White House distances Trump from ‘assassin’ rhetoric after fatal Minneapolis shooting

The White House moved Monday, January 26, 2026, to distance President Donald Trump from inflammatory descriptions used by administration officials after the fatal shooting of Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti by a federal immigration officer. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump had not called Pretti an “assassin” or “domestic terrorist,” emphasizing instead that the president wants a full investigation.

The shooting has become a flashpoint in a rapidly intensifying confrontation between Minnesota officials and the federal government over immigration enforcement tactics in the state. The administration’s crackdown has involved a large deployment of federal officers, setting off demonstrations, lawsuits, and escalating warnings from state leaders and civil-rights advocates that enforcement has crossed legal and constitutional lines.

Political pressure is rising from multiple directions. Lawmakers from both parties have called for accountability and for the facts of the incident to be established through independent review rather than public messaging. The administration’s initial assertions about Pretti’s intent and the circumstances of the encounter have been challenged in public discourse, with critics pointing to video evidence and witness accounts circulating online.

The Associated Press reported that three federal investigations into Pretti’s death are underway, and that a Senate hearing is scheduled for February. Meanwhile, Trump and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz spoke and described the call as productive, as both sides indicated the need for coordinated enforcement focused on violent criminals—a point state leaders have argued should not justify broad sweeps or aggressive street-level tactics.

Beyond the single incident, the dispute is now entwined with budget politics. Some lawmakers have vowed to block Department of Homeland Security funding as a way to pressure the administration to change course. The result is a high-stakes collision of public safety claims, civil-liberties scrutiny, and legislative leverage, with Minnesota at the center of a national debate over how far federal immigration operations should go.