What evidence has been released about the January 24 shooting that killed Alex Pretti, and how do official accounts differ from independent witnesses?
Executive summary
A body of bystander video, a preliminary congressional “death notification” report from Customs and Border Protection and a Hennepin County medical examiner ruling comprise the principal evidence released so far about the Jan. 24 killing of Alex Pretti; that material broadly conflicts with early statements from the Department of Homeland Security and White House allies that portrayed Pretti as an armed assailant who threatened agents . Independent video analyses and sworn witness affidavits suggest Pretti was filming with a phone, was tackled and — according to some footage — had been disarmed before agents fired what looks like a rapid volley of shots, raising sharp discrepancies with the official narrative .
1. What evidence has been released: videos, internal reports, IDs and the autopsy
Multiple videos recorded by bystanders and reviewed by major outlets show the moments before and during the shooting and were central to independent reconstructions of the scene; The New York Times’ timeline and other verified clips show agents wrestling Pretti to the ground and firing approximately ten shots in a span of seconds . CBP forwarded a statutorily required report to Congress and an internal preliminary assessment — described in reporting — was shared with congressional sources; the Hennepin County medical examiner later ruled the death a homicide from multiple gunshot wounds [1]. Reporting has also identified the two agents who fired as Jesus Ochoa and Raymundo Gutierrez, according to government records reviewed by ProPublica and Newsweek .
2. The official account the administration pushed initially
Within hours, DHS and senior administration figures framed the shooting as defensive: DHS posted that a man “approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun,” and Secretary Kristi Noem and White House aides described Pretti as a violent threat, language later amplified by political allies . CBP’s early death-notification narrative narrated an encounter in which an agent discharged a Glock 19 and a CBP officer a Glock 47 amid what it said were threats from protesters and noncompliance . That presentation was used publicly to justify the agents’ use of force and frame the operation as targeted law enforcement against an alleged violent suspect .
3. How independent witnesses and video evidence differ from official claims
Bystander videos repeatedly show Pretti holding a phone, not a firearm, as agents grabbed and sprayed people near him; some footage appears to show an agent reaching for and removing a handgun from Pretti’s waistband before shots are fired, and witness affidavits filed in court say they did not see Pretti brandish a weapon [1]. The Times’ moment-by-moment analysis concluded Pretti was already restrained when many of the shots were fired, and other outlets noted agents fired a rapid burst that is visible on camera . FactCheck.org reviewed publicly available video and concluded DHS had not provided evidence for several early claims and that some administration statements were contradicted by footage .
4. Independent analyses, internal reviews and emerging political fallout
An internal preliminary government review leaked to reporters reportedly contradicted the White House narrative and appeared more consistent with bystander video and witness testimony; that shift prompted bipartisan calls for fuller, independent investigations and even criticism from some Republican lawmakers about the administration’s rushed public statements . Media analyses and legal filings — including an ACLU suit that incorporated witness testimony — have been central to challenging the initial framing and pressuring oversight .
5. What remains unresolved and why that matters
Key facts remain unsettled in public reporting: DHS has not released a complete body-worn-camera-style evidentiary package or a full, unredacted timeline showing precisely when agents became aware of the firearm and who fired which shots in what sequence, so forensic and investigative work remains necessary to reconcile witness videos with agent statements [1]. The contrast between rapidly issued political statements and the slower emergence of video and internal reviews highlights an institutional incentive to control narrative early — an implicit agenda that critics argue compromised transparency .
Bottom line
The publicly available evidence — multiple bystander videos, a CBP report to Congress, and the medical examiner’s ruling — paints a different picture than the administration’s immediate claims, with independent footage and affidavits undermining assertions that Pretti openly threatened agents with a gun before being shot; investigators will need more complete release of official evidence and forensic timelines to definitively resolve the contradictions .