Powerful Government Union Calls for the Ouster of Noem and Stephen Miller

 

A Nation in Crisis: Federal Workers’ Union Calls for the Resignations of Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller After the Killing of Alex Pretti

In the wake of the controversial and highly publicized fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37‑year‑old ICU nurse and union brother, one of the most powerful voices in the federal workforce has spoken out with unprecedented force. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)—the largest union representing civilian federal employees in the United States—issued an emphatic statement calling for the resignations of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, citing their leadership and policy choices as directly contributing to a tragedy that has shaken the nation’s confidence in government accountability, immigration enforcement, and the integrity of federal law enforcement operations.

The union’s demand marks a rare escalation in labor leadership’s engagement with national politics, touching on deeply contentious issues of governance, public safety, labor rights, and the rule of law. AFGE’s action reflects widespread anger—not just over a tragic death—but also over the political and rhetorical framing of that death by high‑level officials, and what many see as the erosion of public trust in government institutions.

To fully understand the significance of AFGE’s statement and its broader implications, we must examine the life of Alex Pretti, the circumstances of his fatal shooting, the controversial responses by federal officials, the background and role of AFGE, and the deep political fissures exposed by the union’s call for accountability.

I. Alex Pretti: A Life of Service and Sacrifice

Before national headlines reduced him to a statistic in a larger political struggle, Alex Pretti was first and foremost a dedicated healthcare professional, a union member, and a human being with deep commitments to family, community, and service. Pretti worked as an intensive care nurse at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System, where he cared for veterans—many of whom described him as compassionate, patient, and deeply invested in their well‑being.

Beyond his professional role, Pretti was a union member of AFGE Local 3669, which represents thousands of federal workers, including employees at the VA. His loss has therefore hit the union not just as a tragedy but as the killing of one of its own members—someone who devoted his career to public service and helping others in times of need.

The family’s accounts of Pretti portray a man who was regular in his aspirations and rooted in his community. Family and friends described him as caring and kindhearted, and union sources emphasize his dedication to fellow workers and veterans.

When Pretti was killed on January 24, 2026, during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis, the news reverberated far beyond Minnesota. The circumstances surrounding his death—initially presented by federal authorities as a justified use of force—were quickly challenged by eyewitness accounts and video evidence that contradicted the official narrative. By the time public scrutiny and union involvement peaked, Pretti’s death had become far more than a local incident: it was a fulcrum around which national debates on immigration policy, law enforcement accountability, and political rhetoric pivoted.

II. The Controversial Shooting and Conflicting Narratives

The shooting of Alex Pretti occurred against the backdrop of a heightened federal immigration enforcement push in Minneapolis known as Operation Metro Surge—a campaign launched by the Trump administration targeting undocumented immigrants and connected criminal activity in sanctuary state jurisdictions.

Federal authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), initially reported that Pretti had approached federal agents with a firearm and “violently resisted” attempts to disarm him, justifying the use of lethal force. Officials, including Noem and others, framed the incident as a necessary response to a threat, suggesting Pretti was attempting harm against agents or those nearby.

However, video evidence and eyewitness testimony told a markedly different story. Bystander footage showed Pretti at a protest, holding a phone and seemingly assisting or documenting the situation—not brandishing a weapon. Some accounts indicated that Pretti was already disarmed when agents fired multiple shots, many of them from behind.

Local political leaders and community members openly challenged the DHS account, and the discord between official statements and the evidence ignited outrage among residents, journalists, and activists. The contradictory narratives fueled protests and intensified demands for transparency, independent investigations, and accountability for all actions leading up to and following Pretti’s death.

In this climate, the union representing Pretti’s profession and his work environment—the AFGE—took an extraordinary step, declaring that the actions of Noem and Miller were not only misguided but disqualifying for public service leadership.

III. AFGE’s Statement: A Union Breaks With Political Caution

On January 26, 2026, the American Federation of Government Employees issued a statement in response to Pretti’s death that went well beyond expressing grief or calling for sympathy. Represented by national president Everett Kelley, AFGE explicitly called for the resignations of both DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. The union contended that their immigrant enforcement policies—not an isolated field decision—created the conditions resulting in Pretti’s death.

The statement placed significant blame on both officials:

Kristi Noem was accused of betraying the public trust by publicly and prematurely labeling Pretti as a “domestic terrorist,” a charge the union deemed defamatory and unsupported by available evidence.
Stephen Miller, characterized in the AFGE statement as the architect of the administration’s aggressive immigration policy, was held responsible for formulating and driving tactics that contributed to heightened enforcement aggression and public risk.

The union also called for:

A full, transparent, and independent investigation led by a third party.
Bipartisan congressional oversight to uncover truth and ensure accountability.
Immediate resignations or dismissals of Noem and Miller if they refuse to step down voluntarily.

This move was historic in its directness. Federal employee unions typically engage with administrative personnel issues, workplace safety, benefits, and labor rights—but rarely do they demand the resignations of senior cabinet officials over a policy outcome, particularly one tied to immigration enforcement and national security agencies.

The AFGE’s stance reflected deep internal frustration, signaling that union leadership views the deaths of Pretti and others as more than tragic consequences but as demonstrable failures of leadership and policy judgment.

IV. The Broader Political and Social Backdrop

AFGE’s call came at a time of tremendous political pressure surrounding federal immigration enforcement actions, especially in Minnesota. Protests in Minneapolis had grown increasingly large, and not just from activists but from ordinary residents disturbed by the deaths of Pretti and earlier Renee Good, another Minneapolis resident killed by federal agents earlier in January.

Nationally, the controversy extended beyond Minnesota. Prominent political figures, including state governors and labor leaders, voiced criticism of immigration enforcement tactics and the federal government’s handling of these incidents. Some state leaders even called for investigations, resignations, or impeachment proceedings against Noem, further intensifying scrutiny of the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

Labor movements likewise weighed in. The Minnesota chapter of the AFL‑CIO passed a resolution calling not only for resignations but also impeachment or termination of officials tied to the enforcement strategy leading to the deaths.

Even within broader labor communities, entities like the AFL‑CIO at the national level called for the withdrawal of ICE from Minnesota and demanded greater transparency and accountability.

This national context underscores how Pretti’s death became emblematic of bigger debates over:

The scope and oversight of immigration enforcement under federal authority.
The balance between enforcement and civil liberties.
The use of lethal force by federal agents.
The role of political rhetoric in influencing public perceptions and policy responses.
The trust between rank‑and‑file federal employees and senior leadership.

In many ways, AFGE’s intervention was an attempt to speak for federal employees who may feel caught between their service obligations and the consequences of policies they did not create but were asked to implement.

V. Why the AFGE Move Matters

AFGE’s unprecedented call for resignations matters on multiple levels:

1. Labor Unions As Moral and Political Actors

Traditionally, federal employee unions focus on workplace rights, compensation, job security, and professional standards—not directly on forcing the resignation of political appointees. AFGE’s statement positions the union as a moral voice in national policy debates, asserting that federal workers are stakeholders in the ethical conduct of those at the top of government.

This represents a shift toward issue‑based political engagement, especially when the union perceives that leadership actions have resulted in harm to its own members.

2. Erosion of Public Trust

AFGE’s accusations of slander—particularly the portrayal of Pretti as a “domestic terrorist”—highlight the union’s belief that high‑level rhetoric contributed not just to public misunderstanding but to an erosion of trust between federal employees and leadership.

When a union represents workers across agencies including law enforcement, it becomes difficult to sustain trust if leadership is seen as publicly maligning employees—or in this case, a fallen colleague.

3. Calls for Transparency and Oversight

Beyond resignations, AFGE’s demand for an independent investigation and congressional oversight echoes broader calls from civil rights groups, journalists, and local officials for accountability and transparency.

Such demands reflect deep skepticism about internal reviews and stress the need for outside scrutiny to rebuild confidence in how federal agencies use force and communicate about critical incidents.

4. Union Influence in Public Debate

By publicly taking such a strong stance, AFGE injected labor voices into a debate that was otherwise dominated by political, legal, and civil rights actors. This broadens the coalition calling for accountability and signals that dissatisfaction with current leadership crosses traditional partisan or sectoral lines.

VI. Reactions and Counterarguments

Not surprisingly, AFGE’s statement has drawn both support and criticism.

Supporters argue that:

Holding senior officials responsible for policy outcomes that result in unnecessary deaths is essential for democratic accountability.
The union’s dual concerns about rhetoric and safety represent broader concerns among federal employees, including those implementing policy on the ground.
Independent investigations and bipartisan oversight are necessary to restore public trust.

Critics, particularly among conservative supporters of strict immigration enforcement, contend that:

Policies leading to Pretti’s shooting were legitimate exercises of federal authority to enforce immigration law.
Union demands can be seen as politically motivated or overreaching into governance matters better handled by elected officials and legal processes.
Resignation demands may undermine morale among federal employees who support the administration’s policy direction.

The debate reflects larger national divisions over immigration, authority of federal agencies, and where lines should be drawn between enforcement and civil liberties.

VII. Broader Implications for Governance and Labor Relations

AFGE’s actions also raise long‑term questions about the role of labor unions representing federal workers in national policy disputes. Can unions—and should they—apply pressure not just on workplace conditions but also on how federal policies are designed and executed? Will other unions follow AFGE’s lead in demanding accountability from political leaders based on operational consequences?

The precedent set by AFGE’s call for resignations could shape future union involvement in national debates, particularly around issues where public safety, worker identity, and government policy intersect.

Conclusion: Accountability, Union Power, and the Future

The demand by the American Federation of Government Employees that Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller resign over their roles in policies tied to the death of Alex Pretti is a dramatic moment in the evolving story of public trust, government accountability, and national politics.

It reflects not just grief and anger over a life lost but a larger reckoning with how federal power should be exercised, how leaders communicate publicly, and how unions representing government employees can influence public debate when policy and personnel decisions have life‑and‑death consequences.

Whether or not Noem or Miller ultimately step down, AFGE’s statement will be remembered as a turning point in how labor, governance, and accountability interact in one of the most contentious issues facing the nation: the implementation of immigration policy in a deeply divided political environment.