What do the full CBP and DHS investigation reports say about whether Alex Pretti reached for his firearm?
Executive summary
The preliminary internal review from Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Professional Responsibility (CBP OPR) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) initial report to Congress do not conclude that Alex Pretti “brandished” or definitively reached for his firearm immediately before he was shot; instead they describe a scuffle, agents yelling “He’s got a gun!” and two federal officers firing about five seconds after those shouts, with a Border Patrol agent later reporting possession of Pretti’s gun [1] [2] [3]. Both reports leave critical timing and causation questions unresolved, and independent outlets note the preliminary CBP account contradicts early public statements from DHS leadership [4] [5].
1. What the CBP preliminary review actually says about the moments before the shots
CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility supplied lawmakers a minute-by-minute preliminary account that documents a confrontation in which agents attempted to remove protesters from a roadway, pepper-sprayed participants, and engaged in a struggle when Pretti intervened; the report records a BPA yelling multiple times that “He’s got a gun!,” and then states that “approximately five seconds later, a BPA discharged his CBP-issued Glock 19 and a CBPO also discharged his CBP-issued Glock 47 at Pretti,” after which an agent said he had possession of Pretti’s firearm [1] [2] [3]. The review does not assert that Pretti was “brandishing” the weapon or reached for it in the clear, dispositive manner described in early DHS statements [1] [5].
2. DHS public messaging versus the internal watchdog’s account
In the hours after the killing, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and other senior officials publicly described Pretti as “brandishing” a gun and seeking to “inflict maximum damage” on officers — claims that the CBP preliminary review does not corroborate and that multiple news organizations say were undermined by the internal footage review [1] [4] [5]. DHS has defended its initial language as based on chaotic on-scene reports from CBP personnel, while acknowledging that the investigation must follow the facts [6].
3. Ambiguities the reports leave open and investigative follow-ups
Neither the CBP OPR preliminary report nor the DHS timeline resolves key questions: the reports do not specify exactly when agents secured Pretti’s gun relative to the shots, whether the shots struck Pretti while he still had the firearm, or which discharge hit him [7] [2] [8]. News outlets highlight that the firearm was reportedly removed and later cleared and secured in a vehicle, a chain-of-evidence detail that has prompted scrutiny over investigative integrity and is being reviewed by multiple agencies [8].
4. Evidence outside the reports and competing interpretations
Civilian videos and subsequent reporting have added contested details: some footage has been interpreted to show agents disarming Pretti just before gunfire, while other coverage emphasizes a chaotic scuffle captured on bodycams that CBP reviewed [2] [1]. Media organizations report that two officers fired during the encounter and that CBP medics rendered aid afterward, but those reports underscore the preliminary nature of CBP’s watchdog account and the need for the ongoing HSI, CBP OPR, and DHS Inspector General investigations to establish an authoritative factual record [9] [8] [3].
5. What can be concluded now and where the record is incomplete
Based on the materials sent to Congress and reported by multiple outlets, the formal CBP internal account does not make the categorical claim that Pretti reached for or brandished his weapon immediately before being shot; it documents an officer shouting about a gun, two officers firing seconds later, and an agent later possessing Pretti’s firearm [1] [2] [3]. However, the reports remain preliminary, leave the precise sequencing and causation ambiguous, and public accounts differ enough that definitive conclusions require the full, unredacted investigative findings and forensic/autopsy results that the ongoing inquiries have yet to complete [8] [4].