Category: Fact Checking

After 37-year-old Alex Pretti was fatally shot at the hands of U.S. Border Patrol agents Jan. 24, 2026, in Minneapolis, some members of President Donald Trump’s administration painted Pretti as a violent instigator because he was carrying a loaded gun while protesting. 

In a Jan. 25 Fox News appearance, in reference to Pretti’s death, FBI Director Kash Patel said (at 5:10), “You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple. You don’t have a right to break the law and incite violence.” 

In response, many social media users questioned Patel’s comments or disputed them — including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, a gun rights advocacy group, which called Patel “completely incorrect on Minnesota law.” 

Patel’s comments also came after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — among other officials and Trump allies — implied that carrying a firearm gave officers a reason to shoot Pretti in self-defense. “I don’t know of any peaceful protesters that show up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign,” Noem said at a Jan. 24 news conference (see 0:58). 

In fact, Minneapolis statutes, Minnesota state law and federal law all allow licensed gun owners to carry firearms, even loaded, in almost all public spaces, including at a protest. As such, we have rated the claim that licensed gun owners can legally carry a gun in Minnesota at a protest as true, meaning Patel’s comments were inaccurate. 

Minneapolis police chief Brian O’Hara said on Jan. 26 that based on “every indication we have,” Pretti, an intensive care unit nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital, was “lawfully permitted to be armed in a public space.”

City, state laws permit carrying guns at a protest

According to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, there were, as of this writing, four Minnesota statutes that describe where gun permit holders are prohibited from carrying a firearm: sections 243.55, 609.66, 624.714 and 641.165. (See the answer on this webpage to “Where am I prohibited from carrying my pistol?”) 

A Snopes review of these four statutes found no provisions prohibiting licensed gun owners from carrying a loaded firearm to a protest. 

Minnesota statute Section 243.55 prohibits people from carrying guns into a state correctional facility or state hospital; 609.66 prohibits firearm possession in courthouses, certain state buildings and on school property; and 641.165 prohibits taking guns into jails, lockups and correctional facilities. 

The final statute, Section 624.714, largely concerns penalties for carrying a weapon without a permit. The law simply states that carrying a permit in a public space requires a permit (emphasis ours): 

A person, other than a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1, who carries, holds, or possesses a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile, or boat, or on or about the person’s clothes or the person, or otherwise in possession or control in a public place, as defined in section 624.7181, subdivision 1, paragraph (c), without first having obtained a permit to carry the pistol is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. A person who is convicted a second or subsequent time is guilty of a felony.

An employee at the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, Betsy Haugen, also provided via email a 2022 report from Minnesota’s nonpartisan Senate Counsel, Research, and Fiscal Analysis Office, which stated that under the terms of Minnesota gun permits, a license holder may carry in “most locations in the state,” either openly or under concealment. The list of prohibited spaces in the report did not include protests or public spaces in general (see Page 2): 

However, generally illegal to carry (with certain exceptions) on most public/private elementary, middle, or secondary school property, school buses, licensed childcare centers, courthouse complexes, federal buildings, correctional facilities, and state hospitals. Requires most private establishments (defined broadly) to conspicuously post a sign in the establishment or personally inform the carrier that firearms are prohibited in the establishment to prohibit carrying. Churches/houses of worship and homeowners/lawful possessors of private residences may prohibit carrying by any lawful manner.

Furthermore, both of the city of Minneapolis’ ordinances on firearm possession in public — 393.90 and 393.95 — state that the provisions’ restrictions do not apply to valid permit holders. The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, which prosecutes crimes in Minneapolis, also confirmed via email that licensed gun owners can legally carry a loaded firearm to a protest in the city.

None of the laws above state that permit holders cannot carry loaded weapons in public settings generally, including at a protest. 

Federal right to bear arms 

The Supreme Court held in a 2022 case — New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen — that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment generally protects the right to bear arms in public (see Page 2). 

While this right is subject to licensure requirements and numerous exceptions, the Supreme Court has not recognized protests as an exception to Second Amendment rights, said Matthew Cavedon, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice. 

“No federal laws prohibit bringing loaded guns into public spaces or to protests,” Cavedon wrote in an email to Snopes. 

That’s backed up by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which, alongside the four Minnesota statutes, included one federal law under the list of provisions describing where people are prohibited from carrying firearms (see “Where am I prohibited from carrying my pistol?”). 

That law was 18 United States Code Section 930, which bans people from carrying a gun in federal facilities. It does not prohibit people from carrying a gun to a protest. 

The U.S. Concealed Carry Association, an organization dedicated to educating and training gun owners, lists federal facilities and property, schools and Native American reservations as “federally designated places where weapons are banned, even with a permit.” The organization did not list protests as one of those spaces. 

Sources

In January 2026, posts on social media platforms such as Facebook and X claimed that Tom Homan, U.S. President Donald Trump’s “border czar” — an unofficial title for the top adviser and decision-maker on issues related to immigration and the southern border — had previously served as former President Barack Obama’s “ICE chief” and received a medal for his record number of deportations. 

The posts argued that criticism of Homan was hypocritical, noting he had supposedly been honored for deporting people during the Obama administration while being “called a Nazi” for similar actions under Trump.

Snopes readers wrote in seeking clarification about Homan’s history at Immigration and Customs Enforcement and whether he had received an award under Obama.

We found the claim was a mixture of true and false information. 

Homan never held the position of “ICE chief,” a title that does not officially exist. Snopes interpreted the term to mean the agency’s highest-ranking official, the director. While Homan did not lead the entire agency under Obama, he held senior leadership roles at ICE, including executive associate director of Enforcement and Removal Operations. The Washington Post described that position in 2016 as the “top enforcement job” within the agency. 

Homan served as ICE director from 2017 to 2018, during Trump’s first presidential term. He did not hold that position during the Obama administration. 

Social media posts accurately stated that Homan received the Presidential Rank Award for distinguished service in 2015, during Obama’s second term. The Post reported that the White House credited Homan’s “success expanding arrests and detention beds for the recent surge in children and families fleeing violence in Central America” as justification for the award. Snopes was unable to independently verify that statement.

It is worth noting that a widely shared photo claiming to show Obama awarding Homan a medal was digitally altered. According to a 2026 memo (archived) documenting the selection process for the award, honorees receive a “framed certificate signed by the president” and a “Rank Award pin.”

Homan’s history

According to archived biographies of Homan available through Congressional websites, he joined the Border Patrol as an agent in 1984 and later became an agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a precursor to ICE, in 1988. Homan became the assistant district director for investigations in San Antonio, Texas, in 1999, before transferring to Dallas in the same role. When ICE was officially created in 2003, Homan was named the assistant special agent in charge of the Dallas office.

During Obama’s first presidential term, Homan was named the assistant director for ERO at ICE headquarters in 2009, promoted to deputy executive associate director at an unspecified point in time and later named executive associate director for ERO in May 2013. 

According to The Washington Post, the position of executive associate director for ERO was the “top enforcement job” at ICE. The article also noted that he was “really good” at deporting people. As previously mentioned, his success in expanding arrests was reportedly cited as one reason he received the Presidential Rank Award in 2015 (more on that below).

It was only in 2017, during Trump’s first term, that Homan was appointed acting director of ICE. He retired from that position in June 2018, according to CNN. 

After retiring from ICE, Homan occasionally appeared on Fox News. Snopes previously reported that he also helped contribute to Project 2025, a blueprint for reshaping the federal government from the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. The Trump administration has enacted a wide range of policies from the document. 

After Trump was re-elected in 2024, he tapped Homan to serve as his “border czar.” Czar is an unofficial term used to describe the president’s decision-makers on certain issues, according to NPR. In this case, that’s the southern border.

The Presidential Rank Award

In 2015, according to documents and websites from the Office of Personnel Management and ICE, Homan was awarded the Presidential Rank Award for distinguished service, alongside 42 other civil-service executives (archived).

The award was created to “recognize a select group of career members of the Senior Executive Service,” the highest level of non-appointed civil servants in the government, according to OPM. There are two categories of the award: the “meritorious rank” and “distinguished rank,” with the distinguished rank award that Homan received being more selective. 

An OPM webpage (archived) announcing the honor stated Homan was “instrumental in leading ERO at a time of extraordinary challenges and unprecedented achievements.” In a news release, ICE also credited him (archived) with overseeing the removal of hundreds of thousands of people from the U.S., including “criminal aliens,” and with leading expansions to detention facilities and border-enforcement operations. 

The award is given to no more than than 1% of executive civil servants and is meant to recognize “sustained extraordinary accomplishment.” Awardees “receive a cash award of 35 percent of their base salary,” according to OPM. 

According to a 2026 OPM memo detailing the selection process (archived), department and agency heads nominate senior executives for the award, with a maximum of 9% of staff eligible for nomination. OPM first conducts an initial review based on documentation submitted by department heads. Then, a smaller list of candidates receives on-site evaluations, which include background checks on the nominee’s performance, “character or conduct of a potential finalist,” and history of criminal activity or tax avoidance. The department heads then affirm the finalized list of nominees, assuring they “would not cause embarrassment to the agency or the Administration of the Office of the President.” OPM then submits the names of finalists to the president, who makes the final decision. 

Snopes reviewed the legislation, but it was unclear how involved the president must be in the final selections.

Sources

On Jan. 24, 2026, at least one federal agent in Minneapolis fatally shot Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse who had been participating in protests against U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. Videos of the shooting quickly spread on social media, with many users questioning their authenticity.

An image claiming to show Pretti being shot and falling was among the content that spread online following the shooting. The image appeared to capture Pretti wearing a brown jacket, on one knee and about to fall onto his side. The right side of the image showed what appeared to be three federal agents: one kneeling on the ground, another with his gun pointed at Pretti’s head and one holding a gun in the background.

Snopes readers shared different versions of the image, which varied in quality. The one below shows many details of the moment in question, including the shadows on people’s clothes and Pretti’s hair:

(X user @fred_guttenberg)

Another version of the same image featured a blurry background:

(Facebook user “Tony Michaels”)

Neither of the above images is an entirely authentic depiction of the moment in question. Rather, both appeared to be AI-enhanced and edited versions of a blurred screenshot taken from verified footage showing Pretti being shot and falling to the ground. All footage of the incident that Snopes has reviews was low-quality and blurry.

A blurrier version of the above images spread online. Unlike the others, it was an authentic and unedited screengrab from a video showing the moment Pretti was shot.

(X user @fred_guttenberg)

Determining the authenticity of the screengrab

The moment above appeared in authenticated footage of the shooting. The video below was taken by a woman wearing pink and filming from the sidewalk, as confirmed by The New York Times and other media outlets. Pretti was shot and fell to his side around the 1:03 mark as seen in this video from Drop Site News. 

We took a screengrab of that moment in the video:

(Screengrab via Drop Site News)

Pretti falls to the side at the same angle seen in the claims above. The positioning of the federal agents on the right side of the frame is also the same — one agent is kneeling with his right knee on the ground and his left knee propped up, while another stands over Pretti. 

On the left side of the AI-enhanced screengrab, only part of another agent’s leg is visible, while in the authentic video, he is in frame.  

MPR News, a Minnesota-focused news outlet, obtained a higher-quality version of the video. At 37 seconds, Pretti can be seen falling sideways at the same angle shown in the above screenshot.

A stabilized version of the video circulated online, showing clearly the moment Pretti falls. A screenshot of the moment is shown below:

(X user @AFStreamWatch)

A video taken from behind Pretti, in which the woman in pink can be seen filming, shows his body falling to the left:

(Screengrab via The New York Times)

Identifying editing, manipulation in enhanced videos

The images shared online contain a number of red flags. First, there is no available footage from that angle that shows the level of detail visible in the images.

We ran one of the enhanced images through AI-detection tools SightEngine and Hive Moderation. SightEngine determined it was uncertain whether the image had been manipulated using AI, while Hive Moderation indicated a low likelihood that the image had AI-generated content. (Research shows AI-detection software is imperfect, and readers should consider the tools’ results with skepticism.)

The second image in question contained several editing errors. First, the federal agent kneeling on the ground is missing his left foot. Second, the dark-colored X logos on the pink door and window frames in the background appear to be disrupted in multiple places. Original footage shows an uninterrupted pattern of Xs in the background.  

Pretti had been participating in protests after the killing of Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in early January 2026. The Department of Homeland Security claimed he approached federal officers with a handgun. Bystander videos show he was holding only a phone, and news analysis of the videos showed agents had already secured the handgun Pretti was carrying before shooting him. Pretti’s family told The Associated Press that he had a permit to carry a concealed handgun in Minnesota.

Snopes has looked into rumors about photographs and footage surrounding shootings and arrests by federal agents in Minneapolis, including miscaptioned photographs claiming to show Good before her killing.  

Sources

The Department of Homeland Security hasn’t provided evidence for some statements administration officials made within hours of the Jan. 24 fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, and some of those statements appear to be contradicted by bystander video shared publicly so far.

Multiple analyses of videos of the killing raise questions about the administration’s account that Pretti “approached” officers with a handgun, “violently resisted” an attempt to “disarm” him, and “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

We’d caution that it’s early in the investigation and that more information should be revealed, particularly about what happened before what’s shown in available bystander videos. DHS told NBC News that there is body-camera video available from multiple federal agents, but those videos have not been publicly released.

Pretti, a 37-year-old man who worked as an intensive care unit nurse, had a handgun when he was wrestled to the ground by immigration officers. But it’s unclear when exactly officers were aware of the weapon and whether Pretti had shown the gun or threatened officers with it, as administration comments have suggested.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara told CBS News that Pretti “did have a permit for the handgun to carry it.” In Minnesota, a permit is required to carry a gun in public, and the gun doesn’t need to be concealed.

Pretti was shot and killed by Border Patrol officers shortly after 9 a.m. Central time. Media reports soon said that according to DHS, Pretti had a gun. At 11:31 a.m. Central time, DHS posted a statement on X. “At 9:05 AM CT, as DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, seen here,” DHS said, providing a picture of the handgun on what appears to be the seat of a car. “The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots. … The suspect also had 2 magazines and no ID—this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

In separate press conferences the same day, Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol commander in charge of the immigration operation in Minneapolis, and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem made similar statements, using much of the DHS language, including the speculation that Pretti wanted to “kill” (Noem’s wording) or “massacre” (Bovino’s) law enforcement officers.

“This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” Bovino said.

Noem said that Pretti had “attacked those officers, had a weapon on him, and multiple, dozens of rounds of ammunition, wishing to inflict harm on these officers coming, brandishing like that, and impeding their work that they were doing.”

Bovino didn’t answer questions from reporters about when agents knew about Pretti’s firearm and whether he ever brandished it at agents. “This is under investigation. Those facts will come to light,” he said.

On Truth Social, President Donald Trump posted the DHS picture of the firearm and raised questions about intent, calling Pretti a “gunman.” Trump said: “This is the gunman’s gun, loaded (with two additional full magazines!), and ready to go – What is that all about?”

On X, Stephen Miller, the White House’s homeland security adviser and a deputy chief of staff, went further than the DHS or Trump statements, writing that an “assassin tried to murder federal agents.”

Multiple analyses of the videos of the incident available so far do not show Pretti holding the gun or threatening law enforcement officials with it. Again, more information, particularly about Pretti’s earlier interactions with law enforcement, may later be revealed.

O’Hara told CBS News on Jan. 25, “I cannot speculate, but I do not have any – any evidence that I have seen that suggests that the weapon was brandished.”

John Cohen, a former acting DHS undersecretary for intelligence, a police trainer and an ABC News contributor, told the network, “What the videos depict is that this guy did not walk up to anybody from CBP in a threatening manner.” Cohen said that “there’s nothing in the video evidence that we’ve seen thus far” to support DHS’ statement that he intended to shoot law enforcement officers.”

In the videos, Pretti is seen holding his phone, appearing to record video of the federal officers in the street, moments before an altercation where agents push another apparent demonstrator to the ground and then use pepper spray on Pretti. Several agents then force Pretti to the ground as he appears to resist. An agent removes a gun from Pretti’s waistband, and Pretti is shot multiple times.

The Minnesota Star Tribune reviewed more than six videos as well as accounts from eyewitnesses. “The footage does not show him [Pretti] pointing a firearm, attempting to fire a weapon, or advancing toward agents with a gun raised. He is instead captured holding a cellphone, appearing to record,” the newspaper wrote.

“Federal officials have released no evidence supporting claims about Pretti’s intent,” the Star Tribune also said. “Under Minnesota law, carrying a handgun in public is legal with a permit, and law enforcement sources said Pretti was a lawful gun owner.”

The New York Times wrote in its analysis of videos, “About eight seconds after he is pinned, agents yell that he has a gun, indicating that they may not have known he was armed until he was on the ground.” One agent “pulls a gun from among the group that appears to match the profile of a firearm DHS said belonged to Mr. Pretti. The agents appear to have him under their control, with his arms pinned near his head. As the gun emerges from the melee, another agent aims his own firearm at Mr. Pretti’s back and appears to fire one shot at close range.”

In its breakdown of available videos, the Washington Post wrote that “[l]ess than a second” after an agent “emerged from the scrum” with Pretti’s firearm, “the first of what appear to be 10 shots was fired. It is not clear from the video whether the other agents realized Pretti — who local authorities believe had a permit to carry the weapon — had been disarmed.”

Hearst Television’s National Investigative Unit also reviewed multiple video angles of the shooting. One angle shows an officer crouching at Pretti’s side, Hearst said, and “searching Pretti’s clothing and is heard saying, ‘Where’s the gun?’ Another officer, a distance away, responds, ‘I’ve got the gun.’”

“At no time in any of the three videos reviewed is Pretti seen brandishing a gun,” Hearst said.

CNN said that “taken together,” cell phone footage from multiple angles, appears “at odds with the Department of Homeland Security’s initial claims about the lead up to officers firing on Alex Pretti.”

One of the videos it analyzed “seems to show officers approaching Pretti instead of the other way around. We’ll see later that Pretti does appear to have had a gun in his waistband, but this video shows he didn’t have a gun in his hand, only a phone,” CNN said.

On Jan. 25, a day after the shooting, CNN’s Dana Bash repeatedly pressed Bovino about the evidence behind DHS’ statements. She asked whether Pretti was “brandishing” the gun, as Noem had said. “Was he brandishing it? Was he a threat because he had a gun in his hand that put law enforcement in danger?” Bash asked.

Bovino responded: “Dana, we heard the law enforcement officer say, ‘Gun, gun, gun.’ So, at some point, they knew there was a gun. So, again, that is going to be part of that investigation as to what was happening on the ground there between those victims, the Border Patrol agent victims, and the suspect.” He later said that Pretti “brought a semiautomatic weapon to a riot, assaulted federal officers, and at some point they saw that weapon. So I do believe the secretary is 100% spot on in what she said.”

We asked DHS about the agency’s early statements on the shooting, including what Noem meant when she said Pretti was “brandishing” a weapon. We haven’t received a response.

CNN said when it asked DHS about an agent removing Pretti’s gun before the shooting, it repeated the statement that “officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted.”

When asked on Jan. 25 by a Wall Street Journal reporter whether the shooting by federal agents was justified, Trump didn’t defend the shooting as DHS had. “We’re looking, we’re reviewing everything and will come out with a determination,” he said.

“I don’t like any shooting. I don’t like it,” Trump said, according to the Journal. “But I don’t like it when somebody goes into a protest and he’s got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn’t play good either.”

D’Angelo Gore contributed to this story.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

After Border Patrol agents fatally shot Veterans Affairs ICU nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis in late January 2026, a social media post attributed to U.S. President Donald Trump began to make the rounds in which Trump allegedly said “ONLY CRIMINALS CARRY GUNS ON OUR STREETS” as a form of justification for federal officers killing Pretti. 

For example, writer and podcast host Kara Swisher shared on Threads what appeared to be a screenshot of the supposed post (archived):

(Threads user @karaswisher)

Other users on X and Facebook shared the same screenshot, with the same number of replies, shares and likes. In addition, Snopes readers emailed and searched the website seeking confirmation that Trump had posted these words on his Truth Social network. 

The supposed screenshot was fake. Snopes could find no evidence Trump had written such a post. Instead, everything indicated it was a fabrication. 

Various internet searches showed no reputable news outlet had reported that Trump said these words. A search of his Truth Social posts and an independent archive of them did not reveal any such post.

Had the post been real, users likely would have shared multiple screenshots of it, with different numbers of replies, shares and likes.

The earliest instance Snopes could find of someone sharing the fake screenshot was post by an account that identified itself as @trumpetnick80 on Threads on Jan. 24 — the day CBP officers killed Pretti. This account appeared to share a mix of false and true information, including fake and real posts. We reached out to the account to inquire about the origin of the image. (Several other references to the post appear to have been deleted.)

However, The Wall Street Journal (archived) reported that Trump did criticize Pretti during an interview, saying: “I don’t like it when somebody goes into a protest, and he’s got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn’t play good either.”

For further reading, we’ve covered a number of rumors surrounding an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shooting Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, 2026, including the analysis of an image purportedly showing her car was aimed at the agent.

Bynum, Russ. “What to Know about the Fatal ICE Shooting in Minneapolis.” AP News, 8 Jan. 2026, apnews.com/article/minnesota-ice-shooting-immigration-842b1d92cb93f2326171f139686e8b0f. Accessed 12 Jan. 2026.

Duster, Chandelis. “Nationwide Anti-ICE Protests Call for Accountability after Renee Good’s Death.” NPR, 10 Jan. 2026, www.npr.org/2026/01/10/nx-s1-5673229/ice-protests-minneapolis-portland-renee-good. Accessed 12 Jan. 2026.

Faguy, Ana. “Dozens Arrested and One Police Officer Injured in Minneapolis ICE Protests.” BBC, 10 Jan. 2026, www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgpnwnqygro. Accessed 12 Jan. 2026.

“ICE Officer Who Shot Renee Good in Minneapolis Has Served Decades in Military and Law Enforcement.” AP News, 9 Jan. 2026, https://apnews.com/article/immigration-minnesota-jonathan-ross-b9ce88da676d74ec6a1ab36aa55fbda1.

Okyere, Elaine. “Video Filmed by ICE Agent Who Shot Minneapolis Woman Emerges.” BBC, 9 Jan. 2026, www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7yv4524gqo. Accessed 12 Jan. 2026.

Sawyer, Liz, Andy Mannix and Sarah Nelson. “ICE agent who fatally shot woman in Minneapolis was dragged by car in earlier incident.” Minnesota Star Tribune, 8 Jan., 2026, https://www.startribune.com/ice-agent-who-fatally-shot-woman-in-minneapolis-is-identified/601560214. Accessed 12 Jan. 2026.

Sullivan, Tim, and Giovanna Dell’Orto. “Minneapolis Shooting Reported as Federal Agents Conduct an Immigration Enforcement Surge.” AP News, 7 Jan. 2026, apnews.com/article/minnesota-immigration-enforcement-shooting-crackdown-surge-173e00fa7388054e98c3b5b9417c1e5a. Accessed 12 Jan. 2026.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “Today, in an Act of Domestic Terrorism, an Anti-ICE Rioter…” X (Formerly Twitter), 7 Jan. 2026, x.com/DHSgov/status/2009058387418562922?s=20. Accessed 12 Jan. 2026.

In January 2026, a claim circulated online that a time-traveling man had recorded numerous videos of him stuck in the year 2055.

For example, one X user posted a video (archived) featuring a montage of clips purportedly showing the man, wearing a white mask, in deserted locations in France, such as the Louvre. The narrator claimed the man “can’t find a way back” to the present. At one point, the man pulled a bottle out of a near-empty vending machine and showed the expiration date — April 2, 2055 — to the camera.

The X user who posted the montage claimed nobody had been able to debunk the videos:

THIS MAN CLAIMS HE’S STUCK IN FRANCE IN THE YEAR 2055 – AND NO ONE CAN DEBUNK HIS VIDEOS

For YEARS, he’s uploaded clips claiming he’s trapped decades in the future. There are no people. No traffic. No sound. But the power is still on. Vending machines still work.

Stores are stocked entirely with PlayStation 7 games – a console that doesn’t exist.  One vending machine has one bottle of soda left inside. The date on it reads APRIL 2055. The product itself has never been seen before – anywhere.

Then reality breaks.

He films the Mona Lisa from inches away – there are no guards, no alarms, no tourists.  Same thing at the Eiffel Tower.  Empty. Silent. Frozen in time.

He started posting these videos BEFORE AI video tools existed.

So if it’s fake, why hasn’t anyone proven how? And if it’s real… where did everyone go?

The rumor (archived) about the alleged time-traveling man also appeared on TikTok (archived), Instagram (archived) and Facebook (archived), with some videos featuring locations outside of France.

In short, the man was not a visitor from the future and his videos did not depict future ghost towns. 

Aside from the fact time traveling is impossible (at least, as of this writing), the creator of the footage — TikTok user @whitemask2055 — labeled it a creative project, not a factual recounting of real-life events.

For eagle-eyed viewers, several visual clues in the videos debunked the alleged conspiracy theory.

For example, numerous videos featuring the masked man showed yellow bottle caps with expiration dates in the future. However, despite the caps being on bottles of various brands that showed up in different videos, the caps featured the same expiration date: April 2, 2055. 

This could be seen in clips showing a bottle of Fanta (archived), bottles of Perrier (archived) and bottles of Limedrink (archived).

Another clue was in a video of the man supposedly playing the unreleased, as of this writing, Grand Theft Auto VI video game (archived). Here, the video’s creator repurposed the final minute of another video by YouTuber CHRI TV (archived), who creates (archived) concept art and gameplay for the unreleased video game.

We traced the clips to @whitemask2055’s accounts on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube (archived, archived, archived). The videos were in French and many included the hashtag #fakesituation. 

The earliest example of a video supposedly “from the future” was posted on October 2022 (archived), with a caption claiming it showed the year 2054.

About one year later, in October 2023, the social media user posted a video (archived) in which he explained the posts did not depict real time travel footage and that the #fakesituation hashtag was evidence of him explicitly labeling the creative project what it is. In a TikTok video (archived) about a year later, he also discussed the work behind the videos.

In both of those recordings, the social media user showed crowds of people in the background to show he was not really in a deserted future France.

In January 2026, social media users shared a story about a man, Grady Johnson, who allegedly jumped into Los Angeles’ La Brea Tar Pits in June 1951 to save his dog. The posts included a photograph purportedly depicting the aftermath of the rescue. The picture, according to the posts, showed Johnson covered in hardened tar.

For example, one Facebook page said (archived) Johnson’s dog “slipped through the deceptively solid surface and vanished into the ancient asphalt,” and, without thinking, Johnson leapt after him, “plunging into a substance that had claimed countless animals over more than 50,000 years.” The caption claimed that emergency crews pulled Johnson and his dog free and that the pair were “shaken but unharmed.” Referencing the photo, the Facebook page wrote:

The image that emerged afterward was as haunting as it was iconic: Grady standing upright, entirely coated in hardened tar, resembling a fossil unearthed from deep time. In that single frame, devotion, danger, and survival were frozen together, a testament to the lengths love can drive a person.

The picture and iterations of the story appeared elsewhere on Facebook and Instagram.

La Brea Tar Pits is an active fossil dig site that is part of the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County. Located in LA’s Hancock Park neighborhood, the naturally occurring tar pits have preserved the fossils of pre-historic animals.

In short, a man did jump into the La Brea Tar Pits in June 1951 in an attempt to rescue a dog. However, some details in the social media posts were not accurate, as outlined below. It was also not clear whether the dog belonged to the man. Additionally, while the photograph shared alongside the claim was authentic — which means it was not generated using artificial intelligence (AI) software — it depicted a different incident. Therefore, this claim contained a mixture of true and false information.

True story behind June 1951 incident

On June 25, 1951, Los Angeles area newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times, Pasadena Star-News and Los Angeles Evening Citizen News, reported on an incident the previous day involving a man jumping into the tar pits after a dog.

The LA Times wrote a “curious little dog yesterday sniffed the edges of the La Brea Pitts. Then fearlessly it stepped into the murky blackness.” The newspaper then said three boys jumped a fence intending to rescue the dog, “but just as they were to plunge in after the animal,” a 42-year-old man, Jack Young (not Grady Johnson), “leaped into the tar to scoop up the dog.” 

(The Los Angeles Times)

According to the report, the boys then “held a long stick” out to the man and pulled him to safety, along with the canine. 

Medics took Young to a hospital to treat his injuries, and the dog “died en route” to an animal shelter, according to the newspaper archives. 

Details in other newspaper reports matched the LA Times’ story, which included a photo caption saying the incident occurred “yesterday” (June 24, 1951).

The reputable image repository Getty Images contained at least four photos of the incident’s aftermath; one depicting emergency service workers carrying a tar-covered Young away on a stretcher, two showing nurses removing the tar from his body and another featuring the boys with the dog. 

The dates and names in the Getty Images captions matched those in the newspaper reports.

(Getty Images)

Story behind photo in social media posts

The picture in social media posts was authentic, depicting a man standing upright and covered in what some users suggested was “hardened tar.” However, it was not from the 1951 La Brea Tar Pits incident. 

Reverse image searches revealed that the photograph has circulated online since at least 2013. It has been attached to a variety of claims. 

The photo could also be found on Getty Images. According to its caption, the picture depicted a different event that took place months earlier, in February 1951, also in Los Angeles. Getty’s caption read: 

Apparently a case of mistaken identity even before the syrup-and-feather treatment, real estate broker Charles S. Smith said three men mistook him for somebody else, held him prisoner in a house trailer for three days and nights, and then did this to him. Dr. Ernest Fogelberg (left) and Dr. R.E. Faylor at the Tri-City Emergency Hospital treated the 49-year-old man for mild shock and administered a good scrubbing.

The Redwood City Tribune reported on the assault in its Feb. 23, 1951, edition. The story stated that the real estate broker was “found doused with syrup and feathers, like a tar-and-feathering.” 

According to the paper, three men accused Smith of operating a “rental racket” and then assaulted, bound, starved and robbed him. They reportedly returned him to his office two days after the initial attack, where “they stripped him, poured syrup over him and rubbed feathers into the sticky covering.” Smith maintained he was “not engaged in the rental business” and “had never seen any of them before.”

In early January 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump urged Republican lawmakers to pass legislation known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a federal bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote (see 24:45). 

Following Trump’s remarks — and renewed calls to pass the SAVE Act from various Republican lawmakers on social media — House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said his caucus “was looking at” sending the Senate an even stricter version of the bill that would require photo identification (see 9:07). While the current version of the SAVE Act would require photo ID to register to vote, Scalise appeared to be referring to an additional requirement during the act of voting itself.

In response, some social media users raised alarms about the SAVE Act’s potential impact on voting rights, particularly for married women, claiming it would prevent prospective voters from using a birth certificate as proof of citizenship if the name on the document does not match their current legal name — such as women who took their husbands’ last names.

Since at least 2024, social media users on Facebook, X, Bluesky and Reddit have spread claims about the SAVE Act and its possible effects on women’s voting rights. 

Snopes readers also asked us whether claims the SAVE Act would make it harder for women to vote or restrict married women’s voting rights were true. One post readers sent to us claimed that under the SAVE Act, “married women must let their husbands vote for them.” 

The SAVE Act is a real bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, requiring documentary proof of American citizenship to register to vote. For many Americans, that’s a birth certificate — but should an applicant use a birth certificate to prove citizenship, they must present it alongside a government-issued photo ID. If the documents don’t match, applicants may have to produce additional documentation, which could make it more difficult to vote for married women and other people who undergo legal name changes. 

In an emailed statement in February 2025, Roy dismissed allegations about the SAVE Act disenfranchising women and other voters as “absurd armchair speculation being spun up by media outlets who care more about clicks than reality.” He pointed to language in the legislation directing states to “establish a process for individuals to register to vote if there are discrepancies in their proof of citizenship documents due to something like a name change.” 

The SAVE Act passed the House in 2024 and in 2025. It is not law as of this writing. President Donald Trump can sign the SAVE Act into law only if both chambers of Congress pass it, and in order to bypass a filibuster — a tactic used to indefinitely delay final passage of a bill — the Senate needs a three-fifths majority vote, which Republicans cannot reach without Democratic support. 

Snopes reached out to Roy, Scalise and Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, to ask for more information about what an updated effort to pass the newer version of the SAVE Act might look like. We will update this story if they respond. 

What is the SAVE Act? 

The SAVE Act would require prospective voters to bring — in person — documents proving that they are U.S. citizens each time they register to vote, including if they are looking to reregister in a different state. This would also block states from allowing voter registration online or by mail, which many currently do. 

Acceptable documents, per the bill, are passports, government-issued photo ID cards that include an applicant’s place of birth and REAL ID-compliant identification — enhanced driver’s licenses (not just a standard driver’s license) or other documents that meet standards set forth in the REAL ID Act of 2005 (see Division B). In order to receive your first passport or REAL ID-compliant ID, proof of citizenship is required — usually a birth certificate if you were born in the United States.

Military ID cards also are accepted if they are presented alongside “a United States military record of service showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.”

Any other government-issued photo ID card is acceptable only if shown with specific documents, the most common being a certified birth certificate that meets certain qualifications, such as whether it includes the date the certificate was filed with the state records office. 

Other documents accepted as proof of citizenship when offered alongside photo ID are adoption decrees, U.S. hospital birth records, consulate birth reports, naturalization certificates and American Indian Cards with the classification “KIC,” which denotes U.S. citizenship for Mexican-born members of the Kickapoo tribes of Texas and Oklahoma. 

Readers also asked Snopes whether the SAVE Act would affect people already registered to vote. The Associated Press reported that Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican supporting the bill, said it wouldn’t. Nothing in the bill explicitly says it would affect voters who are already registered and do not need to update their registration. We reached out to Roy for confirmation on this and will update the story if we hear back. 

How might the SAVE Act affect women? 

As Roy told Snopes, the SAVE Act directs states to create a process for acceptable proof-of-citizenship documentation for applicants whose citizenship documents do not align with their legal name. The relevant part of the legislation is below (emphasis ours): 

(B) PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship.

However, having to produce additional documentation could likely make it more difficult for married women and other people who have legally changed their name since birth to register to vote. Marriage certificates as proof of citizenship are not explicitly listed as an acceptable form of documentation in the bill. 

A 2023 Pew Research survey found 8 in 10 American women said they took their husband’s last name, and a 2006 survey by the Brennan Center, a progressive policy think tank that opposes the SAVE Act, found only 66% of voting-age women have a document with their current legal name proving citizenship. 

What if you don’t have your birth certificate? 

Another Brennan Center survey in 2024 found that more than 9% of voting-age Americans, or 21.3 million people, don’t have proof-of-citizenship documents readily available, and 3.8 million don’t have the documents at all — “often because they were lost, destroyed, or stolen.” 

The bill also directs states to establish a process for applicants without documentary proof of citizenship to provide “other evidence to the appropriate state or local official demonstrating that the applicant is a citizen of the United States.” If the official determines the applicant has “sufficiently established United States citizenship” and the applicant signs a legally binding document attesting that they are a citizen, they may then register to vote. (Voters already attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury — a federal crime — when they vote.) 

But the SAVE Act does not include funding for states to implement these potential new requirements, nor does it provide guidance to states on what “sufficient evidence” looks like. Election infrastructure in the United States is reportedly chronically underfunded, and critics say state officials may struggle to implement the SAVE Act without additional funding, resulting in possible delays for voters. 

The SAVE Act would also have a disproportionate impact on demographic groups who are less likely to have proof-of-citizenship documents, including low-income citizens, voters younger than 29 and older than 80 years old, and Hispanic citizens, according to the Institute for Responsive Government, a nonpartisan think tank promoting more-efficient government.

Advocates for disability rights also expressed concern about the SAVE Act. While it directs states to offer “reasonable accommodations” to people with disabilities, it does not specify what those accommodations might be. The act is opposed by 145 civil rights organizations, including the ACLU and the League of Women Voters. 

Why do Republicans support the SAVE Act?

In a resolution passed by the Republican-controlled House, the SAVE Act received special privileges to help fast-track it through the House. In a news release, Roy claimed the legislation protects “the integrity and sanctity of American elections.” Here is his rationale, per the release:

Millions of illegal aliens remain in our country illegally and many have been given the opportunity to register to vote in federal elections. The SAVE Act would thwart Democrat efforts to cement one-party rule by upholding and strengthening current law that permits only U.S. citizens to vote in Federal elections.

In Roy’s February statement to Snopes, he said the bill is “being attacked because the policy is wildly popular with the American people, its opponents want and need illegals to vote, and they’ll use anything they can to attack it.” 

The claim that noncitizens often vote in American elections has been repeatedly debunked, including by Snopes. As we have said before, noncitizens rarely vote in American elections — some credible estimates are as low as 0.0001% for suspected noncitizen voting, less likely than the chance you’ll be struck by lightning in your lifetime.

What do the courts think? A case study in Kansas

The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts by state governments to enact proof-of-citizenship voter-registration laws similar to the SAVE Act. That includes an Arizona ballot initiative passed in 2004, a Kansas law passed in 2011 and efforts by Alabama, Georgia and Kansas to amend the federal voter-registration form to require proof of citizenship documentation in 2016.

The 2004 and 2016 efforts were found to violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993’s requirement that states “accept and use” federal voter-registration forms, but the SAVE Act seeks to amend the 1993 act. 

Arizona tried again in 2022 to pass a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement to register to vote, and in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that for now, Arizona can require proof-of-citizenship documents for state but not federal elections. No final opinion has been made in this case, which was sent back to a lower court. 

In contrast, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2020 that the 2011 Kansas law violated not only federal law, but the 14th Amendment, which addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. That case’s plaintiffs included five American citizens who were denied voter registration because they couldn’t produce the right documents. One plaintiff was “born on a decommissioned Air Force base” and had difficulty finding his birth certificate; another “credibly testified” that paying for a new birth certificate would “impact whether she could pay rent.” 

Kansas’ law “grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory,” The Associated Press wrote. Kansas Secretary of State Steve Schwab, the state’s top election official who championed the law as a legislator, “now says states and the federal government shouldn’t touch it,” according to the AP.

Court documents say more than 31,000 Kansans were denied voter registration because they couldn’t provide documentary proof of citizenship — representing 12.4% of new voter registrations between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 11, 2015. 

Sources