If you are to believe US Border Control Chief, Greg Bovino, 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti left officers with no choice but to shoot him on the streets of Minneapolis. According to him, Pretti had “violently resisted arrest” and “wanted to do maximum damage”, so agents responded with appropriate force.
Yet multiple videos and witness statements contradict that narrative. In widely circulated footage, Pretti is seen holding his phone (not his gun) and stepping in to help a woman who had been pushed to the ground by agents. He is then pepper-sprayed, wrestled to the ground and shot multiple times by federal agents. At no point in the encounter did Mr Pretti ‘violently resist’ or attempt to shoot agents with his licensed firearm. Despite this, his life was still taken.
Soon after the shooting, Trump took to Truth Social, posting a picture of Pretti’s alleged firearm, which he described as “loaded and ready to go”. Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem labelled Pretti a “domestic terrorist”, the same term she used for Renee Good, also 37, who was killed in the same city in similar circumstances.
If the parallels were not already evident, Noem’s statement added fuel to the fire, as the public began to recognise that this was a further injustice. In Good’s case, the limited and unclear footage allowed official claims that she struck an ICE officer with her vehicle to circulate widely. However, the state’s account of Pretti’s actions proved far harder to sustain. He was outnumbered, forced to the ground, and shot repeatedly. While Pretti’s death was captured clearly on video and circulated widely, the moment of Good’s death was largely out of shot, a difference in visibility that shaped public reaction and left far less room for official narratives to remain unchallenged.
It was only when objections came from within the Republican Party itself that a shift in tone started to emerge. Republican Vermont Governor Phil Scott called the federal efforts in Minnesota “a complete failure of coordination of acceptable public safety and law enforcement practice”. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska echoed these sentiments, commenting that “ICE agents do not have carte blanche in carrying out their duties.”
While investigations were still underway, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt refrained from repeating earlier characterisations of Pretti, stating that the administration would allow the investigation to proceed before drawing conclusions. A far cry from the brazen tones of Noem and Bovino, the administration appears to have underestimated the outrage Pretti’s killing would cause.
This more muted approach appears to be a reactionary measure, deployed as damage control. Perhaps a key turning point was criticism from both the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America, both groups that usually align with Trump. In a statement, the Gun Owners of America said that “The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting – a right the federal government must not infringe upon.”
It’s one thing to upset groups you are traditionally opposed to, but to unsettle close allies is a political faux pas. Thus, it was unsurprising when Trump echoed Leavitt’s more muted tone, describing the shooting as a “very unfortunate incident”, but still expressing unease over Pretti carrying a gun.
While the administration’s tone has shifted, actions speak louder than words. The appointment of ‘Border Tsar’ Tom Homan, who has withdrawn 700 agents from Minnesota, does not change the fact that two individuals exercising their right to protest are now dead. Public fear is not only understandable – it is inevitable. When federal agents arrive with covered faces and switched licence plates, they resemble secret police more than accountable public officials, and trust erodes accordingly.
Operation Metro Surge is still ongoing, despite efforts to stop it. Under this operation, there have been 3,000 arrests, some without warrants, children detained, and alleged violations of court orders. Despite recent withdrawals, federal agents remain deployed in Minnesota, and with that comes a natural fear of occupation. While the Operation could soon come to an end, the emotional and economic scars inflicted upon residents will remain.
Communities are being policed by forces that do not answer to local officials, operate with limited transparency, and have already demonstrated a willingness to escalate encounters to lethal force. For residents, reassurance from Washington rings hollow when their streets are still occupied.
The White House’s tone shift appears to be rooted in self-preservation, rather than meaningful accountability. It must not be forgotten that this administration helped sow the seeds of division that escalated with lethal consequences. They have constructed a narrative of an ongoing internal threat, frequently depicting Democrat-led cities as spaces of disorder requiring federal intervention.
This narrative has already been seen in Los Angeles, where Trump made it his mission to “liberate” the city from “the Migrant Invasion.” This led to ICE deployment, leading to widespread protests within the city. In response, Trump sent in the National Guard, which he framed as “bringing back law and order” to the state.
And yet, even as troops were sent in and demonstrations spread, there was little public acknowledgement from the administration that violent crime in Los Angeles had been declining prior to the deployment. Instead, the city was portrayed as under siege, which served to justify and normalise the state’s militarised intervention.
Minnesota has been characterised similarly. Time and time again, it has been framed as a bastion of illegal immigration and criminality, a narrative used to justify heavy-handed federal intervention. When such rhetoric is paired with force on the ground, violent escalation becomes an inevitability, and the administration’s late-stage revision does little to erase its role in setting that course.
Words by Thomas Stanier
Support The Indiependent
We’re trying to raise £200 a month to help cover our operational costs. This includes our ‘Writer of the Month’ awards, where we recognise the amazing work produced by our contributor team. If you’ve enjoyed reading our site, we’d really appreciate it if you could donate to The Indiependent. Whether you can give £1 or £10, you’d be making a huge difference to our small team.