The fatal shooting of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and U.S. citizen, on January 24, 2026, in south Minneapolis has sparked national attention and intensified scrutiny of federal immigration enforcement practices. Pretti, known for his dedication to veterans and patients, was shot by federal agents during an operation aimed at apprehending undocumented immigrants. The incident came just weeks after another fatal federal shooting in Minneapolis, highlighting a pattern that has unsettled residents and triggered protests across multiple cities. Pretti’s family immediately challenged official accounts, describing him as compassionate, committed to caregiving, and wholly nonviolent. Their grief was compounded by the public nature of the event and the conflicting narratives emerging in its wake.

Initial statements from the Department of Homeland Security depicted the shooting as a defensive act. Officials claimed that Pretti was armed and resisted agents’ attempts to control the situation, prompting an agent to fire. The account suggested that federal officers feared for their safety when the lethal force was employed. DHS emphasized that Border Patrol agents were assisting with broader enforcement efforts at the time. While these statements were intended to justify the use of force, they were quickly met with skepticism, particularly as additional video and audio footage began circulating. The recordings prompted immediate questions about whether Pretti had posed a genuine threat.

Newly reviewed video shows Pretti holding a cellphone, apparently recording the approaching agents. No firearm is clearly visible prior to the confrontation. A struggle unfolds in the footage, during which an officer reaches toward Pretti’s waist and appears to pull away an object consistent with a handgun. Shots are fired almost immediately thereafter, leaving observers and Pretti’s family questioning the timing of lethal force relative to the seizure of the object. Audio captured after Pretti had fallen to the ground includes an officer asking a question and another responding, “I have it,” referring to the firearm. These details have fueled debate about whether the gun was secured before or after the shooting, underscoring the complexities of assessing split-second decisions made by law enforcement.

Pretti’s family has been vocal in contesting the federal account. They assert that video evidence clearly shows Pretti holding only a phone and not threatening officers. The parents have called for full transparency, including the release of all body-worn camera footage and communications tied to the operation. Their statements frame the incident not as a justified defensive act but as a tragedy compounded by procedural and oversight failures. The family’s insistence on accountability has resonated with local residents, activists, and members of the public nationwide, who view the case as emblematic of broader concerns about federal enforcement in Minneapolis and other communities.

The public response has been immediate and widespread. On the day of Pretti’s death, mourners held a candlelight vigil in Minneapolis, leaving flowers, messages, and expressions of grief near the site of the shooting. The incident coincided with a significant federal presence in the area, with thousands of agents reportedly deployed to apprehend undocumented immigrants as part of a broader crackdown. This increased law enforcement visibility has heightened tensions within the city, raising fears about public safety and the potential for additional confrontations. Local leaders, activists, and residents have expressed concerns that the federal presence may be contributing to an atmosphere of intimidation and instability.

The Pretti shooting, following closely on the heels of the January 7 death of Renee Nicole Good, has intensified the debate over federal immigration operations and the use of lethal force in Minneapolis. While federal authorities maintain that agents acted in accordance with protocol, the public scrutiny, video evidence, and family testimony have created a contested narrative. These incidents have become focal points for discussions about accountability, oversight, and the broader social consequences of aggressive federal enforcement. As investigations continue, the case stands as a stark reminder of the human costs tied to law enforcement strategies, the challenges of assessing danger in high-stakes encounters, and the urgent need for transparency in matters that affect both public trust and individual lives.