VP Vance Stands Firm on Statement Regarding Anti-ICE Protester
Vice President J.D. Vance has declined to apologize to the family of Alex Preti, a deceased anti-ICE protester, insisting on sticking to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller’s controversial statement that labeled Preti an “assassin.”
When asked if he would withdraw his comments, Vance responded, “For what?” This was during an interview where he discussed the implications of the situation. He added, “If something emerges showing that the individual who shot Alex Preti did something wrong, there would certainly be consequences.” Vance also emphasized the importance of not jumping to conclusions in light of the ongoing investigation.
The incident in question occurred on January 24 when Preti, 37, was shot dead by Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection agents during a confrontation in Minneapolis. Following the shooting, Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) expressed his outrage on social media, suggesting that ICE should be removed from Minneapolis and that Congress should not fund the current structure of ICE.
In response to Murphy, Miller asserted, “An assassin tried to kill a federal employee,” directly challenging Murphy’s narrative. Vance amplified Miller’s remarks by sharing the posts on his personal account, which remain visible despite video evidence showing Preti being disarmed prior to the shooting.
Days later, President Trump refrained from endorsing Miller’s claims, telling reporters he hadn’t heard such details and remarked, “He shouldn’t have had a gun.” He went on to say that the situation was “very unfortunate” and criticized the fact that Preti was armed with two fully loaded magazines, deeming it unsafe.
In the aftermath of the shooting, Trump has dispatched Border Patrol Agent Tom Homan to the area to help ease tensions. The agents involved in the shooting are currently on leave, and the Justice Department has initiated an investigation into potential civil rights violations concerning Preti’s death.
Vance reiterated, “Let’s conduct an investigation,” and emphasized the need to assess whether the officers acted with legitimate fear and whether their actions were lawful or not. He underscored the importance of allowing the investigation to unfold without prematurely judging the officers’ conduct.
