Was the ICU nurse in Minneapolis shot by ICE an assassin?
Executive summary
There is no credible evidence in the reporting provided that the ICU nurse killed in Minneapolis, identified as Alex Pretti, was an “assassin”; multiple outlets and his family identify him as a 37‑year‑old intensive care nurse and the circumstances of the shooting remain contested and under criminal investigation [1] [2] [3]. Federal officials have described him as armed and resisting, and social posts from political figures highlighted a photograph of a firearm, but contemporaneous video and local officials note conflicting details and investigators have not substantiated a claim that he was an assassin [4] [5] [6].
1. Identification and background: family, colleagues and public records
Local and national reporting uniformly identifies the deceased as Alex Pretti, 37, whom his parents and multiple news organizations say worked as an intensive care unit nurse—including at one point for the Department of Veterans Affairs—and whose nursing license appears in state records, establishing his occupation rather than any known role as a trained or covert killer [1] [2] [6].
2. The federal version: armed, approached agents and resisted
Officials from U.S. Border Patrol and ICE provided an account saying the man “approached” agents while armed, “violently resisted” during an attempted disarmament and that an agent fired “defensive shots,” a narrative echoed in some news summaries and agency statements released shortly after the shooting [4] [7]. Those assertions are the basis for characterizations by some pro‑enforcement voices that the individual was a direct threat at the scene [8].
3. Video and eyewitness material that complicate the federal account
Bystander video obtained and described by multiple outlets appears to show agents backing away from the wounded man as he lies on the street and captures chaotic exchanges between protesters and officers, raising questions about timing, threat perception and the physical dynamics that led to the shooting; several outlets note that some agency statements conflict with footage on the ground [6] [2] [9].
4. Political framing and the photograph of a gun on social media
President Trump and other national figures amplified a photograph of a firearm alleged to be connected to the shooting and framed the episode as proof of a lethal threat to officers; those posts shaped public perception but do not in themselves establish that the person was an “assassin” or that the firearm was used in a plot or assassination attempt—news reports emphasize the photograph and assertions but not a finished investigative finding [5] [8].
5. What investigative authorities have said and what remains unknown
Minneapolis police and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) have been involved and the BCA Force Investigations Unit was requested to probe the federal agent‑involved shooting, meaning formal fact‑finding is underway; reporters consistently underscore that full conclusions about what happened, including whether Pretti fired a weapon or intended to kill anyone, had not been publicly established at the time of reporting [6] [7] [2].
6. How to read competing narratives: occupation ≠ guilt, allegations ≠ proof
Multiple outlets corroborate Pretti’s occupation as an ICU nurse via family and official records, which contradicts the implication that he was an assassin by profession or by intent; simultaneous agency claims that he was armed are unresolved against bystander video and pending investigative findings, so the leap from “armed at the scene” to labeling him an “assassin” is unsupported by the reporting available [1] [6] [2].
7. Bottom line and reporting limits
Based on the sources reviewed, the claim that the ICU nurse shot by federal agents in Minneapolis was an assassin is not supported: he is identified by family and records as an ICU nurse [1], federal authorities have alleged he was armed and resisted [4], but independent public evidence proving he was an assassin—intent, affiliation, or premeditated plan to kill—has not been produced and the matter is under active investigation by the BCA and other authorities [6] [7]. Reported contradictions between agency statements and bystander video underscore why definitive labeling is premature given the available reporting [6] [2].