On Jan. 24 in south Minneapolis, 41-year-old immigrant Jose Huerta Chuma says he witnessed Border Patrol agents fatally shoot resident Alex Pretti after agents stopped pursuing an immigrant they had been following. Huerta Chuma, who has lived in the U.S. for over two decades and works as a rideshare driver, told reporters he hid inside a local business and watched events unfold for several hours. Federal officials initially characterized Huerta Chuma as a dangerous, at-large suspect; subsequent video and a preliminary CBP review have raised questions about the department’s early public statements and some details officials offered about the shooting. The encounter has prompted bipartisan scrutiny of CBP statements, a reassignment of a Border Patrol official and renewed debate over immigration enforcement tactics in urban settings.
Key takeaways
- On Jan. 24, two U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents fired their weapons during an encounter in south Minneapolis that left resident Alex Pretti dead; a preliminary CBP review confirmed two agents fired.
- Witness Jose Huerta Chuma, an Ecuadorian national who says he has lived in the U.S. for more than 20 years, said he hid in a business and watched the entire confrontation beginning around 8:18 a.m.
- DHS and CBP initially described Huerta Chuma as a “violent criminal illegal alien” and said agents fired in self-defense; video and preliminary reviews have contradicted some of those public claims.
- Video analysis by news organizations shows an agent removed Pretti’s weapon from his waistband roughly one second before another agent fired the first shot, challenging early accounts that Pretti had reached for the gun.
- Huerta Chuma’s immigration court record shows his deportation case was administratively closed in May 2022 and does not list a removal order; he says he has applied for a U visa and is now in hiding, unable to work.
- CBP official Gregory Bovino was reassigned after public remarks that described Huerta Chuma as an “illegal alien” and highlighted prior misdemeanor charges; Minnesota corrections records show no state prison or felony convictions.
Background
Federal immigration enforcement has increasingly conducted operations in interior U.S. cities, a shift that has sparked legal and political debate about tactics, transparency and oversight. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement carry out targeted operations that sometimes intersect with local communities and bystanders, raising concerns about risk to civilians and the clarity of information released after confrontations. Historically, aggressive interior enforcement has prompted lawsuits and calls for independent investigations when encounters result in civilian harm; Congress and local officials have pressed for clearer policies on use of force and post-incident disclosures. The Minneapolis case arrived amid heightened national attention to immigration policy and enforcement methods, intensifying scrutiny of agency communications and operational protocols.
Local stakeholders include federal law enforcement agencies, city and state officials, the victim’s family and witnesses like Huerta Chuma, who say they were present. Federal spokespeople issued statements characterizing the incident and the individuals involved; those initial statements were later questioned after news organizations obtained video and documents. Community advocates have responded by demanding more independent reviews and transparent release of body-camera or surveillance footage. Legal advocates also point to the presence of a potential witness who is undocumented and now fearful of returning to work, highlighting collateral effects of high-profile enforcement actions on immigrant communities.
Main event
According to Huerta Chuma’s account, he was driving a delivery route around 8:18 a.m. when he noticed a red vehicle without plates and agents who he believed were immigration officers beginning to follow him on Nicollet Avenue. He said he pulled into a business, left his car running and the business owner locked the door behind him; Huerta Chuma says he remained hidden inside for about four hours. He told reporters he observed Pretti arrive at the scene, film with his phone, and be pushed by an agent; he described seeing agents tackle Pretti and remove a handgun from Pretti’s waistband.
Huerta Chuma described the shooting as rapid: six or more shots in quick succession, followed by the arrival of an ambulance. He said he watched agents record his vehicle’s license plate and then left the area, deeply shaken. He expressed ongoing guilt and sorrow, saying he replayed the incident repeatedly and worried about whether any action could have prevented Pretti’s death. Huerta Chuma declined to reveal his location to reporters, citing fear of arrest and concern for his three U.S.-born children.
Department of Homeland Security statements in the hours after the shooting described Huerta Chuma as a criminal and suggested the agents fired in defense after Pretti “approached” them with a firearm and posed an immediate threat. A CBP report to Congress, obtained by news organizations, confirmed two agents fired but did not find evidence in the preliminary review that Pretti reached for a weapon. Video analyzed by reporters shows an agent removing Pretti’s gun a second before the first shot, a sequence that conflicts with some early DHS assertions. The sequence has become a central point in public debate about what happened and why agents used lethal force.
Analysis & implications
The Minneapolis incident combines two politically charged issues: aggressive interior immigration enforcement and use-of-force scrutiny for federal agents. If agents were actively pursuing an immigrant and that pursuit precipitated a deadly encounter with a bystander, policy questions arise about risk assessments, pursuit rules in populated neighborhoods and safeguards for non-target civilians. The fact that initial agency statements were at odds with video evidence intensifies demands for independent investigations and may erode public trust in post-incident transparency by federal agencies.
Legally, the case could prompt both internal administrative reviews and external scrutiny; CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility produced a preliminary review confirming the number of agents who fired but has not released full investigative findings publicly. Civil litigation by Pretti’s family or criminal inquiries could hinge on the video chronology, witness statements and forensic timing of shots relative to control of Pretti’s firearm. For Huerta Chuma, the encounter has immediate practical consequences: he says he is unable to work, fears arrest, and is pursuing immigration relief via a U visa application — a path that depends on cooperation with law enforcement and recognition of victim status.
Politically, the episode is likely to be leveraged by critics and defenders of current enforcement policy: opponents will point to the risk to civilians and uneven public narratives, while supporters may stress the dangers officers face during enforcement operations. Long-term effects could include calls for clearer interagency rules on pursuits, mandatory body-worn camera policies for CBP in interior operations, and stronger protocols for timely, verified public disclosures after use-of-force incidents. Local governments may also reassess collaboration agreements with federal enforcement to limit operations that place residents at risk.
Comparison & data
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Date | Jan. 24, 2026 |
| Agents who fired | Two CBP/Border Patrol agents (preliminary review) |
| Witness account | Jose Huerta Chuma — saw gun removed ~1s before first shot |
| Initial DHS claim | Agent fired defensive shots after being approached |
The table summarizes verifiable elements: the date, the preliminary finding that two agents fired, the witness account about the gun’s removal timing, and the initial DHS claim about being approached. These discrete data points frame competing narratives: agency statements emphasized imminent threat, while video timing and witness statements have questioned that account. Until a full, independent forensic timeline and investigator disclosures are released, the exact chain of actions and motivations will remain contested. Analysts stress that even small differences in seconds can be legally and publicly significant in use-of-force cases.
Reactions & quotes
Local and federal officials issued immediate statements emphasizing officer safety and asserting agents acted to protect themselves, while community members sought clearer evidence and independent review. The reassignment of Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino followed criticism of his early characterization of a witness as an “illegal alien,” raising questions about how agency language shapes public perception.
“I do feel guilty, I do feel bad. I saw stories about the man and I saw a very good person.”
Jose Huerta Chuma, witness
Huerta Chuma spoke by phone in Spanish to reporters, describing his emotional state and the practical fallout: loss of income, fear for his safety and concern for his children. His remarks have become central to public conversation because he claims to have been present throughout the encounter and because federal statements about his status and record have been publicly disputed.
“He was an illegal alien living in our community and was violent. We will pursue him.”
Statement paraphrasing early DHS/CBP public remarks
Agency language used immediately after the shooting—characterizing Huerta Chuma as a “violent criminal illegal alien”—was criticized after reporting showed his record consisted primarily of misdemeanors and an expunged disorderly conduct plea. Officials later clarified or adjusted public characterizations as more information emerged.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Huerta Chuma was the explicit target of the agents’ pursuit is not publicly confirmed in independent documents beyond DHS assertions.
- Claims that Pretti intended to “massacre” federal agents were made in early DHS statements but lack corroboration in available video and the preliminary CBP review.
- Some elements of Huerta Chuma’s criminal history described in initial agency briefings—beyond traffic citations and a 2018 disorderly conduct plea tied to a domestic incident—remain incompletely documented in public records.
Bottom line
The Jan. 24 Minneapolis shooting that killed Alex Pretti sits at the intersection of immigration enforcement and use-of-force accountability. A witness who says he observed the encounter, Jose Huerta Chuma, is now in hiding and contesting public characterizations of his record; video and a preliminary CBP review have already contradicted parts of the first agency statements. The incident underscores the urgency of clear, verifiable public timelines, consistent recording policies and robust independent review when federal enforcement actions lead to civilian death.
For policymakers and the public, the immediate priorities are: completing a thorough, transparent investigation; assessing whether interior pursuit policies appropriately weigh civilian risk; and ensuring affected witnesses and families receive information and protections as the legal and administrative processes unfold. How agencies reconcile fast public messaging with careful fact-gathering will shape trust and accountability going forward.
Sources
- CBS News — news media (original reporting and interviews)