

The mission replaces the crew from NASA’s Crew-11 mission, which departed the ISS a month ahead of schedule in January due to a medical evacuation of one of the crew members. Since then, the space station has been operating with a reduced staff of three people — well below it’s typical seven-person staff.

Isaacman also said that NASA is simultaneously making preparations for the 10-day Artemis II mission, which would send a crew of four astronauts around the moon. It’s the first crewed mission to the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972 and is slated to take off as soon as March.

Vermont had a problem. Child care was too expensive. “We would be paying $3,500 a month, more than twice our mortgage.” Some parents were giving up their careers to stay home — “After daycare, you come home with maybe $60 extra a week. It’s just not even worth it at that point.” making it harder for local businesses to hire workers. Some businesses wanted the state to pay for childcare, but they faced a big obstacle. “The word tax. It’s a very volatile word.” Ultimately, Vermont did manage to make child care more affordable. So we’re here to find out how they’re doing it. This year’s midterm elections could turn on the issue of affordability. “Affordability.” “Affordability.” “Affordability.” “The affordability crisis.” Forty-four percent of voters said having a family was unaffordable in a recent Times-Siena poll. Alison Byrnes and her husband, for example, wanted a third kid. “It felt just like our family wasn’t complete.” But daycare for two kids here costs $3,500 a month, and Alison’s mom was already dipping into her retirement fund to help pay for that. “There’s no way we could make that work.” For years, Vermont’s working-age population has been shrinking, making businesses like Smugglers’ Notch Resort compete to find the workers they need. In 2022, the resort was short more than a dozen housekeepers. The managing director was fed up with the staffing shortage and decided to try something new. He offered free child care for employees. “We announced the new program on a Friday and by Tuesday, we were full. All the jobs had been taken, so we knew we were really on to something.” The child care benefit attracted employees like Becca Bishop, who wanted to rejoin the workforce after a few years as a stay-at-home mom. “I chose to start working here purely because of the child care that we have.” Now before work, she drops off her 3-year-old, Archer, at the on-site daycare and her 5-year-old son, Hunter, at ski camp, which is also free. Then she works full time managing the resort’s arcade. Once Bill solved his staffing problem, he started talking to other Vermont C.E.O.s about the benefits of child care and lobbying for a new tax that would fund it statewide. “When I was first back in Vermont working for the governor, I was talking to all kinds of Vermonters, and what I found was everything that they cared about actually linked back to child care. Aly Richards spent a decade expanding child care in Vermont. She said business leaders like Bill were a crucial part of the push. “Once we had them in here saying, ‘Look, if I paid in to fix child care in a systemic, sustainable way through, let’s say, a payroll tax,’ what happened was it gave permission to lawmakers to move forward on this issue. Often, businesses come into this building and say, ‘Please, do not raise taxes.’ In this case, it really was flipped on its head. They became the most powerful voices in advocating for public investment.” “What we should really do is try it and find out what happens.” The child care bill, Act 76, passed in 2023. It established a new 0.44 percent payroll tax on employers and generates about $125 million a year to fund child care subsidies. Families pay on a sliding scale. So a family of four with a modest income pays no tuition for child care. Higher-income families pay a co-pay that’s supposed to stay below roughly 10 percent of their income. The law has only fully been in place for a year, but already the new funding has led to more than 1,200 new child care slots for kids across Vermont. For years, child care centers were closing because they couldn’t cover their bills. Now, new ones are opening, like this one in the farming town of Addison. Michelle Bishop had dreamed of starting a place like this, but couldn’t afford to open until she could count on the state to pay more than $400 per child each week. “We have 16 children enrolled — 80 percent of them are receiving subsidy.” The additional funding also meant she could actually afford to pay her workers a livable wage. Statewide, Vermont still needs many more child care centers before it can fully meet demand. For now, though, the difference the new law has made for these Vermont residents is clear. Alison and her husband were finally able to have the third child they wanted because they knew their childcare costs would be about $30,000 a year less than it would have been without the new law. “We can’t imagine our family without that third kiddo. It’s literally life-changing. Like — she would not be here.” For Rebecca, free child care means she can afford to save for a new house that fits her family better. “We do plan on staying in Vermont, yes.” Michelle plans to expand into another room for toddlers this spring. “We hope to open in March or April. We’re almost finished.” And as for Bill, he says the New tax is nothing compared to what Vermont gets for it. “We didn’t put in a new tax and find that we couldn’t pay our bills. We’re still here.” “In Vermont, we really came together and it’s working.”