Confrontation at Coast Guard Base Leads to Federal Charges

In a tense confrontation that escalated rapidly last month, federal prosecutors have charged 26-year-old Brendan Munro Thompson (who also goes by Bella Thompson and Bella Castillo) with assaulting federal officers using a dangerous weapon after allegedly driving a U-Haul truck toward Coast Guard personnel at Base Alameda in California. The October 23rd incident, captured on dramatic video footage, shows the U-Haul reversing toward security personnel stationed at a barricade on the bridge connecting Coast Guard Island to Oakland around 10 p.m. Despite multiple verbal warnings from officers, the driver allegedly continued maneuvering the vehicle toward the checkpoint, prompting security personnel to open fire when they perceived an immediate threat to their safety. The truck subsequently sped away from the scene, leaving authorities to later discover the abandoned vehicle.

The incident came after a day of heightened tensions, with authorities noting that the truck had been parked outside the base for most of the day prior to the confrontation. Court documents detail how Thompson allegedly reversed the vehicle several times before accelerating rapidly toward the Coast Guard personnel, who feared not only that the truck might strike them but also that it could potentially contain explosives. This perceived threat led officers to fire their weapons in self-defense when the vehicle continued backing toward their position. Following the shooting, two individuals arrived at local hospitals with non-life-threatening gunshot wounds. One of these individuals—identified as Thompson—received treatment before being taken into custody by authorities who had been investigating the incident.

U.S. Attorney Craig H. Missakian made clear the government’s position on the matter, stating, “As alleged, Thompson drove a U-Haul truck directly into a line of Coast Guard personnel who were protecting the Coast Guard base, as they bravely do day in and day out. Let this be clear: There is zero tolerance for assault on federal officers or property, and those who do so will face federal criminal charges.” This sentiment was echoed by FBI Acting Special Agent in Charge Matt Cobo, who emphasized that attempting to use a vehicle to assault federal officers performing their lawful duties “is not protest, it is a violent and serious federal crime.” These statements underline the gravity with which federal authorities are treating this case.

Context surrounding the incident reveals that earlier that same day, protesters had gathered outside the base in what appeared to be an attempt to block U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents from entering the facility. The demonstration grew significant enough that California Highway Patrol officers in riot gear were deployed to disperse the crowd, with local reports indicating that two individuals were detained during this earlier confrontation. The Coast Guard base had been designated as a potential staging area for a federal deployment to San Francisco that had been postponed. Adding a political dimension to the situation, then-President Donald Trump had mentioned on his Truth Social platform that he had called off the planned federal deployment after discussions with local leaders who assured him that progress was being made on public safety concerns in the area.

The aftermath of the incident has led to serious legal consequences for Thompson, who made an initial court appearance on Tuesday morning. The defendant is now scheduled for both a detention hearing and a preliminary hearing on November 10, 2025, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. The charges Thompson faces are substantial—if convicted of assaulting federal officers with a deadly or dangerous weapon, the maximum penalties include up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000. These potential consequences reflect the seriousness with which the justice system views attacks on federal personnel performing their official duties, particularly those safeguarding military installations.

This case highlights ongoing tensions surrounding federal law enforcement operations and security protocols at military installations. The Coast Guard’s statement that security officers fired “several rounds of live fire” only after the driver ignored “multiple verbal commands” to stop and when “the vehicle’s actions posed a direct threat” demonstrates the measured but decisive response protocol followed by security forces when facing potential threats. It also underscores the complex security challenges faced by federal facilities in an era of heightened political tensions, where protests can sometimes escalate beyond peaceful demonstration into potentially dangerous confrontations. As this case proceeds through the federal court system, it will likely serve as a reminder of both the legal boundaries surrounding protests near federal facilities and the serious consequences that can result when those boundaries are crossed in ways that threaten the safety of federal personnel.