The Trump Administration Is Lying About Gun Rights and the Death of Alex Pretti

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents shot and killed a U.S. citizen in Minneapolis, Minnesota, outside a restaurant on Saturday. The victim, 37-year-old Alex Pretti, was licensed to carry a firearm, and he had one with him. The available footage does not show every detail of what happened, but Pretti was holding a cell phone rather than his gun when the officers initiated contact and began wrestling him to the ground.

Trump administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, have already declared the killing completely justified, claiming that Pretti had intended to murder law enforcement agents. There is no evidence of this—none whatsoever—which makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the administration is prepared to brazenly lie about what happened.

Other Republican officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and FBI Director Kash Patel, are taking the position that merely bringing a gun to a protest is a violation of the law or an indication of murderous intent. This is deeply wrong, and it is in conflict with the First and Second Amendments—two fundamental rights that Republicans typically profess to care about.

As with the killing of Renee Good two weeks ago, the legal threshold at which lethal force can be justified is whether the officer who killed Pretti reasonably feared for his own safety. Only a careful, impartial investigation can determine that. The Justice Department has declined to conduct such an investigation into Good’s death, instead seeking to investigate the victim’s family.

Video footage of Pretti’s death shows federal agents using pepper spray on protesters. Pretti appears to be recording the altercation with his cell phone. After an agent shoves one of the protesters to the ground, Pretti moves to assist her. Several CBP agents then decide to bring Pretti down.

It’s conceivable that the agent who shot Pretti had the impression that he was reaching for his weapon—though the first shot clearly went off after another agent disarmed the protester. It’s also possible that the killer didn’t have even that much justification. Yet federal authorities have all but ruled out that possibility, and are making abjectly false statements in support of their mendacious posture.

Noem has repeatedly claimed it as a fact that Pretti intended to harm officers. “This individual showed up to a law enforcement operation with a weapon and dozens of rounds of ammunition,” she told reporters. “He wasn’t there to peacefully protest. He was there to perpetuate violence.” Miller flatly asserted that Pretti was a “domestic terrorist” who “tried to assassinate federal law enforcement.”

These are lies. They have no evidence that Pretti wanted to kill anyone. Even if evidence were unexpectedly to come out tomorrow that he was secretly a would-be assassin, it would still be wrong for officials to state as fact that Pretti intended to kill. There are no known facts that establish murder as his motivation. This is a man who was watching officers interact with protesters and recording it on his phone. Contrary to what the Department of Homeland Security wrote on X, he did not approach law enforcement, let alone with a gun drawn.

These willful omissions and obvious lies do not inspire confidence that the federal government has any interest in discovering the truth of what happened. That is a glaring indictment of the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement specifically and law enforcement in general.

As if quietly conceding that none of the available facts were advancing their preferred narrative, several Republican officials are taking the ludicrous position that merely possessing a gun in the first place is evidence of an intent to cause harm. Bessent and Patel both sided with Noem on the Sunday morning shows, agreeing that Pretti should not have possessed the gun in the first place. Bessent said the protesters should carry billboards rather than guns. Patel said that bringing a gun to a protest was a violation of the law. That is simply untrue, as Minnesota is a concealed carry state, where it is lawful to carry a firearm in a public place. The notion that an individual cannot or should not exercise his First Amendment and Second Amendment rights at the same time is usually a misguided leftist talking point; in fact, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken criticism from conservatives and libertarians for becoming squishy on this and advocating against the gun rights of protesters after the January 6 riot.

U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli went even further in the wrong direction, writing on X: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) took that to task. “Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it’s a Constitutionally protected God-given right, and if you don’t understand this you have no business in law enforcement or government,” wrote Massie.

Essayli’s comments also drew a rebuke from Gun Owners of America, a lobby that defends the Second Amendment.

“Federal agents are not ‘highly likely’ to be ‘legally justified’ in ‘shooting’ concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm,” the group wrote on X. “The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting—a right the federal government must not infringe upon.”

More Republicans should take their cues from Massie and Gun Owners of America. The administration is eager to jettison cherished First and Second Amendment rights to forestall any possibility that a federal agent might be held responsible for an improper shooting. If they succeed, the GOP will cease to be a political party that even pretends to care about free speech and gun rights.