Kristi Noem, Growing Liability for the Trump Administration

By Jim Geraghty

Monday, January 26, 2026

 

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s first press briefing Saturday about the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by DHS agents:

 

At 9:05 a.m. Central time, the Department of Homeland Security law enforcement officials and officers were conducting targeted operations in Minneapolis against an illegal alien whose criminal history included domestic assault with intentionally inflicting bodily harm, disorderly conduct, and driving without a valid license. An individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. The officers attempted to disarm this individual, but the armed suspect reacted violently. Fearing for his life and for the lives of his fellow officers around him, an agent fired defensive shots. Medics were on the scene immediately and attempted to deliver medical aid to the subject, but he was pronounced dead at the scene. The suspect also had two magazines with ammunition in them that held dozens of rounds. He also had no ID. This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement. . . .

 

This individual went and impeded their law enforcement operations, attacked those officers, had a weapon on him and multiple dozens of rounds of ammunition, wishing to inflict harm on these officers coming brandishing like that and impeding their work that they were doing.

 

Later in that press conference, Noem contended that Pretti was a domestic terrorist:

 

When you perpetuate violence against a government because of ideological reasons and for reasons to resist and perpetuate violence, that is the definition of domestic terrorism. This individual who came with weapons and ammunition to stop a law enforcement operation of federal law enforcement officers committed an act of domestic terrorism. That’s the facts.

 

A statement from DHS posted on X claimed, “The suspect also had two magazines and no ID — this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

 

You can find videos of the incident here and here. You can find frame-by-frame analysis from a variety of sources such as the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, NBC News, CBS News, Bellingcat, and I’m sure there are others floating around out there.

 

You can complain that those media sources are biased, or that you don’t trust them; if so, fine, watch the videos yourself at the links above.

 

What is indisputable is that Alex Pretti never removed his firearm from his holster. Pretti’s holster appeared to be on his belt, near his back.

 

During the scrum, while Pretti is on the ground, a DHS agent in a gray coat and gray cap searches his waistband, finds the firearm, and removes it. It is difficult to see how Pretti, unarmed and on the ground with agents on top of him, could have presented an immediate and deadly threat to the lives of the DHS agents around him, and in some cases, on top of him.

 

The DHS agent or agents who killed him fired ten shots at an unarmed man on the ground. (There are some reports that more than one agent fired shots at Pretti.)

 

Noem and the rest of federal law enforcement have offered no proof that Pretti “arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement,” nor that he intended to “massacre law enforcement.”

 

The video does not show Pretti “attacking” the officers. It does not show him “brandishing” his weapon.

 

In the criminal justice system, words have particular meanings. Under federal law, “The term ‘brandish’ means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person.”

 

You will recall that in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Renee Good, Noem also labeled Good a “domestic terrorist.”

 

Again, these words have meaning under the law. Under federal law, “The term ‘domestic terrorism”’ means activities that — (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended — (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

 

Now, when you say the words “domestic terrorist,” people likely think of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, or the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

 

Good may well have been an unhinged activist, affiliated with “ICE Watch,” vehemently opposed to enforcement of federal immigration law beyond reason. Her actions behind the wheel likely made the agent’s use of deadly force justified. But you really must stretch to take those actions and say that she meets the legal definition of a “domestic terrorist,” or the public perception of what that term is. (If Good meets the legal definition of a “domestic terrorist,” then why hasn’t the administration indicted anyone else in ICE Watch on those charges?)

 

If the Trump administration wants the public to support its immigration enforcement actions in Minneapolis and elsewhere, it needs to speak honestly about events. Kristi Noem has repeatedly demonstrated that she is incapable of that.

 

Yesterday afternoon, Erick Erickson called his X followers’ attention to a trio of news articles from late last year. The first, from Fox News, October 27:

 

A mass shakeup of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement leadership is underway amid growing friction inside the Department of Homeland Security over deportation tactics and priorities, according to four senior DHS officials.

 

On one side are Border Czar Tom Homan and ICE Director Todd Lyons, who have advocated focusing on criminal aliens and those with final deportation orders. On the other side are DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, senior adviser Corey Lewandowski and Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino, who have pushed for a broader and more aggressive approach, targeting anyone in the U.S. illegally to boost deportation numbers.

 

Two senior officials described the mood inside DHS as “tense” and “combative,” with some ICE leaders warning the new approach could erode public support and blur the line between ICE and Border Patrol operations.

 

The second article was from the New York Post, December 11:

 

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and President Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, are barely on speaking terms due to a deep-seated feud between the faces of the administration’s border crackdown.

 

The third was from the Washington Examiner, January 21:

 

Senior Trump administration officials, including a Cabinet member, tried to force out President Donald Trump’s top border official over disagreements about how to reach the president’s deportation goals and ethical concerns, eight sources alleged during conversations with the Washington Examiner.

 

Those involved said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski, a special government employee at DHS and Noem’s close ally, have waged an aggressive campaign to make U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott so uncomfortable at work that he would resign.

 

The lengths that the officials have gone to nudge Scott toward the exit were described by two people as “evil.” The tactics, the sources said, included actions that would negatively impact the families of senior CBP staff.

 

Noem and Lewandowski view Scott as a threat to their success atop the 260,000-person department because Scott, a federal agent of three decades, has voiced concerns about the approach the duo has taken to enforce immigration laws.

 

While policy disagreements among senior officials are a fact of life, nothing in any of those articles is reassuring. Homan’s strategy of “focusing on criminal aliens and those with final deportation orders” sure sounds a lot more popular than what we’re seeing now. The American people overwhelmingly support the deportation of gang members, sex traffickers, drug dealers, and other violent criminals. They are significantly less enthusiastic about deporting Manuel the busboy from the restaurant down the street.

 

Does this mean it was a good idea for Pretti to go to a protest of ICE with a firearm? No. But you’re not supposed to get shot ten times and killed for having a bad idea. The Second Amendment protects your right to carry a firearm just about anywhere, despite the legally and constitutionally incorrect assertions of several law enforcement officials this weekend.

 

Bill Essayli, assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California posted this weekend, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you. Don’t do it!”

 

(I am reminded of Texas GOP Representative Wesley Hunt’s statement in the aftermath of the Good shooting, “The bottom line is this: when a federal officer gives you instructions, you abide by them and then you get to keep your life.” Really? Any disobedience or failure to follow instructions justifies a federal officer killing you, huh? Didn’t we fight a revolution against the British over this sort of thing?)

 

In an interview with Fox News Channel’s Maria Bartiromo, FBI Director Kash Patel said, “As Kristi said, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple.” Actually, your right to do that is protected by both the Second Amendment and Minnesota law, and it’s troubling that the guy in charge of enforcing federal laws is apparently unfamiliar with the law on this. Stephen Gutowski, who runs the gun news website The Reload, called the administration’s statements this weekend, “a full court press against the lawful carry of firearms.”

 

(Note that you are required to carry ID with your firearm, and Pretti was reportedly not carrying his ID. But that’s a $25 fine that gets refunded once you prove you have an ID. It is not justification for firing ten shots and killing someone.)

 

We expect more of the individuals whom the public entrusts with a badge and a gun.

 

Now, with all of that said . . . if you’re a member of ICE Watch, or any other like-minded organization in Minneapolis, it is now abundantly clear that your leadership sees you as expendable cannon fodder. If your leaders cared about you living a long and happy life, they would be loudly, publicly, and explicitly taking the stance of individuals like Francisco Segovia, executive director of Minneapolis-based Comunidades Organizando el Poder y la Acción Latina, who emphasizes to activists that while you can record ICE agents, you should never obstruct those agents.

 

If a couple of progressive activists must get killed to demonize and discredit the actions of the Department of Homeland Security, that is a price that ICE Watch is willing to pay.

 

Back on January 16, this newsletter told you that the situation on the streets of Minneapolis was going to get worse before it gets better. This was just a reflection of the incentives; so long as the Democratic Party’s grassroots were apoplectically angry about the Trump’s methods of immigration enforcement (and in some cases, the concept of immigration enforcement itself), no Democratic elected official in the state of Minnesota had any incentive to try to calm things down or pour water on the fire.

 

Instead, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz continues to pour metaphorical gasoline, comparing U.S. immigration enforcement officials to Nazis:

 

President Trump, you can end this today. Pull these folks back. Do humane, focused, effective immigration control. You’ve got the support of all of us to do that, let our law enforcement continue to do what they do, making Minnesota one of the safest states in the country, one of the best places to live. Allow our children to go back to school. We have got children in Minnesota hiding in their houses, afraid to go outside.

 

Many of us grew up reading that story of Anne Frank. Somebody is going to write that children’s story about Minnesota. And there’s one person who can end this now. And I’ll go back to it again. Please show some decency, pull these folks out. [Emphasis added.]

 

Hey, remember when the MSNBC crowd was gushing that Walz was “America’s dad”?

 

ADDENDUM: The Wall Street Journal with a scoop on what may be the most consequential, and least-discussed, news story right now:

 

China’s senior-most general is accused of leaking information about the country’s nuclear-weapons program to the U.S. and accepting bribes for official acts, including the promotion of an officer to defense minister, said people familiar with a high-level briefing on the allegations.

 

The briefing — attended on Saturday morning by some of the military’s highest-ranking officers — came just before China’s Ministry of National Defense made the bombshell announcement of an investigation into Gen. Zhang Youxia, once considered Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s most-trusted military ally.

 

“This move is unprecedented in the history of the Chinese military and represents the total annihilation of the high command,” said Christopher Johnson, head of China Strategies Group, a political-risk consulting firm.

 

There’s a big shakeup going on in the Chinese military right now, but it’s hard to tell who is backstabbing who at this point. The good news is that the departure of experienced PLA officials might mean a less competent, well-managed military. The bad news is that their replacement with loyalists might mean there’s fewer people around to say, “Boss, we’re not ready to invade Taiwan yet.”