United States | News & Politics

Federal authorities said the slain man, Alex Pretti, had approached agents with a gun. But videos show Mr. Pretti was holding his phone, not a weapon, when they pulled him to the ground.

In particular, he never drew his gun, and ICE took his gun away before executing him.

Bellingcat reached the same conclusion

cross-posted from: https://lemmings.world/post/40296130

Archive link

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/54036873

**This is from a different angle than the original. The link in the article is to an X post. I am also including a link from a separate source.

A new video published on social media contradicts the Department of Homeland Security’s account of why federal agents killed 37-year-old Minneapolis man Alex Pretti in broad daylight on Saturday.

The graphic video, which was uploaded by Drop Site News, shows Pretti appearing to direct traffic and film federal agents on his phone. Soon after, he appears to be pepper-sprayed and wrestled to the ground by multiple agents. About a half-dozen agents are on top of Pretti or in his immediate vicinity when he is initially shot. The gunshots continue after Pretti is on the ground.

The video, along with others recorded from different angles, refute the more than 150-word account of the shooting that DHS published on social media on Saturday afternoon. In that statement, DHS claimed that “an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun.”

DHS has tried to back that up by saying Pretti had a handgun on him at the time, sharing a photo of it in the same social media post. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said on Saturday that Pretti appeared to be a licensed gun owner. But the video published by Drop Site makes clear that he was not holding a weapon in the lead-up to the shooting, or when federal agents forcefully took him to the ground. Instead, he only appears to be holding his phone to record the situation.

Video clipped from ongoing Status Coup live stream

Gift link, with URL shortener so that Lemmy doesn't remove the gift token

Additional reporting from Bring Me The News. They have removed the following text from their coverage:

Federal agents briefly detained our reporter at the scene, who says he was tackled to the ground and had a gun put in his face.

New York Times

Jan. 24, 2026
https://archive.ph/2BPoA

Federal immigration agents have broken windows and dragged occupants out of their vehicles. They have forcefully tackled people to the ground. They have pushed and shoved protesters, and deployed pepper spray directly in their faces.

For weeks, residents have documented the scenes unfolding as federal agents pursue President Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. The videos have circulated widely and intensified outrage and fear among many Minnesotans.

Marty Kurcias, 76, who was protesting at the airport on Friday, said the aggressive treatment he has seen of Minnesotans was jarring. “It can’t go on like this,” he said, adding, “We don’t abide by cruelty or violence.”

Images of a man getting pepper-sprayed at close range while being held down by Border Patrol agents fueled more tension in Minneapolis.

Jan. 23, 2026

https://archive.ph/Q4D25

There was the American citizen dragged out of his home in subzero weather in his underwear. And the detention of a 5-year-old boy wearing a Spider-Man backpack and a hat with floppy ears drew outrage from school officials.

But photos of a Border Patrol agent squirting pepper spray in the face of a man who was being pinned down by fellow officers on Wednesday searingly captured why the ongoing immigration operation has been met with furious resistance on the streets of Minneapolis.

“No one looking at this image can seriously claim this is about public safety,” said Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis. “It should alarm every American because if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.”

When federal immigration agents pounded on the door of his Minneapolis home, the oldest son in a family of 10 knew he had to move his siblings to a safer place.

Their mother, a 41-year-old Indigenous Ecuadorian office cleaner without a known criminal record besides minor traffic offenses, had been detained in early January because she entered the country illegally. Her eldest children feared they would be next, leaving behind their 5-month-old brother and six other children under 16 years old.

“The immigration agents were knocking on our door very late at night, and that’s when I became afraid,” said the 20-year-old son, speaking on condition of anonymity out of fear additional family members could face deportation. “I’m afraid that I’ll be taken and my brothers and sisters will be in the hands of the government.”

The White House used a photo that was digitally altered with Google AI tools in its PR campaign against resistance to the federal agents’ assault on Minnesota, according to a Google detection system that confirms whether the tech giant’s AI tools were used to alter a photo.

In the original photo, local civil rights activist Nekima Levy Armstrong was shown being escorted by authorities after her arrest in connection to a protest against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Cities Church in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

The version published by the White House’s official X account showed an image that had been altered to make it appear as if Levy Armstrong were openly weeping.

The police in Brookfield, Ill., filed a battery charge against a federal agent, who was off duty when he scuffled with an immigrant rights activist.

Top Democrats in Congress are turning against a deal that some of their caucuses’ most powerful members reached with Republicans over the weekend to maintain steady funding for U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

Only a day after Senate and House Democratic appropriations leaders said the bill was the best they could do, some of the Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Wednesday they would oppose it during a final vote.

Civil rights advocates worried that, if the bipartisan deal the appropriations committees reached passes, it will provide cover for ICE after the killing of Renee Good.

“Every dollar more is a dollar that is enabling this bad behavior, and every dollar emboldens these agencies.”

“Every dollar more is a dollar that is enabling this bad behavior, and every dollar emboldens these agencies,” said Kate Voigt, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “Giving these agencies this much money right now in a business-as-usual appropriations bill is a stamp of approval on their behavior.”

The House could vote on the measure Thursday, with a make-or-break Senate vote coming next week.

Even the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee who led negotiations on the compromise, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., offered a tepid defense at a House Rules Committee meeting later in the day.

“It is complicated,” she said, “when you’re both trying to govern and you’re trying to resist what may be infringements, to thread that needle and try to be able to move forward.”

Primary Bait

The compromise on funding ICE had barely been announced before drawing a furious response from progressives.

Congress is trying to craft a package of bills that will provide continued funding for the federal government past a January 30 deadline, which was set at the end of the last government shutdown.

The package includes the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency for ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which itself houses Border Patrol.

[

Related

New Bill Would Put Basic Limits on ICE Use of Force After Minneapolis Killing](https://theintercept.com/2026/01/15/ice-bill-violence-minneapolis/)

Instead of defunding or abolishing ICE, as some progressives have demanded, the bill keeps the agency’s funding flat. Customs and Border Protection would see its regular funding drop by $1.3 billion.

Democratic leaders in the House heard an earful about the bill at a caucus meeting Wednesday. During the meeting, Jeffries said he would vote against it, according to multiple reports.

The bill is already playing into Democratic primaries, where challengers have seized on it as an example of out-of-touch Democratic incumbents.

Chuck Park, a former New York City Council staffer who is challenging Rep. Grace Meng, D-N.Y., said the bill was “not a compromise. It funds ICE at current levels and offers reforms that don’t get anywhere near solving the problem.”

“Any Democrat who supports this needs to be primaried.”

He continued, “Any Democrat who supports this needs to be primaried.”

Meng, a House Appropriations Committee member, said in a statement that she would oppose the bill on the House floor.

“It’s clear that ICE must be held accountable. This bill fails to meet this moment,” Meng said. “For the constituents in my community who have been violently detained, for Renee Good and other U.S. Citizens who have been wrongfully targeted by ICE agents, and for the law-abiding immigrants throughout the United States whose rights have been trampled on, I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill.”

Guardrails That Aren’t

In defense of the bill, Democratic leaders on the House and Senate appropriations committees have pointed to a handful of provisions they say could provide a check on some of ICE and CBP’s worst abuses.

The bill would increase reporting requirements when DHS shuffles funds between agencies. It boosts funding for oversight offices that President Donald Trump’s administration has tried to gut. It would also provide $20 million in additional funding for body cameras.

[

Related

Insurgent Democratic Candidates Are Ready to Run on Shutdown Betrayal](https://theintercept.com/2025/11/13/democrats-midterms-primaries-government-shutdown/)

In a statement, Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., said that even if Democrats were successful in tanking the bill, another shutdown would be worse.

“The suggestion that a shutdown in this moment might curb the lawlessness of this administration is not rooted in reality: under a CR” — a continuing resolution that funds the government for a limited period — “and in a shutdown, this administration can do everything they are already doing — but without any of the critical guardrails and constraints imposed by a full-year funding bill,” Murray said.

Murray pointed to the $75 billion that congressional Republicans gave to DHS to spend over four years as it likes as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Murray and DeLauro argue that Democrats in the minority have limited tools to block funding for DHS, and that even preventing additional funding for the agency represents a win.

Still, it remained unclear Wednesday whether some appropriations leaders — including DeLauro — will themselves vote for the bills. Others, such as Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., have said they will vote against the DHS funding bill.

There do appear to be some centrist Democrats open to voting for the measure. Appropriations Committee member Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, told The Hill that he would vote for the bill, citing the oversight and body-camera provisions.

The purported guardrails will do little to curb ICE and CBP, advocates said on a press call on Wednesday.

ICE is already flouting transparency requirements such as a law allowing members of Congress to inspect detention facilities. The body-camera funding is also toothless, civil rights groups said.

[

Related

Trump’s War on America](https://theintercept.com/2026/01/16/trump-abolish-ice-renee-good-jonathan-ross/)

“Agents are committing egregious abuses day in and day out while wearing body cameras, and I would remind everyone that Jonathan Ross was in fact holding up his phone and voluntarily filming in the moments before he shot Renee Good,” said Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center.

Moreover, DHS can still shuttle funds within and between agencies, with some restrictions. Altman said members of Congress cannot “wash their hands” of fighting funding for DHS by pointing to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“Every member of Congress is responsible to their constituents,” she said, “and right now, we are hearing quite the outcry from across the country to do every single thing in their authority to take away power and take away money from this agency that is hurting their community members.”

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7415320

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/21770

In a speech about annexing Greenland, President Donald Trump on Wednesday also appeared to announce plans for the United States to annex Iceland.

In a rambling and sometimes incoherent address at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump announced U.S. designs on the Nordic island nation. “Until the last few days when I told them about Iceland, they loved me,” Trump said of European leaders. “What I’m asking for is a piece of ice, cold and poorly located, that can play a vital role in world peace and world protection.” He added that NATO is “not there for us on Iceland. … Our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. Iceland’s already cost us a lot of money.”

White House spokespersons Karoline Leavitt, Taylor Rogers, and Anna Kelly all failed to respond to repeated requests by email for clarification about whether the commander-in-chief meant to threaten Iceland or misspoke when he meant to say Greenland, a country that he has vowed to take by any means necessary. Repeated calls to the White House press office also went unanswered.

When a NewsNation reporter tweeted that Trump “appeared to mix up Greenland and Iceland,” Leavitt claimed the journalist had the facts wrong. “His written remarks referred to Greenland as a “piece of ice” because that’s what it is,” Leavitt tweeted.

In his remarks, Trump stated that “All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland,” suggesting his references to Iceland were mistakes.

[

Related

Danish Forces Are Mandated to Fire Back if U.S. Attacks Greenland](https://theintercept.com/2026/01/14/trump-greenland-denmark-nato/)

In weeks of unhinged rhetoric about seizing Greenland, Trump has been clear that he is not interested in expanding U.S. access via a new pact that falls short of a takeover. He recently told the New York Times that “ownership is very important.” He continued, “That’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.” Asked if he meant psychologically important for himself or the United States, Trump said his fixation on Greenland was personal: “Psychologically important for me.”

A 2025 survey found that 85 percent of Greenlanders do not want to join the United States. Just 6 percent of respondents said they were in favor of an American takeover.

“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be frankly unstoppable. But I won’t do that,” Trump said during his World Economic Forum speech. “I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”

On Wednesday afternoon, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he had reached a “framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland” with Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO. Neither the White House nor the Danish Prime Minister’s Office returned requests for comment on the substance of the proposed pact.

Trump’s designs on Greenland were once treated as loose talk and frivolous, if not farcical. Even after months of threats by the administration, allies still attempt to excuse his rhetoric. “We take him seriously, not always literally,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday of Trump’s fixation about annexing Greenland. As such, there’s reason to consider whether Trump’s threats against Iceland are a trial balloon rather than merely the ramblings of a 79-year-old following a trans-Atlantic flight. (Before repeatedly mentioning Iceland during his Wednesday speech, Trump derided his aged presidential predecessor as “sleepy Joe Biden.”)

[

Related

FBI Raid on WaPo Reporter’s Home Was Based on Sham Pretext](https://theintercept.com/2026/01/15/fbi-raid-washington-post-journalist/)

The Trump administration frequently makes, relies on, and bases policy on fictitious and outlandish claims. Last year, the administration claimed the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua had, for example, invaded the United States, which it cited as justification to use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to fast-track deportation of people the government says belong to the gang. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals eventually blocked the government from using the wartime law. “We conclude that the findings do not support that an invasion or a predatory incursion has occurred,” wrote Judge Leslie Southwick.

Last September, Trump even claimed that U.S. troops engaged in combat with membersof Tren de Aragua on the streets of Washington, D.C. — a fiction that the White House press office refuses to address.

Last week, Trump told reporters that he would acquire Greenland “the easy way” or “the hard way.” On Wednesday, he continued to lob threats if Europe doesn’t acquiesce to the seizure of the Danish territory. “So they have a choice. You can say ‘yes,’ and we will be very appreciative,” he warned. “Or you can say ‘no,’ and we will remember.”

Iceland is a founding member of NATO, which consists of 32 member states from North America and Europe. Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that any armed attack against one of the member states is considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked nation with armed forces, if necessary.

Requests for comment from Iceland’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the prime minister’s office about Trump’s annexation threats were not returned prior to publication.

The post While Threatening Greenland, Trump Also Threatens Iceland appeared first on The Intercept.

From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7430166

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/22236

The Trump White House has reportedly ordered federal agencies to conduct a sweeping review of funding to more than a dozen states carried by former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, a move that lawmakers from the targeted states condemned as unlawful political retaliation.

The review, first reported by RealClearPolitics, was outlined in a data request that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent out on Tuesday. Every federal department and agency was included in the request except for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state, and Washington, DC are the jurisdictions targeted by the OMB.

The OMB memo, according to the Washington Post, "requests agencies provide detailed information on all funds to those states, including money routed for state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and higher education institutions." OMB claims it is trying to root out fraud.

"This is authoritarianism, plain and simple," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose state is the only one on the list with a Republican governor.

"The Trump administration is targeting states that didn’t vote for him—including my home state of Vermont," Sanders added. "Using federal power to punish political opponents is anti-democratic and blatantly illegal."

US Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) similarly condemned the funding investigation as "more political retribution from Trump, the authoritarian strongman, and his crony Russ Vought," the head of OMB.

"This is a blatant and dangerous abuse of power," Merkley wrote on social media. "Trump does not care how many people he hurts to score cheap political points."

The OMB data request is just the latest instance of the Trump administration specifically targeting federal funds to Democratic-led states.

The White House budget office previously tried to cut off clean energy funds to Democratic-run states before being blocked in court. Earlier this month, the Trump administration froze $10 billion in childcare and social services funding for low-income families in five Democratic-led states, claiming fraud.

Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the administration's new funding investigation "follows a clear pattern" and marks "a harmful and shameful escalation of the administration's corrupt politicization of basic governance."

"Withholding federal funding can have grave consequences," said Parrott. "Just take the five-state freeze on childcare. In just those states, those funds are used to provide care to nearly 340,000 children. Without funding, childcare providers close, kids don’t get care, and parents can’t go to work."

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7430168

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/22237

Despite months of warnings from party members up and down the caucus that President Donald Trump has been "lawless," "destructive, and "authoritarian" in his wielding of power both domestically and abroad, 149 Democratic members of the US House of Representatives on Thursday night joined with 192 Republicans to pass a sweeping military spending bill—a vote that progressive critics say exposes the fecklessness and hypocrisy of what claims to be an opposition party.

The 341-88 passage of the $828.7 billion fiscal 2026 military spending bill came over the objections of progressives who warned that the bill—now headed to the US Senate for final passage as soon as next week—is a tacit endorsement of the president's policies, even as he has ordered federal agents to terrorize US cities, deployed US soldiers on domestic soil in the face of lawful protests, threatened to annex Greenland and other nations by force, and conducted overseas military operations—including overt acts of war over the last year against both Iran and Venezuela—without congressional notification, authorization, or oversight.

"If an opposition party votes like this, it's not in opposition. It may not even be a party," said Stephen Semler, a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, a foreign policy think tank in Washington, DC.

— (@)

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), ranking member of the House Rules Committee who voted naye on the appropriations bill, said ahead of the vote that he looked "at the defense appropriations bill as maybe the last opportunity to prevent this administration from doing something crazy in Greenland or attacking NATO or doing something that we all know is a bad thing to do."

Earlier on Thursday, the Republican-controlled committee blocked an attempt by Democrats to secure a vote on an amendment to the military spending bill that would have explicitly prohibited the invasion of a NATO ally.

Passage of the military spending bill followed an early House vote on funding for the Department of Homeland Security, in which seven Democrats joined Republicans to get it over the line.

While 149 Democrats voted for the $840 military spending bill, 64 Democrats voted against it.

"Republicans want money for unchecked, unaccountable, unconstitutional military action around the world," said Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Il), explaining her vote against the bill. "And over half of the Pentagon budget goes to corporations that profit from pain, war, and genocide."

"You know how they get this done?" Ramirez continued. "By using working families' needs as a bargaining chip, tying the minimum funding working families need to survive to the maximum funding they can give their billionaire friends."

"As long as we are funding imperialism and authoritarianism while working people can't afford the high cost of living," she said, "I will stand opposed."

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7424318

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/22048

The Trump administration, quietly and with no public input, voted Thursday to scrap federal guidance aimed at clarifying and bolstering anti-harassment protections on the job, a move that rights advocates condemned as yet another destructive attack on workers.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which President Donald Trump targeted last year by firing two of its Democratic commissioners before their terms were up, voted 2-1 to rescind the anti-harassment guidance approved under the Biden administration.

Unlike the approval process, which garnered tens of thousands of public comments, the decision by Republicans on the EEOC to completely scrap the guidance was made without any feedback from the American public.

Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), said in a statement that the Trump administration is "abandoning millions of workers who face harassment on the job and sending a clear message that this administration will not lift a finger to protect them."

"Trump-installed Chair Andrea Lucas orchestrated this rescission through the back door, refusing to issue the opportunity for public comment," said Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates (ERA). "Requests for meetings to discuss the rescission, including ERA’s request, were canceled. This administration does not want to hear from the workers it is abandoning."

"The Trump administration’s rescission of the EEOC workplace harassment guidance is about weaponizing a civil rights agency against the very people it was created to protect," Farrell added.

Ahead of Thursday's vote, Lucas was vocal in her opposition to the portions of the 2024 guidance that clarified the illegality of workplace harassment based on gender identity. Under Lucas' leadership, the EEOC last year moved to drop virtually every lawsuit the agency had filed in the previous year over discrimination against transgender workers.

Late last year, Lucas reportedly received a green light from the Trump White House to pursue the complete rescission of the 2024 guidance—not just the sections related to sexual orientation and gender identity, which had already been vacated by a federal court.

Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, the EEOC's only Democrat and the lone vote against rescinding the guidance, lamented that "instead of adopting a thoughtful and surgical approach to excise the sections the majority disagrees with or suggest an alternative, the commission is throwing out the baby with the bathwater."

"Worse, it is doing so without public input," Kotagal added.

"This move will leave the commission enforcing guidance from a time when gay marriage was illegal and most people didn’t have internet at home."

US Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a senior member and former chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in a statement that the guidance rescission "is a senseless betrayal from an administration doing everything it can to make working people’s lives harder at every turn."

"While this move doesn’t change the underlying law, this administration is turning back the clock decades by abandoning robust enforcement of sexual harassment in the workplace—this hurts everyone and helps no one," said Murray. "Andrea Lucas is openly waging war on the independence and basic mission of the EEOC—and this move will leave the commission enforcing guidance from a time when gay marriage was illegal and most people didn’t have internet at home."

“Whether it’s protecting sexual predators in the Epstein files, promoting alleged abusers to the highest offices in government, or getting rid of basic standards to protect workers against harassment, this administration has proven time and again that they couldn’t care less about workers, women, or victims of abuse," the senator added. "Under Trump, the EEOC is taking the side of abusers over working people just trying to do their jobs. We can’t let this get swept under the rug."

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.