Listen to the article
Trump Officials Make Disputed Claims About Border Patrol Shooting
Top officials in President Donald Trump’s administration have issued a series of statements regarding the killing of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis that appear inconsistent with available video evidence or lack supporting documentation.
The incident, which occurred on Saturday, has prompted strong denunciations from Pretti’s family, who called the administration’s characterizations “sickening lies” that are “reprehensible and disgusting.” Pretti was a registered nurse who worked in an intensive care unit at a Veterans Affairs facility.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem initially claimed that Pretti “attacked” officers, a claim echoed by FBI Director Kash Patel. However, video footage available to the public does not show Pretti committing any such attack. The footage instead depicts Pretti directing traffic at an immigration enforcement operation, recording agents on his phone, and attempting to intervene when an agent shoved a woman to the ground.
During this intervention, Pretti appears to have made brief contact with the agent using his right arm and left hand. The agent then sprayed him with a chemical irritant and dragged him to the ground, with other officers joining the confrontation as Pretti appeared to resist. One agent appears in the footage to have struck Pretti repeatedly while he was on the ground.
When pressed on CNN by Dana Bash to identify the specific moment in which Pretti “assaulted federal officers,” Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino declined to provide details. Notably, Secretary Noem softened her language in a Sunday Fox News interview, referring to Pretti as “laying hands on law enforcement” rather than “attacking” officers.
Noem’s Saturday claim that Pretti was “brandishing” a weapon is directly contradicted by available video evidence. At no point in the footage is Pretti seen holding a gun. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara confirmed, “I don’t have any evidence that I’ve seen that suggests that the weapon was brandished.” Video appears to show that a federal agent removed a gun from Pretti’s waistband area just moments before the shooting occurred.
Administration officials notably declined to repeat the “brandishing” claim during Sunday interviews. When questioned about how Pretti was supposedly threatening officers with a gun when footage shows him holding only a phone, Patel deferred to ongoing investigations, as did Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Some administration officials made even more serious allegations. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller described Pretti as “an assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents” in a social media post that was reposted by Vice President JD Vance. Bovino claimed “this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” language that was echoed by the Department of Homeland Security’s official accounts and by Secretary Noem.
No evidence has been presented to substantiate these claims of murderous intent. Pretti’s father told the Associated Press that his son had been participating in protests against the administration’s immigration actions following the earlier killing of another Minneapolis protester, Renee Good, by an ICE agent in January.
Legal experts have also challenged Patel’s assertion that “you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want.” Minneapolis Police Chief O’Hara confirmed that Pretti had a permit to carry a concealed firearm and was legally armed at the scene, stating he was “exercising his First Amendment rights to record law enforcement activity, and also exercising his Second Amendment rights to lawfully be armed in a public space.”
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus refuted Patel’s claim, stating: “There is no prohibition on a permit holder carrying a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines at a protest or rally in Minnesota.” Similarly, Gun Owners of America asserted that “the Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting.”
Noem’s additional claim on Sunday that Pretti had been improperly carrying the gun with “no ID” would, if true, constitute only a petty misdemeanor in Minnesota, punishable by a maximum fine of $25.
As investigations continue, the stark contrast between administration officials’ statements and available evidence has intensified scrutiny of the fatal shooting.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
This is a complex and sensitive situation. While the administration has made strong claims, the available video evidence seems to tell a different story. A thorough, impartial investigation is necessary to establish the full facts and ensure justice is served.
Agreed. The public deserves transparency and a clear understanding of what occurred. Discrepancies between official statements and evidence are worrying and warrant further scrutiny.
Interesting article on the disputed claims around the shooting of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents. The available video evidence seems to contradict the administration’s characterization of events. I hope a thorough investigation can shed more light on the facts of this tragic incident.
Yes, the video footage appears to tell a different story than the officials’ statements. It’s concerning when there are discrepancies between the evidence and the government’s narrative.
The conflicting narratives around the Pretti shooting are concerning. The administration’s claims do not appear to be supported by the limited video footage available. A comprehensive investigation is needed to determine the facts and hold any wrongdoing accountable.
Yes, it’s crucial that the investigation be thorough and impartial. The public needs to have confidence that law enforcement actions are justified, especially when they result in a loss of life.
This is a troubling incident with conflicting accounts. The available video evidence seems to contradict the administration’s characterization of events. A transparent and unbiased investigation is necessary to establish the facts and ensure justice is served.
Agreed. Discrepancies between official statements and evidence are concerning and undermine public trust. A comprehensive, independent review of this case is critical to upholding the principles of accountability and transparency.
The contradictions between the video evidence and the officials’ statements are troubling. Pretti appears to have been an innocent bystander, and the use of lethal force in this case raises serious questions. A comprehensive and unbiased investigation is warranted.
Absolutely. The public needs to have confidence that law enforcement actions are justified and proportionate. Discrepancies like this undermine that trust and highlight the need for greater oversight and accountability.
This is a concerning situation. Pretti seems to have been acting as a bystander and not posing a threat, based on the limited video evidence. The administration’s claims should be carefully scrutinized and the full facts need to be established.
I agree. Transparency and accountability are crucial when it comes to law enforcement actions that result in loss of life. The public deserves a thorough and impartial investigation.