On Saturday, January 24, federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old Minneapolis nurse and American citizen. It was the second fatal shooting by federal immigration enforcement in Minneapolis this month, following the January 7 killing of Renee Good.

The response from veteran Democrats has been immediate and unsparing. Rep. Seth Moulton, a Marine who served four combat tours in Iraq, didn’t mince words in a video posted to social media hours after the shooting.

Moulton, who is currently challenging Sen. Ed Markey in the Massachusetts Democratic primary, went further in a subsequent television appearance. He called for acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and the agents involved to face prosecution. He described senior White House adviser Stephen Miller as a “domestic terrorist.”

The language is striking. But Moulton isn’t alone. Across the country, veteran Democrats with combat experience are applying military standards to federal law enforcement and finding ICE tactics fall far short.

Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona knows something about weapons discipline. The Marine Corps veteran served in Iraq with Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines. After watching video of ICE agents in Minneapolis, he had specific critiques rooted in his military training.

Gallego went on to call for ICE to be “totally torn down,” describing the agency as Trump’s “goon squad” that has abandoned its mission of targeting dangerous criminals. The Arizona senator has been outspoken since the first Minneapolis shooting, warning Phoenix residents that similar operations may target their city next.

His critique matters because it’s specific. Gallego isn’t offering abstract policy objections. He’s identifying exactly what any drill instructor would flag: improper weapons handling, lack of tactical discipline, and behavior that would earn a private a sharp correction on the first day of training.

Rep. Jake Auchincloss represents Massachusetts’ 4th Congressional District. The Marine veteran commanded infantry in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province in 2012 and led a reconnaissance unit in Panama in 2014. He continues to serve in the Marine Corps Reserve as a major.

Auchincloss voted against the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, specifically citing ICE’s conduct. His critique focused on systemic failures in training and accountability.

In a combative Fox News interview with Peter Doocy, Auchincloss pressed the point further. When Doocy attempted to shift blame to the victims, Auchincloss responded: “When you have a badge and a gun and you’re interacting with a U.S. citizen who has committed no crime, the onus of responsibility is on you to exercise good judgment and to use that weapon only as an absolute last resort.”

That framing matters. Auchincloss isn’t asking ICE to be defunded. He’s asking agents to meet the same professional standards that military personnel must meet when operating in far more dangerous environments.

Graham Platner is running for U.S. Senate in Maine, challenging Susan Collins. His military record spans eight years and four combat deployments: three tours in Iraq with the Marine Corps (including Fallujah and Ramadi) and one tour in Afghanistan with the Army National Guard.

When ICE launched “Operation Catch of the Day” in Maine on January 21, targeting Portland and Lewiston, Platner didn’t issue a statement from his campaign office. He showed up.

On January 24, Platner spoke to a crowd of 1,000 protesters in Lewiston. He appeared on Morning Joe calling ICE a “political paramilitary group.” On social media, he posted videos advising residents on their rights during ICE encounters.

The statement sounds radical until you consider who’s making it. Platner isn’t a progressive activist who’s never held a weapon. He’s a combat veteran who led Marines in some of the most dangerous fighting of the Iraq War. When he calls ICE agents unprofessional, he’s comparing them to the 19-year-olds he trained to clear buildings in Fallujah.

Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado brings Army Ranger credentials to the discussion. The former paratrooper served three combat tours, including deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s now in his fourth term representing Colorado’s 6th Congressional District.

Crow’s response to ICE operations has focused on congressional leverage. In mid-January, he told reporters that a government shutdown “should always be on the table” as Democrats seek ways to curb ICE operations.

It’s a tactical assessment, not a policy preference. Crow understands that Democrats lack the votes to directly rein in ICE, but the upcoming budget debate offers opportunities for negotiation. His willingness to discuss shutdown as leverage reflects the same calculated risk assessment that served him in combat zones.

The veteran Democrats critiquing ICE aren’t making abstract arguments. They’re applying specific professional standards that govern the use of force in military operations.

This is the core of the veteran Democrat critique. It’s not anti-law enforcement. It’s pro-professionalism. They’re demanding that federal agents operating on American streets meet the same standards that military personnel must meet in war zones.

For veteran Democrats running in 2026, the ICE crisis presents both risk and opportunity.

The risk is obvious. Immigration remains a polarizing issue, and “abolish ICE” rhetoric polls poorly with swing voters. Any Democrat calling for ICE to be “torn down” invites attack ads painting them as soft on border security.

But veteran Democrats have something others don’t: unimpeachable credentials on national security. When Gallego criticizes ICE tactics, Republicans can’t credibly call him weak on defense. When Moulton demands accountability, his four combat tours speak louder than any attack ad.

Platner’s situation in Maine illustrates this dynamic. His opponent, Susan Collins, has avoided taking a clear position on ICE operations. When asked by the Washington Post, she called for body cameras and de-escalation training but wouldn’t say whether the Minneapolis operations should continue. She declined an interview request.

That caution creates an opening. Platner can draw a stark contrast: the combat veteran who shows up at protests versus the career politician who issues carefully hedged statements. In a state where independent voters decide elections, that contrast matters.

The Minneapolis crisis isn’t ending. As of this writing, federal agents remain deployed across the Twin Cities. Governor Tim Walz has ordered the Minnesota National Guard to a state of preparedness. Calls for Walz to deploy guard troops to arrest ICE agents have come from figures including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Keith Olbermann.

For veteran Democrats, the coming weeks offer continued opportunities to demonstrate leadership. Every time an ICE agent uses excessive force, every time the administration offers implausible justifications, veterans with combat experience can offer informed counter-narratives.

The question isn’t whether veteran Democrats will continue speaking out. They will. The question is whether voters in 2026 reward candidates who applied military standards to federal law enforcement when it mattered most.

There’s a reason veteran Democrats are leading this critique. Their military service provides a credibility that career politicians simply cannot match on issues of force, discipline, and professional conduct.

When Seth Moulton says ICE agents are “cowards,” he’s not using rhetoric. He’s making a professional assessment from someone who has seen what courage under fire actually looks like. When Ruben Gallego critiques weapons handling, he’s applying standards he learned at Parris Island and enforced in Fallujah. When Graham Platner calls ICE a “paramilitary group,” he’s distinguishing them from the professional military forces he served alongside.

This is the Alpha Democrat advantage in action. On an issue where Democrats have traditionally been vulnerable, veteran candidates can lead with strength. They can demand accountability without being dismissed as anti-law enforcement. They can call for reform without being painted as soft on security.

As Minneapolis burns and the body count rises, that credibility may matter more than any policy paper or focus group. Voters want leaders who understand both when force is necessary and when it crosses the line. Veteran Democrats have that understanding. They earned it in places far more dangerous than the streets of Minneapolis.