Video Analyses Contradict DHS Statements on Minneapolis Shooting

Federal officials have yet to provide evidence for key claims made following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis, as multiple video analyses contradict initial government narratives about the incident.

The Department of Homeland Security’s early statements about the January 24 shooting, including assertions that Pretti “approached” officers with a handgun and “violently resisted” attempts to disarm him, appear inconsistent with bystander videos that have emerged in the days following the incident.

Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, was killed shortly after 9 a.m. when Border Patrol officers were conducting what officials described as “a targeted operation against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault.” Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara confirmed that Pretti had a valid permit to carry the handgun, which is legal in Minnesota.

Within hours of the shooting, DHS posted statements on social media claiming Pretti approached officers with a weapon and speculating that he “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem echoed these claims, stating Pretti had “attacked those officers” while “brandishing” a weapon with “dozens of rounds of ammunition, wishing to inflict harm.”

Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol commander in charge of the operation, made similar assertions but declined to answer reporters’ questions about when agents became aware of Pretti’s firearm or whether he ever brandished it, saying only that “those facts will come to light” during the investigation.

The rhetoric escalated on social media when White House adviser Stephen Miller characterized Pretti as an “assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents,” while President Trump questioned Pretti’s intentions on Truth Social, referring to him as a “gunman” with a loaded weapon “ready to go.”

However, multiple media outlets including the Minnesota Star Tribune, The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post have analyzed available video footage and found no evidence that Pretti threatened officers with a gun. Rather, the videos show him holding a cell phone and appearing to record the federal agents before officers used pepper spray against him and forced him to the ground.

The Star Tribune’s review of six videos and eyewitness accounts concluded: “The footage does not show him pointing a firearm, attempting to fire a weapon, or advancing toward agents with a gun raised. He is instead captured holding a cellphone, appearing to record.”

The New York Times noted that officers can be heard in the video yelling that Pretti has a gun only after he was pinned to the ground, “indicating that they may not have known he was armed until he was on the ground.” The Washington Post’s analysis observed that shots were fired less than a second after an agent removed Pretti’s firearm, raising questions about whether other agents realized Pretti had been disarmed.

John Cohen, a former acting DHS undersecretary for intelligence and police trainer, told ABC News that “there’s nothing in the video evidence that we’ve seen thus far” to support DHS’ claims about Pretti’s intentions to harm officers.

When pressed by CNN’s Dana Bash about the evidence behind DHS’ statements, Bovino deflected, saying only that “at some point, they knew there was a gun” and that the incident remains under investigation. DHS has not responded to media requests for clarification about Noem’s claim that Pretti was “brandishing” a weapon.

While body camera footage from multiple federal agents reportedly exists, it has not been publicly released, leaving significant questions about what transpired before the moments captured in bystander videos.

When asked about the shooting on January 25, President Trump appeared to take a more measured stance than DHS officials, stating: “We’re looking, we’re reviewing everything and will come out with a determination. I don’t like any shooting. I don’t like it.”

As the investigation continues, the discrepancies between official statements and available video evidence highlight the importance of transparency in cases involving deadly use of force by federal officers.