Former CNN journalist Don Lemon arrested in connection with Minnesota protest

(WASHINGTON) — The National Transportation Safety Board on Tuesday presented a cockpit visual simulation demonstrating what contributed to the deadly mid-air collision between an Army helicopter and an American Airlines jet near Washington, D.C., last year.

The simulation indicates it was very difficult for both aircraft to see each other before the January 2025 crash that occurred as the jet was landing at Ronald Reagan National Airport, killing 67 people, according to the NTSB.

The first video shows the last three minutes before the collision from the viewpoint of the right seat of the helicopter. 

Around 8:46:15, a magenta circle with a label “Flight 5342” appears just above the horizon on the right side of the upper portion of the screen.  The label “Flight 5342” fades out about 8:46:35. The magenta circle tracks the lights of Flight 5342 and remains visible until the airplane becomes visually recognizable about a minute later.

 After a Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System warning indicated in the transcript, the local controller on the ATC recording is heard asking the pilots if they have the CRJ (Flight 5342) in sight and the pilots confirm they do. It remains unclear what they thought they had in sight. There was only one controller working both the helicopter and plane traffic, the NTSB said.

 The simulation screen goes black at the moment of the collision. 

The second animation shows the viewpoint of pilots from Flight 5342 as the plane approaches the runway to land. According to the cockpit voice recorder transcript shared by the NTSB, the last words about one second before the crash from both the first officer and the captain were “oh” and “ohhh ohhhh” as the animation shows the helicopter colliding with the plane. 

About 90% of wreckage from both aircraft was recovered by the NTSB.  

A third animation shows what the local controller from the DCA tower saw at the time of the crash as they were handling the air traffic and issuing instructions. Based on the recordings, the NTSB said Flight 5342 was not warned by the controller of the nearby helicopter at any point. A conflict alert came 26 seconds before the collision between the two aircraft as they were 1.6 miles apart, according to the NTSB. 

According to the NTSB, the local tower said they were concerned about the close proximity of the helicopter and Flight 5342. 

“This coupled with the conflict alert that was active at the time, the controller should have issued a safety alert, which would have included updated traffic advisory information and an alternate course of action if feasible, neither were done. In this case, had a safety alert been issued, it would have increased the situation awareness of both crews and alerted them of their closing proximity to one another. Additionally, a timely safety alert may have allowed action to be taken by one or both crews to avoid avert the collision,” NTSB investigator Brian Soper said at the hearing.

NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy also said that a $400 GPS device known as ADSB-In could have prevented the DCA crash. The NTSB has recommended ADSB-In be required in aircraft 17 times since 2006, but the FAA has repeatedly disregarded the recommendation, she said.

The system would have alerted the American Airlines crew 59 seconds before the crash that they were going to collide, and the helicopter crew would have been alerted 48 seconds before the crash, the NTSB chair said. The Army has since installed the system.

DCA controller overwhelmed

The controller working the night of the crash was handling both helicopter and plane traffic and had been doing so for four hours, NTSB investigators said.

A human behavior investigator said the controller’s mental awareness had diminished over time. He should have given a definitive warning of the impending collision and he should have given clear avoidance instructions, the investigator said.

NTSB investigators said the last communication between the helicopter and the controller where they asked the pilot if they have the AA5342 in sight was “not a safety alert by definition, but it was an attempt to de-conflict.” 

Ninety seconds before the collision, the local controller working in the tower became overwhelmed as he was handling aircraft both on ground and in the air. On the night of the collision, the controller was working two controller positions. This is a routine practice which is usually done later at night when the aircraft volume goes down. 

The NTSB said, “keeping the local control and helicopter control positions combined on the night of the accident, increased the local controller’s workload and reduced his situation awareness.”

Investigators said the controller could have asked for the positions to be decombined because of being overwhelmed, but it would have taken at least a couple of minutes before anyone else could take over. Additionally, the assistant local controller and the supervisor overseeing operations at the time could have served as an extra set of eyes to help the local controller.

However, Homendy revealed that at the time, the assistant controller was writing down information on helicopters and the supervisor did not exhibit situational awareness as they learned during the interview that the supervisor only recalled one helicopter in the area at the time when there were five.

Following the crash, the NTSB issued recommendations for better training to be provided for controllers so they can recognize safety issues and threats in the environment.

NTSB chair’s concerns

Ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, Chair Homendy said she fears that some of the agency’s safety recommendations, which will be issued at the conclusion of the hearing, may once again go unimplemented. 

“Of course I’m concerned. We have 300 aviation recommendations that still haven’t been implemented. Those recommendations were issued because somebody died or was injured, and they have not been implemented yet. So here we are again,” Homendy told ABC News.

“So yes, at the end of this, I am concerned that we’re going to issue recommendations and that they won’t be implemented,” Homendy said. “I can tell you, and anyone who knows me knows I vigorously advocate for the implementation of our recommendations. I don’t care when it is. Could be 50 years later, as I did with positive train control, and I will not hold back on these.” 

At Tuesday’s hearing, NTSB investigators will present their investigative findings to board members and the public. NTSB board members, including Homendy, will then question investigators and the parties to the investigation. 

At the end of the hearing, the board members will vote on the probable cause of the crash and the agency’s safety recommendations. The NTSB can only make recommendations and does not have the authority to enforce them, therefore they are not always adopted.

Though a formal final report will be released two weeks after the hearing, this hearing will mark the end of what Homendy described as “one of the most complex investigations” conducted by the agency, which they had aimed to conclude by the first anniversary of the mid-air collision. 

Homendy told ABC News the investigation “was not easy and it was definitely not straightforward.” 

“We will start in one direction and then take it in a different direction, depending on what we’re finding, and then we’ll exclude things that didn’t have anything to do with the investigation. But we have to do our due diligence to make sure that we’re tracking all of that down, all that evidence to support that it wasn’t a factor, while also looking at the issues that were,” Homendy said. 

Homendy said the helicopter altimeter discrepancy is what surprised her the most in this investigation. 

“The altimeters I did not see coming, that we would have some problems with how the altimeters were reading,” Homendy said.

During last year’s three-day investigative hearing, investigators said they found discrepancies in the altitude data shown on radio and barometric altimeters on Army helicopters after conducting test flights following January’s accident.

It is likely that the helicopter crew did not know their true altitude due to notoriously faulty altimeters inside this series of Black Hawks, according to the investigation. At their closest points, helicopters and planes flew within 75 feet of each other near DCA, an astonishingly close number. During the hearings, the NTSB was told Army Black Hawks can often have wrong readings and a margin of error of +-200 feet.

Another key focus of Tuesday’s hearing is the close proximity of the helicopter route to the runways at Reagan National Airport. According to the NTSB, which cited FAA surveillance data, there were over 15,000 close-proximity events between helicopters and commercial aircraft at DCA between October 2021 and December 2024. 

Homendy said warnings about the close proximity were raised by people, but they were ignored. 

“Years ago, that hot spot was identified and [people] repeatedly tried to say that the helicopter route needed to be moved, and nobody listened. It was like the ultimate in government bureaucracy,” Homendy said. 

“They were completely ignored. Told it couldn’t be done, not responded to, said it would probably be too political. Those are quotes from our interviews, but they went nowhere.” 

At last year’s hearing, FAA officials cited “bureaucratic process” as a deterrent to addressing these issues.

Other topics expected to be discussed include the approval of helicopter routes near DCA,  the experience level of the air traffic controllers working in the tower at the time of the crash, the visibility study, and the testing of the barometric altimeters.  

When asked what stays with her from this investigation, Homendy pointed to a personal item recovered with the wreckage. 

“In the hangar, we had the Black Hawk laid out. We had the wreckage laid out for 5342 and on the side next to 5342 there were some personal effects, and a lot of people mentioned different things, but every time I passed, there was a brown teddy bear, just eight inches maybe, and it was muddy and dried mud, dried water, and I just kept looking at the teddy bear, and that’s the thing that sticks with me,” Homendy said. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MINNEAPOLIS) — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday said that in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday, federal officials issued public statements about the incident based on “the best information” they had at the time and “what we knew to be true on the ground.”

Noem previously suggested on the day of the shooting that the agents’ actions were justified, claiming at a press briefing that Pretti had “attacked” officers and was “wishing to inflict harm” on them. But appearing Thursday on Fox News, Noem offered no evidence to support such claims, saying instead that the scene was “chaotic.”

After her initial statements, Minnesota officials were quick to push back on her public comments, pointing to the multiple videos from witnesses which appeared to tell a different story.

She said the FBI is now leading the investigation, though officials previously said DHS was investigating, with assistance from the FBI.

Noem’s shift in tone comes amid growing criticism of how quickly officials characterized the shooting. Some critics told ABC News that issuing definitive conclusions following immigration enforcement shootings is “incredibly irresponsible” and may undermine the long-term credibility of federal agencies.

The critics warned that rushing to label suspects as “domestic terrorists” — as White House adviser Stephen Miller and Noem did in the aftermath of the shooting deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good — or declaring shootings justified before evidence is reviewed represents a departure from the norm.

“It’s just incredibly irresponsible to rush to conclusions,” said John Sandweg, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Obama administration.  “When you have a senior adviser to the president and the cabinet secretary saying, ‘These are the facts, this is what happened’ … you’ve now undermined all the credibility and really made it impossible for the public to have confidence in that investigation.”

‘Public trust is everything’
An ABC News review of several recent incidents involving federal immigration agents found a consistent pattern: high-level officials publicized findings within hours of gunfire, only for those initial accounts to be challenged later by body camera footage, witness videos or court filings.

In at least five major cases, officials appeared to make public declarations about the incidents before formal investigations had reached final conclusions about those assertions.

“Public trust is everything to these agencies, and it just destroys them when you tell something that is so visibly and obviously contradicted by the video evidence,” Sandweg said.

Jason Houser, a former ICE chief of staff under the Biden administration, told ABC News that the rush to conclusions suggests the focus has shifted away from public safety toward a political narrative.

“It just shows that this is about the political debate. It’s not about actually arresting the most convicted criminals,” Houser said. “It should … create a lot of distrust that can tear at the core trust in law enforcement, especially federal law enforcement.”

In response to questions regarding the swiftness of the administration’s public comments and  the information released following major incidents, a DHS spokesperson said, “DHS follows proper legal processes and protocols for all statements disseminated by the Department.”

What Pretti video shows
In the shooting involving Pretti, DHS officials released a detailed statement just two and a half hours after the incident, claiming he “approached” officers with a handgun. Miller labeled Pretti a “domestic terrorist” and a “would-be assassin” on social media less than four hours after the gunfire.

Noem, during her Thursday interview, responded to critics on Capitol Hill calling for her resignation by stating she is “following the law, and enforcing the laws like President Trump promised he would do.”

Video analyzed by ABC News showed agents pinning Pretti down and removing a weapon from his waist before the shooting occurred — contradicting the initial claims from officials. Three days later, Miller issued a statement acknowledging that the initial DHS account was based on “reports from CBP on the ground” and suggested protocol may not have been followed.

“Any experienced law enforcement professional will understand that initial information coming from the scene of a major incident is usually flawed, so you have to sort of take it with a grain of salt,” said John Cohen, an ABC News contributor who served as acting DHS undersecretary for intelligence and analysis under the Biden administration.

During Thursday’s appearance on Fox News, Noem said, “We will continue to follow the investigation that the FBI is leading and give them all the information that they need to bring that to conclusion and make sure the American people know the truth of the situation,” she said.

After announcing on Friday that the Justice Department opened a civil rights investigation into the shooting Pretti, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters that “a single video should not determine an entire investigation.”

“We have said repeatedly over the past week that of course this is something that we are investigating and that is what we would always do in circumstances like this,” Blanche said. 

Earlier shootings: Renee Good, Marimar Martinez
Following the shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, DHS issued a statement within two hours declaring that a “violent rioter” had “weaponized her vehicle” in an “act of domestic terrorism.” According to an ABC News analysis of verified video, Good can be seen turning her steering wheel to the right — away from the ICE agent — just over one second before the first of three gunshots was fired.

In October, less than four hours after Marimar Martinez was shot five times by a Border Patrol agent in Chicago, a DHS assistant secretary posted that law enforcement was “forced” to fire defensive shots. A DHS statement that day labeled Martinez and another individual “domestic terrorists,” while Noem later characterized the incident as a “ten-car caravan” that “ambushed” and “stalked” agents.

During court hearings, an attorney representing Martinez told the court that body-worn camera footage did not align with the government’s allegations. A federal judge later dismissed the indictment against Martinez after the Department of Justice abruptly filed a motion to withdraw the case.

That same month, in an incident in California, DHS issued a statement claiming that during a vehicle stop, an “unknown individual” attempted to “run officers over by reversing directly at them without stopping.” The statement asserted that an ICE officer, “fearing for his life, fired defensive shots.”

However, a lawyer for Carlos Jimenez told ABC News that after an agent pulled out pepper spray, Jimenez began to maneuver his vehicle “to get around” and was shot in his back shoulder through the back passenger window.

Chicago shooting
In another incident in September, an ICE officer shot and killed Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez outside Chicago. According to a lawsuit filed by the state of Illinois, Villegas-Gonzalez, a 38-year-old father, was driving home from dropping his three-year-old son at day care. A DHS statement issued hours after the shooting claimed an officer “fearing for his life” was “seriously injured.”

But the Illinois complaint and body camera video obtained by ABC owned station WLS-TV revealed the agent who fired the weapon described his own injuries as “nothing major.”

“Videos of the incident did not corroborate DHS’s assertion that the shooting officer was ‘seriously injured’ by a ‘criminal illegal alien,'” the lawsuit states.

Cohen, the former DHS official, noted that describing incidents as domestic terrorism before an investigation is complete could later be viewed in court as prejudicial.

“When you make commentary on these types of incidents to advance an ideological or political narrative or objective, you run the risk of putting out inaccurate information and as a result, losing the public’s confidence,” Cohen said.

Sandweg, the former ICE official, told ABC News the only responsible approach for officials is to remain restrained in their public statements until there is reliable information.

“The only approach is … ‘We’re aware, we are conducting a full investigation,'” Sandweg said. “Public trust … is everything to these agencies. Once you destroy that, it bleeds over into everything else they do.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MINNEAPOLIS) — A federal judge heard arguments Monday on the state of Minnesota’s request for a temporary restraining order to halt the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operation in the state.

The hearing came two days after the death of 37-year-old Alex Pretti in what was the second shooting of a U.S. citizen this month by federal immigration enforcement agents in Minneapolis.

An attorney representing the state said in Monday’s hearing that the enforcement action, dubbed “Operation Metro Surge,” is the nation’s single largest escalation of immigration enforcement, despite Minnesota not having the largest number of non-citizens with criminal convictions.

“Yet the federal government has sent an unprecedented force of thousands of masked agents armed with assault rifles to spread through our region in roving patrols that are racially profiling and inflicting violence on people,” argued state attorney Lindsey Middlecamp.

Brian Carter, another state attorney, argued that there’s a lack of precedent because “the conduct [from the federal government] is so outrageously unlawful we’ve never seen it before.”

“In the 250 years of this nation’s history, we have never seen a federal government attack states based on personal animosity,” Carter argued.

“Well, we’ve seen the federal government take very robust responses to states that aren’t yielding to federal authority,” U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez interrupted.

“Absolutely, but that’s based on the rule of law,” Carter responded.

When Judge Menendez asked what exactly the state wants her to do, Carter said, “End Operation Metro Surge.”

“The whole Operation Metro Surge is an illegal means to an illegal end, so just ending the whole thing is the appropriate remedy there,” Carter said.

“You understand the federal government has a lot of power in this area, so I’m trying to figure out what principle you’re asking me to apply that will sort out legal federal law enforcement from this 10th Amendment argument,” Judge Menendez said.

An attorney representing the federal government called the state’s request to end Operation Metro Surge “staggering.”

“The effect of their requested relief would be essentially removing the officers whom the president has concluded should be there to enforce federal immigration law,” said attorney Brantley Mayers. “It’s pretty staggering.”

Mayers argued that the requested relief should be subject to “a heightened standard.”

“They’re challenging one law enforcement initiative,” replied Judge Menendez. “They’re not challenging the enforcement of immigration law writ large.”

Mayers said that if the judge issues an order to end Operation Metro Surge, it “would be very difficult to implement.”

“If it’s difficult to implement, does that mean I can do nothing?” Judge Menendez asked.

Mayers responded by saying such an order would create a “very difficult separation of powers problem.”

The judge also said she is “grappling” with the alleged illegalities identified by the state, pointing to other lawsuits filed in Minnesota.

“Isn’t the answer to the flood of illegality to fight each illegal act?” Judge Menendez asked, noting that the conduct of federal agents is already the subject of separate litigation.

Menendez also questioned how she should draw the line between legitimate federal pressure and illegal coercion.

“How do I decide when a law enforcement response crosses the line from a legitimate response to one that violates the 10th Amendment?” she asked.

Carter argued that there are “4,000 masked, armed federal agents engaged in systemic, pervasive, and illegal violent behavior” that is “so far out on the other side of the line.”

“We’ve got retaliation, we’ve got racial profiling, we’ve got warrantless entries into homes,” Carter said.

Middlecamp said that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s letter to Gov. Tim Walz Saturday in which she sought information about the state’s voter rolls and records on Medicaid and Food and Nutrition Service programs as a condition for ICE agents pulling back on enforcement, “can only be described as a ransom note.”

“President Trump himself took to social media last night to reaffirm those very purposes. Their message is clear,” Middlecamp said. “Minnesota can either change its laws and policies or suffer an invasion of masked armed forces. This is precisely the type of coercion and commandeering that violates the 10th Amendment.”

Middlecamp argued there has been “excessive force and unsupported detentions and arrests of legal observers” and said that DHS agents have been collecting photos and license plates of observers so they can confront them.

“Even though they are not charged with a crime or reasonably suspected of a crime, there has been indiscriminate use of chemical irritants,” she said.

The attorney argued that Operation Metro Surge is having “clear impacts on the sovereign interest to create and protect public safety, public health, and public education.”

Sara Lathrop, an attorney for the city of Minneapolis, said the weekend’s shooting “demonstrated in a terrifying way that the current situation is absolutely untenable.”

“The relief we need needs to be ordered now to take down the temperature,” Lathrop said.

In response, Judge Menendez said that “not all crises have a fix from a district court injunction.”

Carter, the state attorney, wrapped up arguments by saying the state came to the court to “protect its sovereignty.”

“The state of Minnesota comes here today to protect its sovereignty, to stop the harm to its sovereign rights under the Constitution that sets states up as independent sovereigns,” Carter said. “If we can’t come to the court and vindicate those rights, where else does a state go?”

Judge Menendez did not issue an order immediately following the hearing.

“I do not intend in any way for the depth of my analysis or whatever time I take to write to be seen as a belief that this is unimportant,” she said. “It’s because it’s extremely important that I’m doing everything I can to get it right,” the judge said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.