What statements have the VA hospital and Alex Pretti’s union made regarding his employment status and the aftermath of the shooting?

1. VA colleagues and the hospital record: emphasizing he was an ICU nurse and a valued coworker

VA doctors and colleagues quoted in reporting described Pretti as an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA who was “outstanding,” deeply committed to patient care and well liked by coworkers, with specific tributes coming from the VA’s infectious disease chief who said he worked with Pretti for years and admired his competence and personality ^{[6] [7]}. News organizations including the Guardian and BBC likewise identify Pretti as a registered nurse employed at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System, noting his role caring for veterans and quoting coworkers and patients who praised his bedside manner ^{[8] [9]}. State licensing records cited in reporting show Pretti’s Minnesota nursing license was active through March 2026, supporting the hospital-employment characterization in public statements ^[1].

2. The union’s immediate response: grief, a memorializing tone, and calls for accountability

Alex Pretti’s union, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Professional Local 3669 and AFGE national leadership, issued statements saying the organization was “heartbroken,” highlighting that Pretti “dedicated his life to serving American veterans,” and urging remembrance of his work while demanding answers about the circumstances of the shooting ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Local AFGE statements and union-led vigils underscore efforts to honor Pretti as a VA caregiver and to mobilize colleagues and community members in mourning and protest, with nurses and federal-worker advocates holding walks and vigils reported in the aftermath ^[3].

3. Political framing by the union: connecting the death to federal policy and rhetoric

AFGE President Everett Kelley’s statement went beyond personal condolence to attribute the violence in part to national leadership choices, arguing the tragedy “did not happen in a vacuum” and linking it to an administration that favors “reckless policy, inflammatory rhetoric, and manufactured crisis over responsible leadership and de‑escalation,” thereby turning the union response into a critique of federal enforcement priorities ^[1]. That framing situates the union’s reaction in a broader political argument about oversight and use of force by federal immigration and border agents, a position reiterated by local union members and allied veteran advocates in multiple reports ^{[2] [3]}.

4. Tension with VA leadership and local reporting of dissatisfaction

Local reporting captured a degree of friction between union members and VA leadership, including coverage that the union was “disappointed” with the VA head’s reaction to Pretti’s killing, indicating internal expectations for a stronger or different institutional response from VA officials ^[10]. Independent observers quoted in the press — and union communications — have pressed for fuller transparency about Pretti’s VA employment, the circumstances of the confrontation, and institutional support for staff fearful of retaliation when speaking publicly about federal operations near the hospital ^[3].

5. Debunking and employment-status clarity: misinformation rebutted by fact-checkers and records

Alongside memorial statements, multiple fact-checks and news outlets explicitly rebutted viral claims that Pretti had been fired or worked at an unrelated private facility; reporting shows he worked for the Minneapolis VA, that the fabricated reports originated with an invented source on a fringe site, and that there is no credible evidence he had been dismissed from VA employment prior to the shooting ^{[4] [5] [1]}. Those fact-checks, together with the union’s and colleagues’ statements, establish the public record used by mainstream outlets asserting his active VA employment at the time of his death ^{[1] [7]}.