“Get to the rifles.” Three words, prosecutors say, that set off one of the most alarming attacks on a federal immigration facility in recent American history. Now, a federal courtroom in Texas is working through exactly what happened — and why.
The trial of Benjamin Song and eight co-defendants got underway this week in Fort Worth, stemming from a July 4, 2025 attack on the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas — an ICE facility about 40 miles south of Dallas. Nine defendants are accused of coordinating an armed assault on the facility, an incident that left officers wounded and sent shockwaves through federal law enforcement circles. The case has drawn national attention not just for its violence, but for the ideological undertones prosecutors have been quick to highlight.
Opening Salvos
Assistant U.S. Attorney Shawn Smith didn’t ease into it. He opened by telling jurors that Song’s alleged command — “Get to the rifles” — was the signal that preceded gunfire directed at an officer and two detention officers. “‘Get to the rifles.’ Those are the words that defendant Benjamin Song shouted before he shot an officer and two detention officers,” Smith told jurors, according to reporting from KERA News.
The prosecution’s framing was deliberate and blunt. This wasn’t a protest gone sideways, Smith argued — it was something far more calculated. “They weren’t there to protest ICE,” he told the jury. “They were there to make a statement.” That line, noted by CBS News Texas, set the tone for what promises to be a deeply contested proceeding.
A Defense That Sees It Differently
But it’s not that simple — at least, that’s what the defense would have you believe. Defense attorneys have pushed back hard on the prosecution’s characterization of the defendants as armed aggressors. One of the central disputes: whether the fireworks present that night were weapons used in the attack or props carried as part of what some defendants claim was a Fourth of July protest. It’s a distinction that sounds almost absurd on its face, yet it cuts to the heart of intent — which, in a federal conspiracy case, matters enormously. Prosecutors and defense attorneys clashed openly over that question during early proceedings.
Were these people protesters or paramilitaries? That framing will likely define the entire trial.
What the Cameras Captured
On the third day of testimony, jurors got a look at something far more visceral than courtroom argument. Body camera footage from the night of the incident was played for the jury — images from inside a chaotic scene that unfolded on a holiday evening at a facility most Americans had never heard of. Jurors also examined evidence recovered from one of the defendant’s vehicles, according to Fox 4 News.
Still, body camera footage is rarely a clean narrative. It’s raw, disorienting, and open to interpretation — exactly the kind of evidence both sides can shape to their own ends. What prosecutors see as proof of a coordinated ambush, defense attorneys may argue shows confusion, not conspiracy. Jurors watched the footage closely, according to pool reports from inside the courtroom.
The Bigger Picture
The Prairieland incident didn’t happen in a vacuum. It came amid a period of intense national debate over immigration enforcement, federal detention facilities, and the boundaries of political dissent. Nine defendants now face serious federal charges tied to an attack on a government facility — the kind of case that, regardless of ideology, sets legal precedents about how far protest can legally go before it becomes something else entirely.
The trial is ongoing. Testimony is expected to continue for several weeks as prosecutors build their case around surveillance footage, witness accounts, and the alleged chain of command that led to that July 4th night in Alvarado.
Three words opened this trial. How many more it takes to close it — and what a jury ultimately decides they meant — is a question that could resonate well beyond this courtroom.
