Stephen Miller's Role in Alex Pretti 'Massacre' Claim Sparks New Backlash Against Trump Team

The Trump administration is facing renewed scrutiny after internal accounts revealed how an early claim that Minnesota protester Alex Pretti sought to 'massacre' federal agents spread rapidly through official channels, only to be undermined by emerging evidence.

The controversy has put senior White House adviser Stephen Miller at the centre of a widening backlash, exposing deep fractures over how the administration handled messaging in the hours after the fatal shooting in Minneapolis.

Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse, was shot dead by federal agents during an immigration enforcement operation on Saturday morning.

Within hours, Homeland Security officials publicly characterised him as an imminent threat. That framing has since been challenged by video footage and witness accounts that contradict the initial narrative.

How The 'Massacre' Narrative Took Hold

According to accounts shared with Axios, administration officials in Washington relied heavily on preliminary reports from Customs and Border Patrol officers at the scene. Those reports suggested Pretti was armed and posed an immediate danger.

Sources said Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and one of President Trump's most influential advisers, moved quickly once the word 'gun' surfaced.

Officials familiar with the internal process said the assumption that Pretti intended to carry out a violent attack shaped the language used in early statements.

At 12:31 p.m., the Department of Homeland Security posted a statement on X asserting that agents had neutralised a suspect who planned a 'massacre'. Some White House officials later said the statement went out before broader sign-off could be completed.

Kristi Noem And DHS Under Pressure

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem echoed the same language at a subsequent news conference, as did Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino, who was overseeing operations in the Twin Cities. Noem later told associates that she had acted on direction from the president and Miller.

However, as more footage emerged over the weekend, questions mounted. Videos circulating online appear to show Pretti holding a phone and not reaching for a weapon. In some clips, he appears to have been disarmed before shots were fired.

Those images sharply contradicted official claims that he was 'brandishing' a firearm, intensifying criticism of DHS and the White House.

Internal Blame Game Inside The White House

Behind the scenes, the fallout triggered a blame game within the administration. Some White House officials pointed to CBP officers on the ground for providing inaccurate or incomplete information. Others argued Miller pushed an inflammatory narrative too quickly.

Miller has rejected claims that he acted independently, saying any early comments were based on information sent to the White House by CBP. A White House source, however, said the language used went far beyond what the facts supported at the time.

The dispute highlights Miller's unusual influence. Although Noem is a cabinet secretary who formally outranks him, multiple officials described Miller as exercising de facto oversight of DHS operations and messaging.

Trump Intervenes As Evidence Mounts

As criticism spread on television and social media, Donald Trump grew increasingly frustrated with what he was seeing. By Monday, he had dispatched border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota, a move seen as a corrective step after the operation drew national condemnation.

Miller later said the Minnesota deployment did not follow White House guidelines established after a previous fatal shooting of a protester in the city. He argued that agents were meant to separate arrest teams from crowd control units, a protocol he said may not have been followed.

Investigations And Political Fallout

Minnesota authorities and federal courts have since moved to preserve evidence related to the shooting. Lawmakers from both parties have called for a full accounting of how the incident was handled and why inaccurate claims were released so quickly.

While the White House has publicly reaffirmed its support for both Miller and Noem, the episode has raised fresh questions about transparency, command structures and the risks of shaping public narratives before facts are verified.