White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller has publicly acknowledged that the federal immigration agents who shot and killed 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis “may not have been following” proper protocol in the lead-up to the fatal incident, signaling a notable shift in messaging from the Trump administration. Miller’s comments come amid mounting scrutiny over the shooting, which has drawn widespread national attention, bipartisan criticism, and conflicting accounts between official statements and video evidence.

In a statement to media outlets, Miller said the White House had provided “clear guidance” to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that extra personnel sent to Minnesota during an immigration enforcement operation should be used for “conducting fugitive operations” and to act as a physical buffer between arrest teams and protestors or so-called “disruptors.” He added that federal officials are now evaluating why the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) team “may not have been following that protocol.” The comments were confirmed in multiple statements, including remarks reported by outlets such as ABC News and the New York Post.

This admission marks a departure from Miller’s earlier public stance in the immediate aftermath of Pretti’s death, when he and other senior officials described Pretti in aggressive terms, including labels such as “assassin” and “domestic terrorist.” Those assertions were based on initial reports from CBP on the ground, Miller has said — statements that were rapidly contradicted by bystander video evidence and public outrage.

Pretti was killed on January 24 during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis, and video footage from the scene shows him being shot multiple times by agents after seemingly being disarmed and restrained, a point of contention that has fueled national debate. The DHS preliminary review indicates that several shots were fired by CBP officers, including a Border Patrol agent, amid a struggle when authorities attempted to take Pretti into custody. Yet the official characterization has been inconsistent with various eyewitness videos, which sparked calls for transparency and independent review.

Miller’s acknowledgment that agents may not have followed protocol could have significant implications for how the case is understood and handled going forward. Protocol in federal law enforcement operations is designed to govern officer conduct, escalation, engagement, and use of force. Critics argue that if agents deviated from explicit orders — especially when dealing with a lawful gun owner in a non-violent protest context — it raises serious questions about accountability, oversight, and whether federal guidance was properly implemented.

The broader political fallout from the Pretti shooting has been intense, with bipartisan voices criticizing both the handling of the operation and the messaging that followed. Minnesota politicians, including Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar, have called for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign or face impeachment over her role in the narrative and enforcement strategy. Meanwhile, two federal agents involved in the incident have been placed on administrative leave pending further review.

President Donald Trump has also adjusted his public stance, expressing sympathy for Pretti while downplaying the earlier claims of assassination intent. Trump has maintained support for immigration enforcement generally but emphasized that a full review of the events is underway. These shifts reflect growing pressure on the administration to account for inconsistencies between official statements, video evidence, and federal guidelines regarding the use of force.

Legal analysts and civil liberties advocates emphasize that Miller’s latest comments — acknowledging potential protocol violations — could factor into ongoing investigations, both internal and potentially external, by watchdog agencies or judicial bodies. Questions have been raised about whether federal agents followed established engagement protocols, whether eyewitness accounts have been properly considered, and whether the public is being accurately informed about key aspects of the incident.

Miller’s remarks also underscore internal tensions within the administration’s response to the shooting. Some political observers view the shift in tone as an effort to manage mounting backlash while avoiding direct admission of fault. Others see it as an acknowledgment that initial narratives may not align with evidence as observed by millions who watched clips of the incident online. As scrutiny increases, federal officials face pressure to provide clear, consistent explanations and to ensure that protocols governing federal law enforcement actions are followed and enforced.

The evolving narrative surrounding Alex Pretti’s death — including senior officials’ shifting characterizations and acknowledgments of possible procedural lapses — continues to fuel intense public debate. Whether Miller’s comments will lead to substantive policy or procedural changes, investigations into federal agent conduct, or broader political ramifications remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the admission that agents “may not have been following” protocol adds a new chapter to an already contentious story and raises further questions about accountability, transparency, and federal law enforcement standards in high-profile cases.