parents

Oct. 28, 2026 9:44 AM PT

MINNEAPOLIS — The parents of intensive care nurse Alex Pretti said the federal government is shielding the immigration enforcement officers involved in their son’s killing, and no one from the government has reached out with any substantive information for nine months.

Michael and Susan Pretti on Tuesday called for the Department of Justice to hold accountable those who shot their 37-year-old son during President Trump’s ramp up in deportations targeting Minnesota. Federal prosecutors disclosed in recent court filings they had stopped sharing evidence with Minnesota authorities who are investigating the January killings of Pretti and Renee Good by federal officers.

“The federal government went on TV and lied about Alex,” said Susan Pretti, his mother. “They tried to slander his memory to cover up their crime. Not only was it wrong, it was shameful.”

Within moments of his Jan. 24 death, Trump administration officials sought to portray Pretti, a U.S. citizen and nurse at a veterans hospital, as an armed disruptor intent on doing harm to federal agents when he brought his own gun to a Minneapolis street where officers clashed with protesters. Kristi Noem, the then-Homeland Security secretary, painted the Veterans Administration hospital nurse as a domestic terrorist who violently resisted federal agents. Court records show he had no criminal record.

Video shot by bystanders that day showed Pretti only had a mobile phone in his hand. No footage has since emerged showing him brandishing a weapon or attacking federal agents in the moments before he was killed.

The Prettis spoke Tuesday at a news conference organized by an attorney representing the family, calling their treatment by the Trump administration “cruelty.” They said they decided to speak out after being “stonewalled” by U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and the top federal prosecutor in Minnesota, U.S. Atty. Dan Rosen.

“At every turn, they have ignored us, misled us, and shielded Alex’s killers,” said Michael Pretti, his father. “We are a family who love this country. We trust in the institutions of this country. We believe in the rule of law — and that people should be held accountable through that law.”

After months of reaching out to Rosen’s office, the federal prosecutor agreed to meet with them in July. But the family and their attorney, Steve Schleicher, said that meeting raised more questions than answers, with Rosen refusing to provide even basic information about the status of the federal investigation into Pretti’s death.

A spokesman for Rosen’s office had no comment when reached by the Associated Press on Tuesday. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Pretti family’s remarks.

Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration in March for access to materials they said they needed to independently investigate the shootings of Pretti and Good. The Trump administration has suggested that state prosecutors don’t have jurisdiction to investigate federal officers, while Minnesota officials have said they don’t trust the federal government to investigate itself.

The state is still seeking the cellphones of the officers involved in both shootings and recordings of key interviews.

Pretti’s parents recounted how they first learned of his death when they were called by a reporter for the Associated Press.

“We learned about his death from the media as we saw him being shot repeatedly in the back after helping a woman from his community, a fellow Minnesotan, who had been shoved to the ground viciously,” Michael Pretti said. “No one from the federal government called us on that horrible day, but they did go on TV to tell lies about Alex. No one from the federal government has called us since.”

He said the videos of his son’s killing haunt his family every day.

“I think it haunts many Americans to see a U.S. citizen who was peaceful and in his community shot multiple times on the back, in the back, while on the ground,” the father said, calling his family heartbroken.

“We wish we didn’t have to be here,” he said. “We wish Alex was alive. We wish we were simply in Minneapolis to visit with Alex. For he and I to chat about cars, hiking, biking or anything that came to our mind. This administration has taken that away from us forever.”

Biesecker and Vancleave write for the Associated Press. Biesecker reported from Pittsburgh.

My maternal grandmother, Marcela Miranda, was born in Arizona’s copper country in 1914 and lived in the United States until she was about 7.

She was part of a generation whose parents were from the rancho of El Cargadero, Zacatecas, and started families in el Norte while waiting out the Mexican Revolution in the 1910s and the Cristero Revolt in the 1920s. Many returned to their home village when things calmed down.

After growing up in Mexico, my grandmother moved to California with my grandfather and their children in the 1960s. Only the American government considered her a native-born U.S. citizen, while society dismissed her as a Mexican. We grandchildren always considered our Mama Chela a doña — a grand Mexican dame who never wore pants and frequently covered her hair with a veil out of modesty. All she remembered from her early childhood in Arizona were snippets of the nursery rhymes “Did You Ever See a Lassie?” and “The Bear Went Over the Mountain.”

The El Cargadero diaspora, which mostly settled in Anaheim, saw our forebears’ American birth as a stroke of provenance allowing them to legally enter the U.S. and give their progeny a head start that other Mexicans could only dream of. It’s a story I’ve repeatedly told over my decades-long journalism career, and no one has yet challenged my description of my grandmother as an immigrant.

If they did, I’d think they had too much time on their hands, or maybe that they were a wackjob contrarian.

Cue Steve Hilton.

The Republican candidate for California governor is trying to make a scandal out of his Democratic opponent, Xavier Becerra, portraying himself as the son of Mexican immigrants. Twice last week during their CNN debate, Becerra said his parents came to California “with $12.” In previous interviews during his decades in the political spotlight, Becerra has shared that his father, Manuel, was born in Sacramento in 1928 and moved to Mexico as a child during the Great Depression, eventually returning to the land of his birth.

Hilton, who has been endorsed by President Trump, has as much a chance of becoming the Golden State’s next governor as Stephen Miller. But he and his supporters have latched on to Becerra’s statement like it was the borderlands version of stolen valor. Critics combed through Becerra’s family genealogy like Indiana Jones searching for the Holy Grail, then posted their findings online — Becerra’s dad grew up in Tijuana before coming back to California, then married in Guadalajara before returning in the 1950s to Sacramento, where Xavier was born — to claim that Becerra is one giant, pandering fraudster.

“Unlike Xavier Becerra, I am an immigrant,” the British-born son of Hungarian refugees harrumphed on social media. He followed up by declaring that Becerra is “LYING” about his family’s American experience “in order to score identity points.”

What more proof do California voters need that Hilton is laughably out of touch with how we live? Many Mexican Americans, including my cousins and me, consider family members raised in Mexico to be immigrants, even if they were born in the U.S. Growing up down south forever shapes your language, work ethic, appreciation for how hard life can be and so much more. When they return to the U.S., such people often find themselves ostracized as paisa — country — and must learn the mores of American life, just like those born abroad.

To argue that calling them immigrants is technically wrong is like getting angry at people who don’t pronounce Los Feliz the Spanish way. For Becerra’s critics to claim he’s stretching his immigrant roots to appeal to Latino voters is an insult to Latinos. We know a cultural faker when we see one, and the Becerra family story isn’t an anomaly; it’s our lives.

Gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton addresses patrons at Victorio’s Ristorante in North Hollywood in September.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

“It’s a weird gotcha,” said Cal State Fullerton Chicano studies professor Alexandro José Gradilla, whose wife’s grandmother was born in California and raised in Mexico, then bounced between the two countries for the rest of her life. “What’s the dis? Where’s the dunk? It’s so normative, especially of that generation. We cannot have the 2026 definition of immigration, the border and policy apply to a completely different landscape.”

Becerra’s critics subscribe to “this very American bias that an immigrant only moves once to the U.S., the land of opportunity, of hope — all that mythology,” Gradilla continued. During the Ellis Island era, he noted, European immigrants returned to their home countries with their U.S.-born children, and then those children faced many of the same hardships as first-time arrivals when they came back to the U.S. as adults.

“‘We don’t call those people expats or returnees — ‘immigrant’ is the only intelligible label we understand,” the profe concluded. “Until we come up with a better label, Becerra’s dad is an immigrant.”

There are many legitimate reasons to bash Becerra, from his refusal to participate in more debates to his paltry number of public rallies to a platform that sounds like more of what created California’s current woes. His family history isn’t it.

Hilton’s fixation on Becerra’s immigrant bona fides shows how desperate he is to gain some traction, any traction, with Latino voters. He at least has picked up on Latinos’ regard for immigrant success stories. But after bragging about being the candidate of legal immigrants, for Hilton to hold being born here against someone who went back and forth between the U.S. and Mexico is a weak salsa pendejada.

Hilton would have been better off with his conservative base if he had labeled Becerra the son of an anchor baby.

At a press conference with elected officials to oppose Proposition 39, which would mandate voter identification, my colleague Nicole Nixon asked Becerra about Hilton’s attacks on his dad. Becerra finally unlocked the inner cholo so many of us have been waiting to see, instead of the Chicano Ned Flanders he’s been projecting for decades.

“So this is what happens when people who don’t understand immigration start to pontificate,” he responded, summarizing his family story once again and pointing out the discrimination his father faced as someone of Mexican heritage, birthright citizenship be damned.

“Steve Hilton may not know that [Mexican American history] because he’s not from the U.S.,” Becerra said. “Steve Hilton may not know that because even though he’s an immigrant, he hasn’t taken the time to research.”

Wow, the brown Democratic candidate calling the white Republican candidate a dumb immigrant — California politics sure have changed!

But Becerra’s smackdown had a point. Conservatives deeply misunderstand what it is to be Mexican American. We’ve never fit into the American assimilation story and so have created our own narrative, one that people like Hilton refuse to accept at their own peril.

Hilton needs to take a Chicano studies class, where discussions about the fluidity of Mexican identity inevitably come up.

And, wouldn’t you know it, Gradilla planned to bring up that very subject with his students this week — he didn’t even know about Hilton’s attacks against Becerra until I told him.

The profe has had to update his lectures about the forced removal of upward of a million Mexican Americans south of the border during the Great Depression. He relates that history to the present, when many undocumented Latinos are returning to the countries of their birth with their U.S.-born children, either because they’ve been deported or to avoid being arrested and locked up under Trump’s hellfire immigration enforcement regime.

“For Hilton, anyone of Mexican heritage in this country needs to be grateful, you need to be loyal, and you need to be here,” Gradilla said. “Who would ever want to leave the U.S.? Well, some people have to.”

SHE’s the nepo-baby that has already got everybody talking – now Scarlett Thomas’ bid for fame continues and this month proves to be her most pivotal yet.

The daughter of soap’s most fractious real-life couple, Ryan Thomas and Tina O’Brien, Scarlett, 17, has been hellbent on using her parents’ fame and status to turn herself into a star ever since she became a teenager.

Keen to soak up the spotlight and be more well-known than her parents could ever be, Scarlett has taken on various public-facing jobs since her early teen years – first as a TV actress on Waterloo Road and now she’s determined to make it as a popstar.

But the young star has already seen herself embroiled in plenty of controversies.

Having decided not to take ANY GCSEs in hopes of pursuing a showbiz career, she has also found herself at the centre of plenty of teenage TikTok drama that has seen her relationships questioned and even seen the star accused of being at the heart of a cheating scandal with a member of Simon Cowell‘s boyband, December 10.

But all this talk is secretly being used by Scarlett and her savvy team in order to give her career a major boost – and The Sun can reveal why October 2026 is pivotal for the budding fame wannabe as she looks set to make her biggest career move yet with a series of music singles.

SOFT LAUNCH

Scarlett Thomas brags about having no GCSEs as she performs at tiny gig

block shock

Ryan Thomas reveals feud with influencer who BLOCKED him over row with daughter

Whilst Scarlett has been teasing a music career for the majority of the year – we can tell how she has been waiting until this month as she turns 18 years old before unleashing herself to the world.

Scarlett is due to enter adulthood on 26 October and is expected to go full-throttle – especially after dropping her first single, Onezies.

Our insider said: “Scarlett and her team have come up with a well-crafted plan.

“She knows she gets people talking – the plan is to capitalise on that as soon as she hits 18.

“Scarlett’s plan is to be more famous than her parents and has been keen to get a head start.

“She wants to be more than a cosy Brit TV star – she wants to be worldwide and eclipse that of the success of her parents.”

Our insiders have revealed that Scarlett’s 18th birthday will be a turning point for the star and she is aiming to have a full Miley Cyrus-esque rebrand from child star into a pop performer.

They tell The Sun: “Scarlett is planning to go fully wild when she hits 18.

“She wants to get everyone talking and is hoping to carve out something like Miley did when she left Disney behind.

“Scarlett looks at these popstars going all out and desperately wants a piece of the pie.

“Sabrina Carpenter is another inspiration of hers. She plans to emulate her showgirl-esque outfits and dance moves to help propel her career.

“Scarlett has never been a shy girl.

“She knows she can hold her own and crucially does not care what anyone says.

“She knows a lot of people will say she is acting beyond her years but she is laser-focused on her career goals.

“Controversey sells and Scarlett could care less what anyone thinks.

“Some may call it selfish but ultimately she does not care how she is viewed to the world – as long as people are talking about her, that is all thar matters to her.”

Already, she has bragged about having no GSCEs and underage drinking in one of her tracks.

Appearing at a gig last weekend, Scarlett’s lyrics included: “Baby do you like having no GCSEs in the alpha, but you’re gonna listen to it one more time.

“We’ve got buzzballs swimming in our tummy.”

She has also previously hit back at suggestion that she does not act her age in an appearance on her father and uncle’s podcast, The Thomas Bros.

Scarlett said earlier this year: “It’s a weird thing, people say you can pass for like 21 and like 12 at the same time.

“I’m 17. And I don’t know. I think my fan base is a little bit weird.

“People think I’m a lot younger than I am and I don’t think many people are ready that I’m growing up. It’s a bit weird.”

When directly asked if it frustrates her, Scarlett’s facial expression says everything as she rolls her eyes.

“It’s so frustrating. But a lot of like influencers my age, which is still the same kind of topic, don’t get the same kind of comments as I do.

“Like “why are you growing up so fast?

“But it can be a bit frustrating because, you know, I want to be taken seriously. I’m not a child.”

And it seems she mostly has the backing from her family when it comes to chasing fame and her dreams.

Our source says: “The Thomas side of the family have always backed it.

“They see Scarlett becoming famous and well-known a boost for their own brand anyway.

“The brothers have always had a very relaxed approach when it comes to parenting and family life.

“Ryan and his brothers back her completely – they are always cheering her on from the side.

“On the other hand, mum Tina has always been a bit more reserved.

“Whilst she does want Scarlett to be famous – she would have probably rather her stuck to the Waterloo Road and small scale TV circuit like her.

“Tina does not post about Scarlett as much as Ryan but it is a conscious decision.

“But she will always support her daughter and encourage her to do what makes her happy.”

The Sun has reached out for comment.

PARENTS will no longer be stung with rip-off fees just to sit next to their children on flights.

Airlines will be forced to seat under 14s beside a mum, dad or an accompanying adult for free.

It could save families up to £104 on a return trip.

Passengers will also be able to fix simple spelling mistakes on bookings without being hit with charges of up to £40.

PM Andy Burnham said: “People are fed up with these little charges that add up.

“So I’m putting a stop to them.”

TAKING FLIGHT

Europe’s best airlines have been revealed and it isn’t good news for UK ones

‘UNSAFE’

Flights axed as Ukraine warns of ‘drone-infested skies’ leaving thousands stranded

“This is what our everyday fixes are all about.

“Giving people room to breathe by tackling the small irritations that catch people out.

“They waste their time and cost them money.”

Ministers are also drawing up a system to help airlines identify repeat troublemakers.

It comes after more than 1,000 serious disruptive incidents were logged last year.

It could make it easier to extend bans on passengers who repeatedly cause issues.

Holidaymakers will also be given greater flexibility to correct simple name errors including spelling mistakes on bookings for free – rather than facing charges

Rip-off airline charges including hidden fees for parents to sit next to children under 14 will be banned under government plans.

Holidaymakers will also be given greater flexibility to correct simple name errors including spelling mistakes on bookings for free – rather than facing charges.

Under the proposals unveiled today, airlines will be required to seat children under the age of 14 with a parent or adult accompanying them free of charge.

Andy Burnham said: “Charging parents just to sit with their children is a rip-off, plain and simple. And being hit with a hefty fee for a simple spelling mistake on a booking form isn’t right either.

“People are fed up with these little charges that add up, so I’m putting a stop to them. This is what our everyday fixes are all about. Giving people room to breathe by tackling the small irritations that catch people out, waste their time and cost them money.”

Earlier this year the Competition Markets Authority (CMA) investigated budget airline Ryanair over such charges costing around £8 each way.

Under the airline’s old policy parents had to book a “mandatory family seat” to sit with their children aged 2-11 in order to secure a seat when they flew.

But Ryanair – which the CMA said was the only major operator to charge such a fee – changed its policy in June with kids up to the age of 11 seated next to their parents free of charge.

It’s website now states: “For safety reasons, children aged between 2 and 11 years must sit next to an accompanying adult, and infants (8 days to 23 months inclusive) must sit on an accompanying adult’s lap. Families may choose either to reserve seats or select free random allocation.

“If random allocation is selected, children will be seated next to an accompanying adult on the same reservation free of charge. Other adults and teens on the booking may be allocated seats separately.”

The government said that while some airlines already offer protections on fees, the reforms will guarantee the same rights for passengers – despite who they fly with.

British Airways policy already makes clear children up to the age of 12 will be seated for free. It states: “To ensure your family has the best seats when you fly, we recommend choosing yours in advance when you book. There may be an additional fee for this.

“If you don’t choose your seats in advance, we always do our best to seat your family together based on flight seat availability. This may mean that you’ll be seated in adjacent rows or across the aisle. All children under 12 will be seated with an accompanying adult.”

EasyJet’s policy adds:”If you leave it to the last minute it’s possible that there may not be enough seats left for us to seat your family next to each other.

“We’ll still make sure each child under 12 is seated close to an adult on your booking. However we may only be able to arrange this at the airport or on board, which can cause delays for you and other passengers, and not everyone may be seated together.”

The government said the move was the latest in the PM’s attempts to give people breathing space, including action already unveiled on costly subscription traps and school uniform rip-offs.

Heidi Alexander, Transport Secretary, said: “Parents should not have to feel the pinch just to sit next to their child on a flight, or for amending a simple booking error. That’s why we’re scrapping these unnecessary charges for all airlines – another everyday fix to help put money back in people’s pockets and give households more breathing room.

“And everyone deserves to travel knowing their flight isn’t going to be disrupted by bad behaviour from a small minority. These common-sense reforms will make flying safer for staff and passengers and protect people from unnecessary charges, whoever they fly with.”

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, added: “It’s clearly unfair to force parents and children as young as three to pay an extra fee just to sit together. Airlines that have separated families are putting profit ahead of passenger peace of mind.

“Which? has successfully pressured many airlines into dropping these fees over the past ten years. So it’s welcome to see the government taking firm action on this by outlawing these charges completely and finally putting an end to this rip off.

“It is also positive to see greater flexibility to amend simple mistakes, protecting consumers from unnecessary charges.”