Is the video of Alex Pretti kicking the ICE van real
Executive summary
The footage circulating that appears to show Alex Pretti kicking, spitting on and damaging a federal vehicle 11 days before he was shot has been widely reported as authentic by multiple outlets and confirmed as depicting Pretti by family members and press accounts, while forensic attribution claims (including a BBC facial-recognition figure cited online) have been amplified in social media posts [1] [2] [3]. Government officials say they are reviewing the material, but the video’s existence and identification of the person in it are different questions from whether the clip justifies or explains the later fatal shooting—matters that remain under official investigation [1] [4].
1. What the footage shows and who has identified the person
Several independent news organizations published the same short clips showing a confrontation on Jan. 13 in Minneapolis in which a man appears to kick out a taillight, spit on a federal SUV, flip off occupants and is then grabbed and shoved to the ground by agents; multiple outlets report that Pretti’s family and their attorney have identified the person in the footage as Alex Pretti [5] [2] [6]. The Associated Press and PBS News describe bystander video in which officers take the man to the ground and an object resembling a handgun is briefly visible in his waistband; reporters note the clip does not show the man reaching for that weapon in the moments recorded [1] [7].
2. Claims about forensic confirmation and social-media amplification
A widely shared claim—reposted by political figures and social accounts—cites a BBC facial-recognition assessment giving a 97% match; that claim was repeated in social posts and secondary reporting but originated in a Mediaite write-up summarizing how The News Movement said it had the clip analyzed by the BBC’s technology [3]. Social amplification was rapid: conservative commentators and the president’s allies reshared the clip, sometimes with partisan framing that sought to use the footage either to justify the agents’ later actions or to rebut them, demonstrating how video evidence becomes a political football before investigations conclude [3] [7].
3. How mainstream outlets and officials are treating the video
Mainstream outlets including The Guardian, PBS, People and Euronews reported the footage, quoted the family’s lawyers, and noted DHS and Homeland Security Investigations were reviewing the incident [8] [1] [9] [7]. Reporting has been careful to separate what the video shows from the legal questions at issue: outlets repeatedly note the new clips do not show Pretti reaching for a weapon and that DHS has body-camera and other footage under review, while Wikipedia’s compilation of reporting states federal body-camera footage from multiple angles is purportedly being examined by authorities [1] [4].
4. Disputed narratives and the limits of what the video proves
Interpretations diverge sharply: some commentators and conservative outlets frame the clip as proof Pretti was aggressive and violent in prior encounters, while defenders and critics of ICE say the clip documents harassment of observers and is irrelevant to whether lethal force was legally used later [10] [11] [12]. Reporting shows consensus only on identification and that the altercation occurred; it does not—and the available video cannot—answer whether officers involved in Jan. 24 were the same individuals, whether they perceived an immediate threat on that later day, or whether the earlier incident legally justified the subsequent shooting—questions now subject to DHS review and separate criminal and congressional scrutiny [1] [4].
5. Bottom line: is the video “real”?
Yes—the preponderance of reporting establishes the clip is authentic footage of a Jan. 13 Minneapolis encounter that sources and Pretti’s family say depicts Alex Pretti, and federal authorities are aware and reviewing it; claims of a BBC 97% facial-recognition match have been circulated in secondary reporting and social posts but rest on that cited analysis rather than an independent primary release in the sources provided here [1] [2] [3]. What the footage proves about culpability, threat perception, or justification for the Jan. 24 shooting is a separate evidentiary and legal question that the current reporting—while clear about the clip’s existence and identification—does not resolve [1] [4].