Noem declines to retract ‘definition of domestic terrorism’ comments about Pretti during Senate hearing
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arrives for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled “Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security,” in Dirksen building on Tuesday, March 3, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem faced questions about immigration enforcement operations as she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday — refusing to apologize or retract her statements about a U.S. citizens shot and killed by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis as “the definition of domestic terrorism.”
When pressed by Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, about why Noem labeled Alex Pretti, who was shot and killed by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis in January, a domestic terrorist without evidence, she would not admit she was wrong.
“We are working in those situations where there’s a tragic loss of life and that there is something that our agents are involved in, that we continue to deliver information,” she said.
Durbin then asked, “Is it so hard to say you were wrong?”
“I absolutely strive to provide factual information and will continue to do that,” Noem responded, adding that when the agency fails, they admit wrongdoing. Noem has yet to admit she has been wrong about how she characterized the Pretti shooting, as some have suggested.
Noem also said her characterization of Pretti — whose conduct she called following the shooting “the definition of domestic terrorism” without evidence — was based on information relayed to her in the hours after the incident.
Shortly after the shooting of Pretti, a Minneapolis Veterans Affairs ICU nurse, Noem drew criticism for insinuating he wanted to “massacre” law enforcement before the evidence and investigation was complete. Pretti was licensed to carry a handgun. Video from multiple angles showed that Pretti did not try to draw his gun from his waistband before or during the scuffle with federal agents.
Tuesday’s hearing marks the first time Noem is appearing before Congress after tensions in Minneapolis and the killing of Pretti as well as Renee Good, who was shot and killed by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis in January.
Two Senate Republicans have said Noem should be out of a job, and Democrats have called for her impeachment. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he stands by Noem.
Later in Tuesday’s hearing, Noem said that there are no plans to deploy agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the polling places in November after President Donald Trump recently doubled down on his controversial suggestion that Republicans “nationalize” elections, saying the “federal government should get involved” in elections.
“We have no plans to have ICE officers or law enforcement at polling locations. States are responsible for running their elections, and we’re giving them tools and mitigation efforts that they can utilize in order to make sure they maintain the integrity of those elections, and that individuals can trust their systems to ensure that their vote counts,” Noem said.
Noem’s appearance on Tuesday marks the first of two days she is set to testify on Capitol Hill. She will testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
Her testimony comes as some parts of Noem’s agency — from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Transportation Security Administration to the Coast Guard — are shut down amid a funding fight over Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Democrats have said they will fund the department only if changes are made to the agency in the wake of the shooting deaths of Good and Pretti.
U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff questions U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi as she testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 7, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Win Mcnamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Adam Schiff of California and a group of fellow Democrats are launching a probe into Freedom 250, a new non-profit group closely aligned with President Donald Trump that is raising private funding for high-profile events surrounding America’s 250th birthday this summer.
Freedom 250 — a nonprofit subsidiary of the National Park Foundation, the congressionally chartered fundraising arm of the National Park Service — was announced by the White House X account in December 2025, as an alternative for the congressionally chartered “America250” commission that is planned to celebrate the nation’s birthday this year.
The New York Times is reporting on allegations that the Freedom250 group is exchanging access to Trump for donations, and concerns have been raised in Congress about the arrangement between the group’s donations and their political fundraising.
Schiff’s inquiry, first shared with ABC News, raises concerns about the large sums of private donations and alleged “pay-to-play” access implications involved in the Freedom 250 effort.
When asked to respond to Schiff’s inquiry, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said, “President Trump is ensuring that America gets the spectacular birthday it deserves. The celebration of America’s 250th anniversary is going to display great patriotism in our Nation’s Capital and throughout the country.”
Democratic Sens. Chris Van Hollen, Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin and Gary Peters joined Schiff in sending a letter on Wednesday to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, demanding the White House produce a list of Freedom 250 donors and describing any benefits, access, recognition or other consideration donors have received or been promised related to their contributions.
The senators raised concern that the potential coordination between the Trump administration and Freedom 250 could violate federal bribery, conflict of interest and ethics statutes. Schiff’s inquiry is also asking for an explanation on the ethical guidance the group received from the Office of Government Ethics or White House ethics officials.
“It is imperative that Congress and the public understand how decisions are made, who exercises control, and what guardrails exist to prevent inappropriate donor influence. Absent clear rules, this structure risks blurring the line between legitimate civic fundraising and pay‑for‑play access tied to official government functions, an all too familiar feature of the current Administration,” the senators wrote.
Trump — who repeatedly promised on the campaign trail a grand celebration for America’s 250th birthday that would be comparable to past world’s fairs — announced Freedom250 in December as a public-private partnership to spearhead the festivities.
On Tuesday, congressional Democrats accused the Trump administration of trying to alter plans to celebrate the nation’s 250th birthday and using the National Park Foundation to solicit money from private donors.
Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman claimed “Trump and his Freedom 250 party planners are working to obscure reality with a fake narrative.”
“America250 could have been an honest celebration. Trump didn’t have control over the congressionally charted nonpartisan organization leading the celebration,” Huffman said, adding that Trump is working to “monetize it.”
During a hearing in the House Natural Resources Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Jeff Reinbold, the foundation’s president and CEO, promised anonymity to donors who requested it. Reinbold also said he would not provide Congress with any contracts signed by Freedom 250 donors.
Democratic Rep. Maxine Dexter claims Freedom 250 is using public money meant to go to America250, which was created in 2016. Dexter asserted that Freedom 250 is co-mingling fundraising for Trump with private donations for the nation’s birthday celebrations.
“This leaves us all guessing which one of Donald Trump’s billionaire buddies and which foreign interests are buying access,” Dexter said.
ICE agents leave a residence after knocking on the door on January 28, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security continues its immigration enforcement operations after two high-profile killings by federal agents in recent weeks. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In the weeks after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota during a surge to apprehend undocumented immigrants for deportation, Americans oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics by wide margins and President Donald Trump’s approval on immigration has dipped to the lowest of his second term, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.
Trump’s immigration rating hits new low for second term
Trump, who has focused much of his second term on the immigration crackdown, is now 18 percentage points underwater in how Americans rate his handling of immigration — with 58% disapproving and 40% approving — the worst ratings he has had on immigration in his second term, ticking down from his October ratings and almost exactly where he was in July 2019 when 40% approved and 57% disapproved of how he was handling the issue.
Despite his increasingly negative ratings on handling immigration since taking office, Americans don’t trust Democrats to handle the issue more. When asked who they trust to do a better job handling immigration, 38% say they trust Trump more, 34% trust congressional Democrats more and 24% trust neither.
And even though he’s underwater on handling immigration overall, Trump’s ratings on handling the immigration situation at the U.S.-Mexico border are a bit better, albeit still slightly negative, with 47% of Americans approving of how he is handling the situation at the border and 50% disapproving.
Americans on deportations and ICE
Americans are roughly split over whether the federal government should deport all undocumented immigrants living in the United States, but a growing share oppose expanded ICE operations — and by a 2-to-1 margin, they oppose ICE’s tactics.
The results come following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, by federal agents in Minneapolis on Jan. 24 — just weeks after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a mother of three, by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Jan. 7.
Half (50%) of Americans support the federal government deporting the about 14 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. and sending them back to their home countries while 48% oppose this.
Support was even higher for deporting all undocumented immigrants ahead of the 2024 presidential election, when 56% of Americans supported sending all undocumented immigrants to their home countries. By last February that dipped to 51%.
Most Hispanic (64%), Black (58%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (56%) oppose deporting all undocumented immigrants while 58% of white people support widespread deportation.
Even if many Americans want mass deportations, 58% say Trump is going “too far” in deporting undocumented immigrants, up from 50% who said the same in October. Just 12% say he is “not going far enough” and 28% say he is “handling it about right.”
Seven in 10 Americans do not think most immigrants deported since January 2025 were violent criminals, including 33% who say “hardly any” of those deported were. Only 7% of Americans say “nearly all” of the immigrants who were deported since the beginning of the Trump administration were violent criminals.
A slim majority of Americans oppose ICE’s expanded operations to detain and deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S., 53% now, up from 46% in October.
Opinion breaks down on partisan lines, with 88% of Democrats opposed to ICE’s expanded operations and 81% of Republicans in support. A 56% majority of independents oppose ICE’s expanded operations.
By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration laws, 62% to 31%. Half of Americans strongly oppose ICE’s tactics, including 89% of Democrats and 53% of independents. Only 4 in 10 Republicans strongly support the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration law, rising to over half among MAGA Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who call themselves MAGA.
By a 13-point margin, Americans oppose abolishing ICE, 50% to 37%. Opinions are polarized: 7 in 10 Democrats support abolishing ICE, while 8 in 10 Republicans oppose it. More independents oppose abolishing ICE (45%) than support abolishing ICE (35%), with 2 in 10 independents saying they have no opinion on the issue.
ICE was established in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Previously, the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Justice Department administered immigration laws. The Abolish ICE political movement gained national attention in 2018 during the previous Trump administration’s family-separation policy.
An ICE memo issued in May gave federal agents the authority to enter the homes of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally without warrants signed by judges. A wide majority of Americans — including majorities across party lines — say that when federal law enforcement wants to forcibly enter someone’s home, they need to get approval from a judge; just 20% say getting approval from a federal agency is enough.
How Americans feel about Minnesota and personal impacts
Most Americans (54%) say they are either upset (17%) or angry (37%) over how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, with 72% of Democrats saying they are angry. More than 4 in 10 Americans say they are “not concerned” or “concerned but not upset” over the situation in Minnesota.
Nearly half of Republicans, 47%, say they are not concerned over immigration enforcement in Minnesota, along with 32% who say they are concerned but not upset.
And while majorities of Asian and Pacific Islander (66%), Hispanic (59%) and Black Americans (61%) say they are upset or angry about how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, that dips to 49% among white people.
There is a personal connection for many Americans — 42% say they are at least somewhat concerned that federal immigration enforcement agents could arrest or detain someone they know, including 33% who say they are at least somewhat concerned this could happen to a close family member or friend.
Hispanic (60%), Black (55%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (53%) are all more concerned that federal immigration agents could arrest and detain a close friend, family member or someone else they know than white people (32%).
Replacing Kristi Noem, sanctuary cities and the border
By almost a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support replacing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem amid the administration’s controversial immigration enforcement tactics, 44% to 23%, with 33% voicing no opinion on the matter.
Democrats are more aligned on replacing Noem than Republicans are. Three-quarters of Democrats support removing Noem, 7% oppose it and 18% have no opinion. Among Republicans, 45% oppose replacing Noem, 15% support it and a large 40% say they have no opinion on the matter. Among independents, 45% support Noem’s removal, 17% oppose it and 38% have no opinion.
By an 8-point margin, Americans oppose denying federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with ICE, 46% to 38%. Eight in 10 Democrats oppose this, over 7 in 10 Republicans support it.
Methodology — This ABC News-Washington Post-Ipsos poll was conducted via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel, Feb. 12-17, 2026, among 2,589 U.S. adults and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The error margins are larger among partisan group subsamples.
Senator Amy Klobuchar attends a field hearing at the Minnesota Senate Building on Jan. 16, 2026, in St Paul, Minnesota. (Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar filed paperwork on Thursday to create a campaign committee to run for governor in the state — the latest step indicating that she is nearing an official announcement to enter the race.
A source close to the senator said that her filing “is a preliminary step necessary for any candidate considering a run. The senator will make an announcement of her plans in the coming days.”
Klobuchar is widely seen as the most popular Democrat in the state, and could help the party avoid a pitched primary fight to succeed Gov. Tim Walz, who dropped his bid for reelection as governor earlier this month.
Walz decided to suspend his run for a third term amid intensifying federal pressure on his state following a welfare fraud investigation. Walz said he would not run for reelection because he would not be able to give a campaign all of his attention as he works to defend Minnesota against those allegations of fraud.
The state has been at the center of the Trump’s administration immigration crackdown, drawing large protests following a federal agent’s fatal shooting of Renee Good, and threats from President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, a law that authorizes the use of the military on U.S. soil for certain purposes.
Frey defended himself and Walz on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday, calling the investigation “deeply concerning,” and saying he intends to comply with it.
“Look, we have done nothing wrong, so of course we will comply in it, but at the same time, we need to be understanding how wild this is,” Frey said.
In a statement posted on X, Walz called the investigation “political theater.”
“This Justice Department investigation, sparked by calls for accountability in the face of violence, chaos, and the killing of Renee Good, does not seek justice,” Walz said the statement. “It is a partisan distraction.”
Klobuchar, who is also seen as a possible 2028 presidential candidate after running in 2020, won reelection to the Senate in 2024.
One Democratic Party county chair in Minnesota, speaking with ABC News after Walz dropped out of the race, said that Klobuchar likely would have a lock on the party’s nomination if she runs.
Another county party chair told ABC News at the time that to some in the party, a bid by Klobuchar didn’t seem to make sense because she could be a candidate for Senate Majority Leader if Democrats flip the chamber. Klobuchar is currently a member of Democratic Senate leadership.
Earlier this week, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said he would not run for governor.
