Listen to the article
In a marked shift from past presidential responses to civilian deaths, President Donald Trump has taken an unprecedented approach to two recent fatal shootings of protesters by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis, experts say.
Following the January 7 killing of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, Trump immediately claimed on social media that Good had “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.” The president shared video footage of the incident taken from a distance, though closer video evidence later contradicted his assertion that the agent was run over.
Just weeks later, when federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti on January 24, Trump quickly posted an image of a handgun, writing: “This is the gunman’s gun, loaded (with two additional full magazines!), and ready to go – What is that all about?” He questioned why local police weren’t protecting ICE officers, suggesting that “the Mayor and the Governor called them off.”
Department of Homeland Security officials reinforced Trump’s narrative, claiming Pretti “approached” officers with a handgun and “violently resisted” attempts to disarm him. Officials stated he “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” However, bystander videos contradicted these accounts, failing to show Pretti holding or threatening officers with the weapon.
The following day, Trump moderated his position, saying, “We’re reviewing everything and will come out with a determination” on whether the agent’s actions were justified. The Justice Department’s civil rights division has since launched an investigation into Pretti’s death.
Political communications experts and historians unanimously told FactCheck.org that Trump’s immediate, definitive statements mark a significant departure from how previous presidents handled similar situations.
“As with so much else Trump, yes — he’s extremely different,” said Matt Dallek, a political historian and professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management. “He’s much more extreme and far more untethered from facts and the reality on the ground.”
Roderick Hart, professor emeritus of communication at the University of Texas at Austin, noted the shift is “without question” and extends beyond this specific situation. “He’s a rhetoric-first guy… And he’s chosen his people who have exactly the same instincts,” Hart explained. While presidents typically exercise caution when reacting to developing events, “Trump talks before the event is even finished.”
The Minneapolis incidents do differ from historical examples in one key aspect – they involved federal agents rather than state or local officers, potentially explaining the administration’s defensive posture.
By comparison, former President Barack Obama took a more measured approach following high-profile police-involved deaths. After Trayvon Martin was killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer in 2012, Obama waited nearly a month before commenting, expressing sympathy for the parents while acknowledging the ongoing investigation. He similarly waited three days to respond to Michael Brown’s 2014 killing in Ferguson, Missouri, and three weeks to comment on Tamir Rice’s death.
Even earlier administrations showed similar restraint. President George H.W. Bush waited almost three weeks before addressing the Rodney King beating in 1991, calling the videotaped incident “shocking” while promising a federal investigation.
Richard Nixon’s response to the 1970 Kent State killings, where National Guard troops shot four student protesters, was notably more restrained than Trump’s recent statements. Nixon called it a “tragic and unfortunate incident” the same day but waited for facts before drawing conclusions.
“There are some echoes, I think,” Dallek said of Nixon’s and Trump’s approaches. But Nixon was far more measured and “never branded [the students] as traitors or domestic terrorists.” In contrast, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem labeled both Good’s and Pretti’s actions as “domestic terrorism.”
Barbara Perry, professor of governance at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, noted the current situation differs because it involves federal rather than local officers. Previous presidents could “keep at arms length the legal process while expressing their sorrow.”
Guian A. McKee, another Miller Center professor, added that Trump’s statements “have been immediate, they have been political, and they have had little regard for facts.” He suggested this may be because “the recent killings have been done by federal agents acting as instruments of the president’s own policies.”
Interestingly, near the end of his first term, Trump took a more conciliatory tone following George Floyd’s death under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer in 2020. Two days after Floyd’s killing, Trump announced an FBI investigation, and later called it a “terrible, terrible thing that happened… It should never be allowed to happen.”
The Justice Department’s investigation into the recent Minneapolis shootings continues.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
It’s concerning to see the President potentially inflaming tensions around these sensitive incidents. Responsible leadership calls for a more measured, fact-based approach that avoids rushing to judgment. I hope the investigations can shed light on the full circumstances of these tragic events.
The President’s rush to judgment in these cases is concerning and departs from the traditional presidential role of waiting for investigations to conclude. Responsible leadership requires a more measured response that avoids inflaming tensions before the full facts are known.
I appreciate the article’s examination of this issue. The President’s handling of these incidents represents a significant departure from past practice, which is concerning. A more measured, fact-based response would be more appropriate and constructive.
This is a troubling development in presidential crisis communication. While the President may feel compelled to respond quickly, a more thoughtful, evidence-based approach would better serve the public interest and help maintain trust in government institutions.
This article highlights an important issue around presidential leadership and communication in the wake of such incidents. While I understand the desire for swift action, I agree that a more thoughtful, evidence-based response would be more appropriate and constructive.
Agreed. It’s critical that the President sets the right tone and avoids further polarization on these sensitive matters. A calmer, more unifying approach could go a long way.
While the President is quick to share his views, I would caution against drawing firm conclusions until the investigations have run their course. These situations are often complex, and a thorough review of the evidence is needed to understand what truly happened.
This is a troubling trend of the President rushing to judge these shootings before all the facts are known. As the article notes, it defies the traditional presidential approach of waiting for investigations to conclude before making public statements. A more measured, fact-based response would be more appropriate.