Executive Director Vanita Gupta testified on September 29 before a public meeting of the Minnesota Truth Council about the federal government’s role and local reaction to Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis earlier this year. She highlighted the ways that the Justice Department’s response to deadly shootings by federal immigration agents deviated from standard practice—for example, its refusal to conduct joint investigations with state and local law enforcement.
“For decades, across administrations of both parties, the Justice Department has dedicated itself to the mission of building trust between police departments and their communities,” Gupta told the Council. “But what we have seen here in Minnesota is the federal government abandoning that role, and actively working against the progress it formerly encouraged.”
The Minnesota Truth Council is an official, nonpartisan body tasked with creating a comprehensive public record of the effects of federal immigration operations in Minnesota.
Vanita Gupta Minnesota Truth Council Testimony
Good afternoon, Chair Cahill, Vice Chair Prestholdt, and distinguished council members.
I am Vanita Gupta, and I am the director of the Center for Law and Public Trust at New York University School of Law. From
2021 to 2024, I served as Associate Attorney General of the United States, the third-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice. From 2014 to 2017, I led the department’s Civil Rights Division.
Before I begin, I want to say how much I appreciate this Council’s work. By establishing this Council, Minnesota is demonstrating its commitment to the truth, and I firmly believe that you are performing an invaluable service not just to the people of this state, but to all Americans. This type of transparent assessment of what happened during Operation Metro Surge will create an important official record, which is an essential step toward bringing some measure of accountability to Minnesotans.
Deviations from Standard Procedures
I want to start by discussing the ways that this administration’s response—and particularly the response of the Justice Department—deviated from longstanding norms and procedures that typically guide federal officials when they are responding to law enforcement’s use of deadly force.
Public Statements
Having overseen the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division—which can prosecute federal law enforcement officers—and the department’s Civil Division—which is responsible for defending them1 —I can personally attest to the importance of avoiding statements that can prejudice a case one way or another.
After a high-profile law enforcement shooting, federal officials typically emphasize the need to let an investigation run its course. This is because public confidence in the rule of law depends on the perception that the Justice Department will gather facts independently, and that its conclusions will be based on those facts and only those facts—not a political agenda.
And yet, in the immediate aftermaths of the shootings of both Renee Good on January 7 and Alex Pretti on January 24, 2026, high-ranking officials in this administration, including the president, violated this norm. They rushed to spin a distorted narrative of events, making a flurry of statements that prejudged the actions of both federal immigration agents and Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti.
To share just a few those statements:
- Within hours of Ms. Good’s death, the Secretary of Homeland Security said that Ms. Good “weaponize[d] her vehicle” and “attempted to run a law enforcement officer over” in “an act of domestic terrorism.”2
- The president posted on social media that Ms. Good “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer,” and he subsequently suggested that her shooting had been justified by her “disrespectful attitude.”3
- After Mr. Pretti’s death, a senior White House aide called Mr. Pretti “a domestic terrorist” who “tried to assassinate federal law enforcement,” and the president labeled him an “[a]gitator and, perhaps, insurrectionist.”[4]
While federal investigators were just beginning to gather evidence, their superiors in Washington pushed their preferred story about what had happened and who was to blame. This kind of rhetoric casts a long shadow. Once the public has reason to doubt an investigation’s impartiality, its trust is not easily regained.
Investigative Anomalies
Unfortunately, the way the Justice Department has handled the Metro Surge cases has only given the public more reason for doubt.
Typically, in a case receiving national attention, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in Washington would send a team to the relevant jurisdiction to open an investigation in partnership with the local U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI. The federal officials would work closely with their state and local counterparts to share information and pool resources.[5]
Refusal to Cooperate with State Authorities
In our federalist system, this cooperation is essential. State and local authorities often have close relationships with the communities they serve, and they have access to local resources that can be quickly deployed. DOJ has access to a deep pool of funding and personnel, and it has certain specialized expertise.
Joint investigations maximize—and typically depend on—these complementary strengths while building trust between state and federal governments. Importantly, they also vindicate the federal and state interests in seeing that justice is done under their respective legal systems.[6]
Immediately after Ms. Good’s death on January 7, it appeared that despite the inflammatory words coming from Washington, the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI were following the playbook of cooperation, as the FBI opened a joint investigation with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.[7]
But within hours, DOJ reversed course. The FBI informed the BCA that it would be taking charge of the case, and that the BCA would no longer have access to case materials, the shooting scene, or investigative interviews. Frozen out, the BCA was forced to announce that it would not be able to conduct a full investigation.[8]
DOJ also refused to share evidence related to the death of Mr. Pretti and the non-fatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis on January 14.[9] In Mr. Pretti’s case, federal agents physically blocked BCA investigators from accessing the shooting scene, even after they obtained a warrant.[10] BCA Superintendent Drew Evans rightly called the lack of federal cooperation “concerning and unprecedented.”[11]
The FBI did eventually turn over evidence in both cases, but only in July, and only after the state and Hennepin County sued the government for access to evidence.[12]
Irregularities in Civil Rights Investigations
Making matters worse, during that long and unexplained delay, the Justice Department took several irregular investigative steps that only raised further questions about the integrity of its investigations.
The Civil Rights Division would typically be an integral part of any inquiry into the deadly use of force by federal law enforcement. Its prosecutors would examine the evidence to determine whether immigration agents had violated 18 U.S.C. Section 242, which makes it a crime for law enforcement officers to willfully deprive another person of their constitutional rights.
Section 242 investigations have been a standard practice of Justice Departments under administrations of both parties. During the first Trump Administration, for example, DOJ swiftly opened a civil rights investigation into the police officers involved in George Floyd’s death, leading to convictions of four officers on Section 242 charges.[13]
The threshold for opening a civil rights investigation is not high. The press reported that career prosecutors and FBI agents had concluded that Ms. Good’s death met that threshold, only to be overruled by department leadership in Washington.[14] Instead, those leaders pressured prosecutors to investigate Ms. Good’s wife for impeding law enforcement.
These decisions led to the resignation of six career federal prosecutors here in Minnesota, at least four leaders of the Civil Rights Division, and a supervisor in the FBI’s Minneapolis office.[15] Although DOJ did open a civil rights investigation into the death of Alex Pretti, it did so only after a week’s delay, and only after first assigning the case to DHS, which lacks prosecutorial authority. Moreover, DOJ hasn’t explained the disparate treatment of the Good and Pretti cases, leaving the public with more questions than answers.
DOJ’s approach to the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis was also troubling. After he was shot by an ICE officer, the department charged Mr. Sosa-Celis and another man with assaulting that officer. But prosecutors soon dropped the case, and DHS admitted that video footage contradicted the ICE officer’s sworn statement about what had transpired. This about-face raised the question of why the footage hadn’t been reviewed earlier, even though the Minneapolis police chief said that the federal government had access to it within hours of the shooting.[16]
The ICE officer who shot Mr. Sosa-Celis has been indicted federally for making false statements, yet even this measure of accountability was undermined by recent reports that federal prosecutors in Minneapolis had been prepared to bring more serious civil rights charges. But, as in the Renee Good case, they were overruled by political appointees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and in Washington. The lead prosecutor told Mr. Sosa-Celis’s attorneys that he “objected in the strongest possible terms” to his leadership’s decision.[17] He was subsequently fired.[18]
Altogether, the Justice Department’s actions regarding the use of force during Metro Surge represent an abdication of its responsibilities to impartially enforce the law and uphold the Constitution. DOJ is supposed to conduct investigations guided by facts, not agendas. It is supposed to treat like cases alike. And it is supposed to work collaboratively with willing state and local partners. None of that happened here.
Use-of-Force Standards
It is also standard for federal agencies to conduct internal reviews of their agents’ conduct in use-of-force incidents, including whether their actions complied with applicable use-of-force policies.[19]
As associate attorney general, I helped oversee the Justice Department’s effort to update its use-of-force standard, which hadn’t been revised since 2004. I consulted extensively with federal law enforcement agencies and local police partners, drawing on their expertise to articulate best practices for avoiding excessive force while preserving officer safety. DOJ issued its new use-of-force standard in 2022, and the Department of Homeland Security—which includes ICE and Customs and Border Patrol—adopted its own version in 2023. Both policies remain in place today.[20]
DHS’s policy prohibits shooting into a moving vehicle unless an agent reasonably believes that the target poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury.[21] It requires agents to provide medical aid to an injured person as soon as possible after a use of force.[22] And it requires annual use-of-force training, including de-escalation techniques.[23]
Publicly available information raises serious questions about immigration agents’ compliance with these standards during the encounters that led to the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti and the injury of Julio Sosa-Celis.[24] And two whistleblowers have warned that during its recent hiring surge, ICE engaged in an “unprecedented lowering of standards” for recruits, and that the agency had cut more than 240 hours of training, including classes covering the Constitution and the use of force.[25]
DHS conducted internal reviews of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. But it has refused repeated requests for the reports from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.[26] In light of how the federal government has approached other aspects of the investigations, this refusal does not inspire confidence in the reviews’ thoroughness and impartiality.
Consequences
The conduct I’ve described this afternoon has done significant and lasting harm to the public’s faith in the Department of Justice as an independent agency dedicated to upholding the Constitution. But also concerning are the ways that the federal government’s behavior during Metro Surge affected the ties between state and local law enforcement and the communities they serve.
Numerous Minnesota law enforcement leaders have testified to this harm.
The former Minneapolis Police Chief, Brian O’Hara, said that Metro Surge placed “unbelievable stress on everyone involved,” and that it jeopardized the work that Minneapolis has done to rebuild trust in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing.[27]
In a letter to the president, the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association warned, “Minnesota’s law enforcement officers are facing growing challenges in fulfilling their core responsibilities of protecting life, enforcing the law, and serving communities in accordance with constitutional principles.”[28]
And, as the council heard during its second public meeting, there is real concern that Metro Surge has confused communities about the role of their local police departments. As Richfield Police Chief Jay Henthorne told you, “A resident sees someone wearing a law enforcement uniform or tactical equipment and then they see a police officer dressed like me. And they may ask, are you with them? Are you going to arrest me? Can I trust you?”[29]
Chief Henthorne’s words are deeply troubling. During my two tenures in DOJ leadership, I saw law enforcement leaders work to build trust and adopt best practices in deescalation and community policing. DOJ supported local, state, and federal law enforcement partnerships. We distributed billions of dollars in federal funding and provided training, technical assistance, and access to technology. We worked to strengthen law enforcement-community relationships.
We still have a lot of work to do, but there has been meaningful progress.
That’s why it’s so disheartening to hear a leader like Chief Henthorne say that the actions of federal immigration agents could jeopardize that progress. For decades, across administrations of both parties, the Justice Department has dedicated itself to the mission of building trust between police departments and their communities.
But what we have seen here in Minnesota is the federal government abandoning that role, and actively working against the progress it formerly encouraged.
Instead of helping its state and local partners, DOJ sidelined them. And instead of assuring Minnesotans that it was seeking impartial justice, DOJ’s actions—in conjunction with the prejudicial statements coming from the White House—suggested that it was scoring political points.
At the same time, as explained by the police chiefs I just quoted, federal immigration agents caused confusion about the role and trustworthiness of anyone wearing a uniform.
The federal government’s actions and failures to act mean that for now, if laws have been violated, any meaningful accountability will have to come from state and local authorities. I am grateful to this Council, and to Minnesota’s law enforcement community, for stepping in where the federal government has shirked its duty.
Minnesota deserved better than to be treated as an occupied territory. The career Justice Department officials and FBI agents who tried to do the right thing deserved better from their political leadership. And every American deserves better from the federal government that purports to act in their name.
I want to end by expressing my deep admiration for the way the people of the Twin Cities and beyond responded to Operation Metro Surge. In the face of surveillance, harassment, and violence, you showed exceptional courage and solidarity, standing up for your neighbors, your community, and your First Amendment rights. You showed what it means for We, the people, to take responsibility for protecting our democracy. You exhibited the very best of the American character, and you have inspired everyone working for a freer and more just United States in these difficult times.
Thank you for inviting me to testify this afternoon.
[4] Kit Maher, “Trump Aide Claims Man Shot in Minneapolis Was a ‘Domestic Terrorist’ before Investigation Plays Out,” CNN (Jan. 24, 2026), https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ice-minneapolis-shooting-01-24-26?post-id=cmksnymaf00003b6pxixe0uqu; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Jan. 30, 2026, at 1:26 a.m.), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115982625271651077.
[5] Samantha Trepel, “DOJ’s Dangerous Silence in the Face of Federal Immigration Agents’ Violent Tactics,” Just Security, https://www.justsecurity.org/128353/doj-silence-federal-immigration-agents-violence/ (Jan. 8, 2026) “(Traditionally, the DOJ—in any administration—would seek accountability for unlawful, excessively violent tactics by law enforcement officers, by charging them with violating people’s constitutional rights.”)
[6] See, e.g., Statement of Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. before the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding Hate Crimes (May 11, 1999), https://www.justice.gov/archive/dag/testimony/daghate051199.htm.
[7] Press Release, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, “BCA statement regarding investigation of ICE fatal shooting in Minneapolis” (Jan. 8, 2026), https://dps.mn.gov/news/bca/bca-statement-regarding-investigation-ice-fatal-shooting-minneapolis.
[8] Id.
[9] Complaint at 2-3, State of Minnesota et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., No. 1-26-cv-01007 (D.D.C. March 26, 2026), ECF No. 1, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/27902863-26cv01007-complaint/.
[10] Id. at 3.
[11] Press Release, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, “Statement from BCA Superintendent Drew Evans on Alex Pretti Shooting Investigation” (Feb. 16, 2026), https://dps.mn.gov/news/bca/statement-bca-superintendent-drew-evans-alex-pretti-shooting-investigation.
[12]Ernesto Londoño and Mitch Smith, “D.O.J. Turns Over Evidence in Minnesota Shootings by Immigration Agents” (July 13, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/13/us/minnesota-ice-shootings-evidence-pretti-renee-good.html.
[13] Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Attorney General William P. Barr’s Statement on the Death of Mr. George Floyd” (May 29, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barrs-statement-death-mr-george-floyd (“[T]he Department of Justice, including the FBI, are [sic] conducting an independent investigation to determine whether any federal civil rights laws were violated.”); Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Three Former Minneapolis Police Officers Convicted of Federal Civil Rights Violations for Death of George Floyd” (Feb. 24, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/three-former-minneapolis-police-officers-convicted-federal-civil-rights-violations-death.
[14] Perry Stein, “FBI opened probe on Minneapolis shooting; none exists now, Justice Dept. says,” The Washington Post (Jan. 19, 2026), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/01/18/fbi-minnesota-shooting-civil-rights-investigation/; Sarah N. Lynch, “Prosecutors in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Will Not Investigate Minneapolis ICE Shooting, Sources Say,” CBS News (Jan. 9, 2026), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-civil-rights-division-will-not-investigate-minneapolis-ice-shooting-sources-say.
[15] Ernesto Londoño, “Six Prosecutors Quit Over Push to Investigate ICE Shooting Victim’s Widow,” The New York Times (Jan. 13, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/us/prosecutors-doj-resignation-ice-shooting.html; Amna Nawaz and Doug Adams, “DOJ Prosecutors Resign in Protest Over Handling of ICE Shooting Investigation,” PBS News (Jan. 13, 2026), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/doj-prosecutors-resign-in-protest-over-handling-of-ice-shooting-investigation; Alan Feuer and Glenn Thrush, “F.B.I. Agent Who Tried to Investigate ICE Officer in Shooting Resigns,” The New York Times (Jan. 23, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/23/us/politics/fbi-agent-ice-shooting-renee-good.html.
[16] Ernesto Londoño, et al., “Newly Obtained Video of Minneapolis Shooting Undermines ICE Account,” The New York Times (April 6, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/06/us/minnesota-ice-shooting-video.html.
[17] Megan Rose and Andy Mannix, “Trump’s DOJ Blocked Serious ICE Shooting Charge Over Federal Prosecutor’s ‘Strongest Possible’ Objections,” ProPublica (Sept. 2, 2026), https://www.propublica.org/article/doj-blocks-charges-ice-agent-minneapolis-julio-cesar-sosa-celis.
[18] Sarah N. Lynch et al., “Federal Prosecutor Fired After Investigating ICE Officer for Civil Rights Offenses in Minnesota Shooting, Sources Say,” CBS News (Sept. 3, 2026), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-minnesota-federal-prosecutor-fired-investigating-castro-sosa-celis/.
[19] See, e.g., U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Update to the Department Policy on Use of Force,” at 10, (Feb. 6, 2023), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/23_0206_s1_use-of-force-policy-update.pdf.
[20] U.S. Department of Justice, “Department’s Updated Use-of-Force Policy,” (May 20, 2022) https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/file/1220256-0/dl?inline=; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Update to the Department Policy on Use of Force,” (Feb. 6, 2023), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/23_0206_s1_use-of-force-policy-update.pdf.
[21] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Update to the Department Policy on Use of Force,” at 7, (Feb. 6, 2023), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/23_0206_s1_use-of-force-policy-update.pdf.
[22] Id. at 4.
[23] Id. at 5.
[24] See, e.g., “Video Analysis of ICE Shooting Sheds Light on Contested Moments,” The New York Times (Jan. 15, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/video/ice-shooting-renee-good-minneapolis-videos.html; Eric Bazail-Eimil, “ICE Officials Knew Use of Force Was Rising Well Before Minneapolis,” Politico (Feb. 17, 2026), https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/17/ice-officials-use-of-force-00782501; Emily Witt, “What Happened in Minneapolis,” The New Yorker (Aug. 31, 2026), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/09/07/what-happened-in-minneapolis.
[25] Ryan J. Foley, “ICE Official Warned of ‘Unprecedented Lowering of Standards’ During Hiring Spree,” Associated Press (Sept. 3, 2026), https://apnews.com/article/ice-whistleblower-background-checks-vetting-hiring-spree-e480c4cd35d603537b0274419ae47b55; Nicholas Nehamas and Hamed Aleaziz, “Training for New ICE Agents Is ‘Deficient’ and ‘Broken,’ Whistle-blower Says,”The New York Times (Feb. 23, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/us/politics/ice-training-whistle-blower.html (quoting DHS whistleblower as saying that training cuts included “classes that teach the Constitution, our legal system, firearms training, the use of force, lawful arrests, proper detention and the limits of officers’ authority”).
[26] Eric Bazail-Eimil, “Rand Paul: ICE Hasn’t Shared Information About Minneapolis Shooting Probes,” Politico (Sept. 22, 2026), https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/09/22/congress/paul-ice-hasnt-shared-information-about-minneapolis-shooting-probes-01088812.
[27] Michael Barbaro, “‘A Breaking Point’: The Minneapolis Police Chief on ICE,” The New York Times (Jan. 12, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/podcasts/the-daily/minneapolis-police-chief-ice-shooting.html.
[28] “‘Beyond Frustrating’ and ‘Absolutely Despicable’: Brooklyn Park Police Chief Decries ICE Tactics,” CCX Media (Jan. 27, 2026), https://ccxmedia.org/news/beyond-frustrating-and-absolutely-despicable-brooklyn-park-police-chief-decries-ice-tactics/.
[29] Id.