The Killing of Alex Pretti Put Democracy Back on the Ballot

Minneapolis has convinced Democrats that the election can’t just be about affordability.

Lauren Egan Jan 29

ARIZONA SEN. RUBEN GALLEGO was scrolling on his phone on Saturday, entertaining himself as he caught a flight back from an official trip to Taiwan. It was a relatively unremarkable travel day, until a video popped into his feed of 37-year-old Alex Pretti being gunned down by federal agents in Minneapolis. Gallego was horrified.

“I was shocked,” Gallego said. “It made me think back to my time in Iraq, when it was drilled into us over and over again to always try and de-escalate situations first.”

California Rep. Ro Khanna told me he was at home and “winced” when he saw the video, growing angrier as more details emerged.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker found out about the killing from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, before the news broke widely. The two connected on the phone before the footage went viral, with Walz warning Pritzker that the images were harrowing. An hour and a half later, Pritzker was in a TV studio getting ready to appear on CNN and MSNOW to talk about Pretti’s death.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore’s staff showed him the video in his office. They said he was viscerally enraged.

Democratic officials are accustomed to being shocked and riled by the news in the Trump era. But the raw response many felt to Pretti’s murder was substantively, emotionally different. Nothing else in Trump’s second term—not the Epstein files, or the DOGE cuts, or the raid on Caracas—has elicited this type of outrage from the party.

“It struck a nerve about the overreach of federal power in a way that I have not seen in my time in Congress,” Khanna told me Tuesday, the day after he traveled to Minneapolis to meet with protesters.

Why the killing of Pretti would have such a profound impact is, on its face, painfully obvious. The video of a protester being shot and killed by officers of the state was jarring for even the most hardened observer. But the moment also touched on a larger, more fundamental question that confounds the party: Is Donald Trump’s presidency something that can be (and must be) endured before things can return to normal—or is American democracy truly in peril?

For years, Democrats have struggled with this debate. It has impacted decisions to approve Trump appointees and votes to fund the government. Operatives have wrestled with how much to emphasize democracy issues during campaigns. Lawmakers have grappled with what kind of legislation they should prioritize—economic stimulus or “Trump-proofing” government reforms. And, for a period, a consensus appeared to be hardening around the idea that democracy and the threats to it simply weren’t good political fodder.

But Pretti’s killing and the lies peddled by the Trump administration in the immediate aftermath have altered that calculus. They’ve led Democrats to conclude that they can no longer dance around constitutional violations or the degradation of civil liberties and democratic norms.

“The horrifying nature of this tragic catastrophe—that Alex Pretti was killed almost like execution-style—it’s the purest demonstration of how our constitutional rights are to protect us from an overpowered government,” Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, told me. “This is a kind of seminal event. It’s a historic event—like people remember Kent State.”

---

HOW CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS RESPOND to Pretti’s killing will provide an early indication of just how seminal the moment was for them. Already Senate Democrats—including those who voted to keep the government open just a few months ago—have vowed not to fund the Department of Homeland Security without concessions from the GOP on reforming the department, making a partial government shutdown at the end of the week increasingly likely. Democrats in the House who voted to pass the DHS funding last week, meanwhile, began distancing themselves from it.

“I failed to view the DHS funding vote as a referendum on the illegal and immoral conduct of ICE in Minneapolis,” New York Rep. Tom Suozzi said in a statement. “I hear the anger from many of my constituents, and I take responsibility for that.”

Several Democratic officials followed Khanna’s lead in visiting Minnesota: Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock and Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton visited the state this week. Others told me that they believed that Pretti’s death, coming so soon after the similarly horrific killing of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent earlier this month, had snapped swing voters into action over basic civil liberties being violated.

That’s a significant shift from where Democrats were a little over a year ago, when party leaders had concluded that the Biden administration’s warnings about Trump’s threat to democracy appealed only to an elite audience, and that a narrow focus on affordability was the path back to power. And it was underscored by Sen. Jon Ossoff, perhaps the most vulnerable Senate Democrat this cycle, who didn’t hold back when talking about Pretti on Monday in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“My opponents have a clear choice: do they stand with Trump or with Americans’ Constitutional rights?” Ossoff said. “I challenge each of them to condemn and demand an end to the Trump administration chaos that is undermining Americans’ core civil liberties.”

Will arguments like this work? Substacker Matt Yglesias noted this week that “The central paradox of our time is that the single most important issue on the table—Donald Trump’s authoritarian aspirations and the conservative movement’s indulgence of those aspirations—is by almost all accounts a political loser.”

---

BUT THERE’S NOW AN EMERGING BELIEF among Democrats that voters can be pissed off and motivated by two things at once—namely, the cost of living and Trump’s blatant disregard for the Constitution. In fact, they believe that the connection between the two creates a vulnerability for Trump, that there is a perception among voters that Trump is distracted by his pet projects—from turning ICE into his paramilitary plaything, to gilding the White House in gauche gold leaf—rather than focusing on bringing down the costs of groceries, health care, and housing. Fundamentally, it is all part of the same story.

“The challenge right now [for Democratic officials] is to understand that this is not about immigration policy,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told me, arguing that the visceral shock caused by the video of Pretti’s brutal killing transcended questions about what a fair immigration system should look like.

“For a lot of people, democracy was kind of a theoretical concept. . . . The visualization of it just became much, much more vivid,” she said. “The public has moved very far, very fast here.”

As much as Democratic leaders have responded to the moment, there were some officials I spoke with who said they still feared that the party would not go far enough. Some said they were frustrated that more party leaders had not traveled to Minnesota in solidarity with protesters.

And some strategists were still a bit squeamish about the efficacy of “democracy” as a political argument. Instead they suggested that “civil liberties” was a better phrase for the party to use. But even this set still believed that voters were open to messages that they weren’t just a year—or even a month ago.

“When we talked about democracy’s degradation and undermining, we talked about the prosecution or threatening prosecution of people like Adam Schiff, the tampering with elections, the intimidation of people on the Fed. And most Americans thought, ‘Well, this doesn’t affect me. This affects an elite group of politicians and public servants and bureaucrats,’” Khanna told me. “Now they’re saying, ‘Wow, they’re shooting nurses, they’re shooting moms. Okay, this is something that has instilled fear in me. They’re coming after my life, my families, my communities.’”

Khanna didn’t go so far as to say that democracy has become a kitchen-table issue, but, he offered, “It’s no longer an abstract issue.”

Donald Trump, Demolition Man

 

Donald Trump, Demolition Man

If his East Wing project stalls out, that will serve as a potent metaphor for his presidency.

By David A. Graham

Alex Wong / Getty

January 28, 2026, 5:17 PM ET

 

Destruction is easier than construction. If Donald Trump’s decades as a real-estate developer didn’t teach him that, his time as president might.

In October, the administration bulldozed the East Wing of the White House in order to build a ballroom he wants to put on the site. Although Trump had promised over the summer that the project wouldn’t “interfere with the current building,” workers razed the entire structure, which was constructed in 1902 and expanded in 1942. Trump managed this the same way he has so much in his second term: He simply didn’t ask permission from any of the possible relevant authorities, including Congress, and acted so fast that no court could restrain him. In order to circumvent the legislature’s power of the purse, he sought donations from private corporations and individuals.

The demolition was hardly the most egregious action that Trump has taken as president, but it captured popular and media attention because it was such a clear metaphor: Trump had secretively demolished part of a building that belongs to the people of the United States, treating it as his own. That metaphor may become more potent yet. Recent events suggest that the gaping hole where the East Wing once was may lie there exposed, undeveloped, and contested for quite some time.

In a court hearing last week, Richard Leon, a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush, skewered the government lawyers representing the administration against a challenge to the ballroom, which would be as tall as the original executive mansion and have nearly double its footprint. Although a law enables the executive branch to conduct maintenance on the building without congressional authorization, Leon said it was not intended to cover $400 million projects. A Justice Department attorney suggested that Trump’s ballroom was similar to previous renovations, including a pool added decades ago, but Leon was not having it.

“The Gerald Ford swimming pool? You compare that to ripping down the East Wing and building a new East Wing? Come on,” he said.

Such reactions from a judge are not generally considered a favorable omen for a litigant. Leon has not issued a ruling yet, and whatever he concludes is likely to be appealed. But the hearing suggests the real possibility that Trump will be unable to construct anything in the East Wing’s place, leaving just an empty site and idled construction equipment.

Destruction followed by stagnation seems to be something of an MO, the likely outcome for some of Trump’s less tangible and visible changes to the federal government. Consider last week’s clash over Greenland. Trump threatened European and Canadian leaders with tariffs and unspecified future consequences, culminating in Trump settling for a tentative deal that appears to closely resemble the existing arrangement, but not before creating bad blood and encouraging Europe to think of the U.S. as not much of a friend. Trump has the capacity to tear down the global international order, but he has neither the plans nor the wherewithal to rebuild anything in its place.

Similarly, DOGE found it relatively easy to destroy USAID, but the administration hasn’t been able to create any new way of extending soft power around the globe. Leveling threats of tariffs on adversaries and allies alike has been relatively easy, but the result has been a weakening of the economy and American trade ties, and a crumbling of the old global-trade system. He has been unable to bring a huge boom of manufacturing jobs and factories to U.S. shores.

Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement has deported so many people, led so many people to leave the country, and discouraged so many people from coming that U.S. population growth slowed dramatically between June 2024, near the end of the Biden administration, and July 2025, according to numbers released this week by the Census Bureau. Yet the right’s hope for pronatalist policies that would try to drive up birth rates have amounted to little. Reduced population growth—or a sinking population, should it come to that—threatens economic growth.

Trump no longer talks about fully repealing the Affordable Care Act; he and Republicans have now adopted a strategy of slowly bleeding the program. The GOP-controlled Congress allowed subsidies to lapse at the end of 2025, helping produce a big drop in the number of people insured under the ACA. But despite offering “concepts of a plan” during the presidential campaign, and rolling out a “Great Healthcare Plan” this month, experts say Trump still hasn’t put together anything resembling a real blueprint for improving health insurance. Meanwhile, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seems to be having much more luck undermining the existing institutions and practices of American public health than remaking the nation’s practices in his idiosyncratic image.

Even if these things are ultimately achieved, the difficulty and cost of doing so is likely to be much greater than Trump has promised to voters. The same is true of the ballroom project. The president first said it would cost $200 million. By October, the price tag had risen to $300 million. In December, the administration quoted a $400 million figure. Anyone can guess what the final bill might be if the ballroom is ever built, but given the private funding, each jump in the cost creates new opportunities for donors to buy influence from the president.

Some Democrats have said that any new president who replaces Trump should move promptly to tear down his ballroom. If the project never moves forward, though, they’ll have no need. Perhaps they could instead leave the empty site, a fitting monument to the Trump presidency.

 

 

ICE: Getting The Scrutiny It Deserves

But will it last?

Joyce Vance

Jan 27, 2026

Axios is reporting tonight that “the big picture” is that “Trump wants a peace-with-honor withdrawal from Minnesota that doesn't look like his immigration surge was a loss driven by botched law enforcement efforts under Bovino, and plummeting poll numbers.” “Botched law enforcement efforts” is apparently a more delicate way of saying the murder of two American citizens in Minneapolis and countless assaults and constitutional rights violations committed against other people.

The agent who flashed his naked butt out of a hotel window at a crowd of protestors before flipping them the bird has drawn little attention, perhaps because it seems so tawdry and unimportant against the backdrop of violence ICE has brought to the city. But it’s a worthwhile reminder that “Operation Metro Surge” was not conducted with the professionalism that taxpayers, who pay agents’ salaries, benefits, and expenses, are entitled to expect from them.

There is already buzz that if Greg Bovino’s exile isn’t enough to quell the protests, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem could be the next sacrificial lamb. Anyone who works for this president would do well to remember there is no such thing as loyalty; it’s all just transactional benefit. Ask Jeff Sessions. Or Rex Tillerson, John Bolton, John Kelly, and others too numerous to list. If they think Trump will protect them when it no longer benefits him, they are sorely mistaken.

The Judiciary is beginning to play hardball with the administration over its repeated failures to comply with court orders. Tuesday morning, Judge Patrick Schlitz, the chief federal judge for the District of Minnesota, ordered the acting Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, to appear in court on Friday—not on Zoom but in person. It happened in a case called Juan, T.R. v Noem. And it’s easy to see what provoked the Judge:

• On January 14, 2026, the Court ordered the administration to provide Juan, the petitioner who was detained at the time, with a bond hearing within 7 days of the date.

• The Judge ordered “[i]f respondents do not provide petitioner with a bond hearing…within 7 days of the date of this Order, petitioner must be immediately released from detention.”

That’s pretty basic and easy for the government to comply with. But the court was notified by Juan’s lawyer on January 23 that his client was still in custody and hadn’t had a hearing to determine whether a bond could be set so he could be released. The government was in clear violation of the Judge’s order. And it wasn’t the first time. Judge Schlitz wrote, “This is one of dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed to comply in recent weeks. The practical consequence of respondents’ failure to comply has almost always been significant hardship to aliens (many of whom have lawfully lived and worked in the United States for years and done absolutely nothing wrong).”

The order is only three pages long, but it’s an extraordinary criticism of the government:

“This Court has been extremely patient with respondents, even though respondents decided to send thousands of agents to Minnesota to detain aliens without making any provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result. Respondents have continually assured the Court that they recognize their obligation to comply with Court orders, and that they have taken steps to ensure that those orders will be honored going forward. Unfortunately, though, the violations continue. The Court’s patience is at an end.”

The Judge makes it clear in a footnote that when he is talking about the “respondents,” he is talking about Noem and her employees, not the lawyers in the local U.S. Attorney’s Office. He writes, “The Court expresses its appreciation to attorney Ana Voss and her colleagues, who have struggled mightily to ensure that respondents comply with court orders despite the fact that respondents have failed to provide them with adequate resources.” Although undoubtedly intended to keep them from facing any bar complaints, there is no telling how it will be received in Washington.

But the Judge’s order was all it took. Apparently, there was no difficulty involved in handling Juan’s situation. Several hours later, DHS released the Ecuadorian man, who came to the U.S. as a teen, from custody.

Everyone in the executive branch, from the President, who is constitutionally obligated to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to attorneys and agency staff who take an oath to uphold the Constitution know that means following court orders. If there was a problem in this case or others, the government could have gone back to the court for additional time. They didn’t. And this case shows they didn’t need it, that releasing Juan was just a snap of the fingers. The Trump administration ignores court orders willfully. It’s time for the courts to address that.

This case was a start. Now, there is a road map for getting ICE to comply with court orders. Tell the boss, “I’ll see you in court,” if they don’t.

ICE is out of control and extreme measure like this are warranted. Its abuses run the gamut from failure to comply with court orders like this one to the murders of innocent civilians. And everything in between. Today, there was reporting from David Nakamura and Olivia George at the Washington Post that “Department of Homeland Security officers have fired shots during enforcement arrests or at people protesting their operations 16 times since July.” In each case, “the Trump administration has publicly declared their actions justified before waiting for investigations to be completed.”

This is a complete break of faith with the communities federal law enforcement officers take an oath to serve. If agents know that every shooting will be whitewashed, that they will not be held to account if there is wrongdoing, then there is no incentive to do right. And we’ve seen the consequences in the plainest possible terms. Renee Good and Alex Pretti. If the President cannot clean house, then Congress has to, with the courts stepping in when cases are brought before them. But the real debt to Minnesotans and the rest of us falls on the shoulders of Republicans in Congress who have given this president a pass his entire time in office, no matter how reprehensible his conduct. It’s their responsibility to stop this now, before it goes any further.

The idea that Tom Homan, the White House border czar who was credibly accused of accepting $50,000 to steer government contracts to the men who paid him—we don’t know the truth here because the criminal investigation was dropped shortly after Trump returned to office—will be an improvement over Greg Bovino is laughable. Homan was a contributor to “Project 2025,” the blueprint for Trump’s second term. He was a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, where it was written, and he supports some of Trump’s most extreme policies, like mass deportations and family separation. It’s clear he’s in lockstep with Trump on immigration or he wouldn’t be the “border czar” in the first place.

So, the administration would have us believe that it’s shifting gears and backing down, taking federal agents out of Minneapolis. But it’s a classic example of how Trump relies on short public memory spans, appearing to pull back for a minute before continuing on its way once the public has lost interest. Journalist Ken Klippenstein tweeted tonight, “Federal deployment to Minneapolis ‘is steady state and expected to continue as planned,’ per Border Patrol memo leaked to me,” and said this was after Bovino’s reassignment yesterday. “…expected to continue as planned.” Don’t get distracted. This is not the moment to ease off on opposition to ICE.

At an Iowa restaurant this afternoon, Trump claimed he hadn’t heard Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller calling Alex Pretti a domestic terrorist. That is either a lie or a confession of outright incompetence, if he wasn’t following what his key people were doing in the wake of the second point-blank shooting death of an innocent American in two weeks. Trump added that Pretti “certainly shouldn’t have been carrying a gun.”

“I don’t like that he had a gun. I don’t like that he had two fully loaded magazines. That’s a lot of bad stuff.”

While Trump was alienating his long-time supporters at the NRA, Axios was reporting that “Kristi Noem's language that Alex Pretti wanted to 'massacre’ federal agents was dictated to Noem and her department by the man most responsible for the controversial operation: Stephen Miller.” That reporting surprised absolutely no one. So far, Miller has managed to stay out of the spotlight, but the hand that rocks the cradle on all things immigration should also bear responsibility. Miller’s character assassination of Pretti before there had even been time to conduct preliminary investigation deserves the strongest condemnation. Miller’s role in the White House doesn’t require Senate confirmation. The responsibility for everything he has done and will do rests squarely with Donald Trump.

And then, by the end of the day, there was another shooting, this one, fortunately, not a fatality, but still grim enough.

ICE deserves every bit of scrutiny that it has fallen under. How many other people have they harmed and then slandered? How many incidents have they written off as provoked or as self-defense when they aren’t, and gotten away with it because there are no cameras on them? We don’t know.

That’s the problem when law enforcement breaks faith with a community. There’s no longer any reason to trust them. And the reason they’re supposedly there is so we have someone we can trust.

We’re in this together,

Joyce