Trump aide says Minneapolis agents may have breached ‘protocol’

Demonstrators take part in a vigil and protest over the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in New York City on Jan. 27, 2026. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 28 January 2026
Follow

Trump aide says Minneapolis agents may have breached ‘protocol’

  • President Donald Trump’s senior aide Stephen Miller says the White House now looking into the possible breach
  • Miller called 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti, who was killed by immigration agents, a ‘would-be assassin’

WASHINGTON: US immigration agents may have breached “protocol” in Minneapolis before the fatal shooting of a nurse during protests, President Donald Trump’s senior aide Stephen Miller said Tuesday — days after falsely branding the victim an assassin.
The admission comes as Trump says he wants to de-escalate the situation in Minneapolis following the killing of 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti during a protest against an immigration crackdown on Saturday.
Deputy Chief of Staff Miller, a powerful figure who leads Trump’s hardline immigration policy, said in a statement to AFP that the White House was now looking into the possible breach.
He said the White House had provided “clear guidance” that extra personnel were sent to Minnesota to protect deportation agents and “create a physical barrier between the arrest teams and the disruptors.”
“We are evaluating why the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) team may not have been following that protocol,” Miller said.
The White House later said that Miller was referring to “general guidance” to immigration agents operating in the state, rather than the specific incident in which Pretti was killed.
It added that officials would be “examining why additional force protection assets may not have been present to support the operation” to remove undocumented migrants from Minnesota.
Miller also appeared to blame both the border agency and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for his comments on Saturday, which have since attracted criticism.
Shortly after the killing, Miller called Pretti a “would-be assassin” and accused him of wanting to murder federal agents.
But Miller said his comments were based on an initial statement by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who falsely said Pretti was brandishing a weapon when he approached federal agents.
Video evidence later showed that the victim was not holding a gun at the time. Pretti had a sidearm on him, but agents had already removed it before he was shot multiple times at point-blank range.
“The initial statement from DHS was based on reports from CBP on the ground,” Miller said in his statement.

Two officers fired guns in Minneapolis killing, govt report says

Two federal officers fired their weapons during the fatal shooting of Pretti in Minneapolis, according to a Department of Homeland Security report to Congress published Tuesday by US media.
The initial report says a US Border Patrol officer yelled, “He’s got a gun” multiple times as agents struggled with Pretti on an icy Minneapolis street, moments before two agents opened fire.
“Approximately five seconds later, a (Border Patrol agent) discharged his CBP-issued Glock 19 and a (Customs and Border Protection officer) also discharged his CBP-issued Glock 47 at Pretti,” the report says.
The report does not say whether bullets from both officers hit Pretti, and does not specify how many shots were fired.
It makes no mention of whether Pretti brandished his gun, as Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem suggested in the aftermath of the shooting.
Video footage from witnesses showed Pretti holding his phone and filming agents before he was sprayed by a chemical irritant and taken to the ground by federal agents.
The footage showed one agent pull a gun from Pretti’s waist before the officers opened fire.
The report says a Border Patrol agent after the shooting said he had Pretti’s gun and “subsequently cleared and secured Pretti’s firearm in his vehicle.”
DHS’s Homeland Security Investigations, the report says, is investigating the shooting.


Trump insists he struck Iran on his own terms

Updated 04 March 2026
Follow

Trump insists he struck Iran on his own terms

  • “We are now a nation divided between those who want to fight wars for Israel and those who just want peace and to be able to afford their bills and health insurance,” Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X.
  • Rubio himself doubled down on Tuesday after meeting with US House and Senate members, while insisting that “No, I told you this had to happen anyway”

WASHINGTON, United States: President Donald Trump and his team scrambled Tuesday to reclaim the narrative on why he decided to attack Iran, after his top diplomat suggested the US struck only after learning of an imminent Israeli strike.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio alarmed Democrats — who say only Congress can declare war — as well as many of Trump’s MAGA supporters on Monday when he said: “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action.”
“We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio told reporters.
Administration officials quickly backpedalled, insisting Trump authorized the strikes because Tehran was not seriously negotiating an accord on limiting its nuclear ambitions, and the United States needed to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities.
“No, Marco Rubio Didn’t Claim That Israel Dragged Trump into War with Iran,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted Tuesday on X.
At an Oval Office meeting later with Germany’s chancellor, Trump went further, saying that “Based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they (Iran) were going to attack first. And I didn’t want that to happen.”
“So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

- Had to happen? -

Rubio himself doubled down on Tuesday after meeting with US House and Senate members, while insisting that “No, I told you this had to happen anyway.”
“The president made a decision. The decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide... behind this ability to conduct an attack.”
Critics seized on the muddied messaging to accuse Trump of precipitating the country into a war without a clear rationale, without informing Congress — and without a clear idea of how it might end.
They noted that just two weeks ago, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressed Trump again in Washington to take a hard line, in their seventh meeting since Trump’s return to power last year.
Some Republican allies rallied behind the president, with Senator Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, insisting that “No one pushes or drags Donald Trump anywhere.”
“He acts in the vital national security interest of the United States,” Cotton told the “Fox & Friends” morning show.
But as crucial US midterm elections approach that could see Republicans lose their congressional majority, Trump risks shedding supporters who had welcomed his pledge to end foreign military interventions.
“We are now a nation divided between those who want to fight wars for Israel and those who just want peace and to be able to afford their bills and health insurance,” Marjorie Taylor Greene, a top former Trump ally and a major figure in the populist and isolationist hard right, posted on X.