In the immediate aftermath of the fatal shooting of Alex Jeffrey Pretti by federal immigration enforcement officers in Minneapolis on January 24, senior White House officials faced intense scrutiny and internal debate over how to manage public messaging and political fallout.

The incident, which occurred during a federal immigration enforcement operation amid protests against heightened immigration policing, rapidly became a national flashpoint as conflicting narratives emerged from officials and independent video evidence.

Videos from bystanders and journalists contradicted early federal statements that Pretti had aggressively approached agents with a weapon, showing instead that he was holding a phone and was pinned to the ground before being shot.

This discrepancy spurred widespread criticism from lawmakers, advocacy groups and the public, prompting White House press briefings and shifts in tone from senior officials as they sought to contain the growing backlash.

In the chaotic hours after the shooting, the administration initially defended the actions of the agents and repeated claims that Pretti posed a threat.

However, as verified video footage circulated, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and other aides softened their language, emphasising that the administration was ‘‘reviewing everything’’ and that an investigation was underway.

President Donald Trump spoke with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, describing their call as ‘‘very good’’ and stressing that facts would guide the ongoing review.

Reports indicated some advisers saw the situation as a political liability and advocated for de-escalation in communication.

The federal response unfolded against a backdrop of mounting political pressure.

DHS officials informed Congress that two federal officers, one from U.S. Border Patrol and another from Customs and Border Protection, fired their weapons during the encounter that killed Pretti.

At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security placed officers involved on administrative leave while an internal review by Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Professional Responsibility continued.

The Trump administration’s initial characterization, including statements by Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller suggesting agents may not have been following standard protocol, underscored the strained internal messaging as officials navigated both legal and political ramifications of the shooting.

The shooting has intensified debate over federal immigration enforcement strategies and the administration’s broader policy goals.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike have called for thorough, transparent investigations, while protests and vigils have taken place in Minneapolis.

Social media and national commentary highlighted the stark contrast between official claims and independent video evidence, fueling calls for accountability and policy reassessment.

Within the White House, aides and advisers have weighed how to balance defending federal law enforcement actions with addressing concerns from gun rights advocates and second Amendment supporters, illustrating how the incident has complicated political messaging and internal dynamics in the administration’s handling of immigration enforcement controversies.