Immigration enforcement officials are reportedly expressing deep frustration with the Department of Homeland Security’s public messaging following the shooting death of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents, with some inside the system warning that the response has damaged morale and credibility.
Fox News congressional correspondent Bill Melugin reported late Sunday that more than half a dozen federal sources involved in immigration enforcement have grown increasingly uneasy with how DHS leaders have described the incident. According to Melugin, those sources say senior officials rushed to push a narrative that does not align with video evidence that later emerged.
“They have grown increasingly uneasy and frustrated with some of the claims and narratives DHS pushed in the aftermath of the shooting,” Melugin wrote on X. He reported that enforcement officials are particularly upset by statements suggesting Pretti intended to carry out a “massacre” of federal agents or inflict “maximum damage.”
According to Melugin’s sources, while showing up armed to a federal law enforcement operation was a serious and irresponsible decision, there is no indication that Pretti intended to murder officers. The sources point to multiple videos that appear to show Pretti never drawing his holstered firearm during the encounter.
Despite that, top DHS officials publicly characterized the incident as an attempted mass attack. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said at a Saturday news conference that the situation appeared to involve an individual who arrived intending to “inflict maximum damage on individuals and kill law enforcement.” In a separate briefing, Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino echoed that assessment, saying it looked like a case where someone wanted to “do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”
Melugin reported that the internal backlash is not coming from critics of immigration enforcement, but from agents who strongly support President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. Those sources are said to be furious that leadership messaging has, in their view, overreached and undermined trust.
“These sources say this messaging from DHS officials has been catastrophic from a PR and morale perspective,” Melugin wrote, adding that agents compared it to past situations where Democrats were accused of spreading false narratives, such as claims that the border was closed or that Haitian migrants were being whipped by agents.
Some of the comments relayed by Melugin painted a bleak picture of internal sentiment. One source described DHS’s handling of the situation as “a case study on how not to do crisis PR.” Another said they were so fed up they wished they could retire. Others told Melugin that DHS was making the situation worse, warning that leadership was “losing the base and the narrative.”
The frustration, according to the report, stems from a belief that exaggerating the threat posed by Pretti has backfired, creating unnecessary controversy and giving critics ammunition while alienating rank-and-file officers.
DHS responded to Melugin’s report with a statement defending its actions and framing the incident within a broader pattern of threats against law enforcement.
“We have seen a highly coordinated campaign of violence against our law enforcement,” DHS said. The department added that Pretti committed a federal crime by obstructing an active law enforcement operation while armed.
“As with any situation that is evolving, we work to give swift, accurate information to the American people as more information becomes available,” the statement continued.
The report highlights growing tension between frontline enforcement officials and DHS leadership over how high-profile incidents are communicated to the public. While agents remain committed to enforcing immigrfation law, Melugin’s sources warn that missteps in messaging risk eroding confidence, unity, and public trust at a time when immigration enforcement remains under intense national scrutiny.
