Minneapolis, MN – A government review challenges the Trump administration’s account. This review concerns the shooting death of Alex Pretti. The incident occurred in Minneapolis on January 24, 2026. Federal agents killed the 37-year-old ICU nurse. Initial White House statements portrayed Pretti as a threat. However, a preliminary investigation paints a different picture. This developing news highlights a significant discrepancy. It raises questions about official narratives. This is a current trending topic. The investigations are ongoing.
The Fatal Encounter
Alex Pretti was an intensive care nurse. He worked for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. On that Saturday morning, agents were conducting an immigration operation. Video shows Pretti filming the agents. He was directing traffic. Witnesses saw him step between an agent and a woman. The agent had pushed the woman down. Pretti put his arm around her. Agents then pepper-sprayed him. They wrestled him to the ground. Several federal agents surrounded him. Around six agents were present. They shot Pretti multiple times. He died shortly after. His death occurred near Nicollet Avenue. This event fueled existing tensions. Tensions were already high over immigration enforcement. It was part of Operation Metro Surge. This operation had seen other controversial incidents. These included the earlier killing of Renée Good. Good died on January 7. An ICE agent shot her. The city was already protesting these actions.
Administration’s Initial Claims
Federal officials quickly released statements. These statements described Pretti as dangerous. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem spoke out. She claimed Pretti approached agents with a gun. She described his actions as violent. Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino also spoke. He suggested Pretti wanted to “massacre” officers. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called Pretti an “assassin.” He also labeled the act “domestic terrorism.” President Trump commented on the shooting. He told the Wall Street Journal Pretti had a “dangerous and unpredictable gun.” These initial claims created a strong narrative. This narrative portrayed Pretti as the aggressor. It suggested agents acted in self-defense. The administration presented him as a direct threat. This aggressive rhetoric intensified public anger.
Review Contradicts Official Story
A preliminary government review offers a stark contrast. It is based on body-worn camera footage. It also uses agency documentation. This review, shared with Congress, omits key details. Crucially, it makes no mention of Pretti brandishing a weapon. The report also does not state he attacked officers. It does not suggest he threatened anyone. Instead, it details a struggle. Agents tried to arrest Pretti. He resisted. A struggle ensued. One agent yelled that Pretti had a gun. Then, two agents fired their weapons. Bystander video supports parts of this. It shows an agent removing a gun. This happened before shots were fired. The review suggests Pretti was shot in the back. This occurred after agents tackled him. Local authorities confirmed Pretti carried his weapon lawfully. The omissions in the official timeline are significant. They directly contradict earlier DHS statements. This creates major questions. These questions concern the agency’s initial statements. They also concern transparency in investigations.
Backlash and Calls for Investigation
The conflicting accounts sparked swift backlash. Many observers noted the discrepancy. Video evidence appeared to undercut official claims. This footage circulated widely. It fueled demands for a full investigation. Lawmakers from both parties voiced concerns. Senator Bill Cassidy called the events “incredibly disturbing.” He stressed the credibility of ICE and DHS was at stake. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Thom Tillis also called for independent reviews. Minnesota officials sued the Department of Homeland Security. They demanded a “full, impartial, and transparent investigation.” A federal judge ordered DHS to preserve evidence. This order blocked any alteration of critical records. The handling of the investigation also drew criticism. Reports indicated some prosecutors resigned. They cited pressure regarding the investigation’s scope. They felt civil rights aspects were ignored. The FBI’s role was reportedly limited. They focused only on physical evidence. This raised concerns about the inquiry’s completeness. This is a trending topic in national news.
Administration’s Shift and Leadership Changes
Facing intense scrutiny, the administration began to shift. White House officials distanced themselves. They softened their earlier harsh rhetoric. President Trump stated the administration was reviewing the shooting. He announced he was sending “border czar” Tom Homan. Homan would lead the federal operation in Minneapolis. This move signaled a change in approach. It marked a departure from initial claims. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino was replaced. He was reportedly relieved of his command. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also faced scrutiny. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey met with Homan. Governor Tim Walz also met with Homan. They agreed on continued dialogue. The intensity of the federal operation in Minneapolis began to scale back. This was a direct result of the outcry. These current events have significant implications. They affect public trust and accountability. The investigations continue. They seek to clarify what truly happened. This investigation is crucial news.
