Listen to the article
In an unprecedented clash between state and federal authorities, Minnesota officials have launched a website to counter what they describe as federal misinformation following two fatal shootings by immigration agents during the Trump administration’s recent immigration crackdown.
The dispute has reached new heights after Minnesota took legal action to preserve evidence from Saturday’s shooting of Alex Pretti, as state investigators were denied access to the scene by federal authorities. This follows the January 7 shooting of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer.
Experts characterize the growing divide between Minnesota and federal agencies as a dramatic departure from decades of interagency cooperation on law enforcement matters.
The Minnesota Department of Corrections’ new website aims to combat what officials call Department of Homeland Security misinformation in the wake of Pretti’s death. The site includes documentation refuting federal claims that the state routinely releases individuals under deportation orders, displaying evidence of cases where Minnesota officials honored federal detention requests.
The department has also released videos showing peaceful transfers of custody from state prison to federal authorities—directly contradicting narratives presented by the Trump administration about individuals supposedly arrested during immigration enforcement operations.
In a further effort to correct the record, Minnesota officials published information challenging federal characterizations about the criminal history of a person targeted in Saturday’s operation near where Pretti was shot. While U.S. Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino claimed at a press conference that the individual had a significant criminal record, Minnesota officials stated they found only decade-old misdemeanor traffic violations.
“It’s not even a question of collaboration at this point. It’s such a broken relationship,” said Jimmy Gurulé, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and former federal prosecutor. “How did it get to this point, where state and local law enforcement have such little trust in the federal agencies they feel they need to go to court?”
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office secured a federal court order preventing federal officials from “destroying or altering evidence” related to the Pretti shooting. Federal officials dismissed the lawsuit as “ridiculous” and denied any intention to destroy evidence.
The disagreement extends beyond evidence preservation to who should investigate the shootings. Contrary to decades of precedent where the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division would examine potentially unconstitutional use of force by federal officers, DHS officials have insisted their own department will handle these investigations.
“What you would expect in normal times is the Justice Department would open an investigation into the circumstances of the shooting,” explained Chris Mattei, a former federal prosecutor who served under both Presidents Bush and Obama. “They have been the independent body that would investigate it. But it would seem that this Justice Department and this Civil Rights division have zero interest in enforcing constitutional rights for citizens in the immigration context.”
The situation has been further complicated by statements from White House officials. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller characterized Pretti as an “assassin,” prompting White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt to distance President Trump from those remarks, noting that the president never used those words and that the situation had evolved rapidly since Saturday.
A potential path forward emerged Monday when Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and President Trump spoke by phone. According to the governor’s office, Walz advocated for an impartial investigation of both shootings, and Trump reportedly agreed to discuss with DHS ensuring that state investigators could conduct an independent review.
The call also addressed more coordinated approaches to immigration enforcement, with Minnesota reiterating its commitment to honoring requests to hold non-citizen inmates until federal authorities can take custody.
Experts remain concerned about the breakdown in traditional interagency relationships. “The disagreements were always handled behind the scenes. There were never any public statements criticizing other agencies,” noted Gurulé, calling Minnesota’s legal action to preserve evidence “shocking” and a sign of “grave distrust” between state and federal authorities.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This dispute over law enforcement and immigration issues highlights the ongoing tensions and challenges in the relationship between state and federal governments. It will be important to see if they can find a way to resolve their differences and work together effectively.
Agreed. The ability of state and federal agencies to coordinate and cooperate is crucial for the well-being and safety of the public. Hopefully, they can find a path forward that addresses the core concerns on both sides.
This clash between state and federal authorities over law enforcement and immigration issues is concerning. It’s critical that they find a way to work together and maintain public trust, even in the face of these significant disagreements.
Absolutely. Preserving interagency cooperation and coordination should be a top priority, as the public relies on these agencies to work together to ensure public safety and security.
It’s concerning to see such a dramatic departure from the usual cooperation on law enforcement issues. I hope the Minnesota and federal authorities can find a way to bridge this divide and work together effectively.
Yes, the public deserves to have confidence that state and federal agencies can put aside their differences and collaborate in the interest of public safety. Resolving this dispute should be a top priority.
This conflict over law enforcement and immigration issues highlights the ongoing tensions between state and federal authorities. I wonder what the long-term implications could be for interagency cooperation more broadly.
That’s a good point. Breakdowns in coordination between different levels of government can have far-reaching consequences, especially when it comes to public safety and security matters.
This certainly seems like a complex situation, with state and federal authorities at odds over law enforcement activities. I’m curious to see how this plays out and what the underlying factors are that have led to this unprecedented divide.
Yes, it will be interesting to follow the developments and understand the root causes behind this breakdown in cooperation. These types of disputes can have far-reaching implications.
The Minnesota Department of Corrections’ efforts to combat what they see as federal misinformation raises some important questions about transparency and accountability. I’ll be following this story closely to see how it unfolds.
Absolutely. Ensuring accurate information and clear communication from all sides will be critical in navigating this complex situation and rebuilding trust between state and federal authorities.
The Minnesota Department of Corrections’ website and their efforts to counter perceived federal misinformation are an interesting approach to addressing this dispute. It will be important to see how this evolves and whether it helps to bridge the divide between the state and federal authorities.
Yes, it’s a proactive step by the state to try to shape the narrative and provide their perspective. Effective communication and transparency from all parties will be crucial in resolving this complex situation.
The Minnesota Department of Corrections’ website seems to be a direct response to counter what they view as misinformation from federal agencies. Transparency and access to evidence is key in these types of high-profile incidents.
Agreed. Providing documentation and evidence is important to establish the facts and address any discrepancies between state and federal narratives.