Here is the news article, written in the requested format.

---

CBP has a history of excessive force. Critics say they were unprepared for Minnesota

A severe leadership shake-up in President Trump's federal law enforcement surge in Minnesota has failed to quell mounting criticism that the operation is fundamentally flawed. Following two fatal shootings of U.S. citizens by federal agents, the White House has removed Operation Commander Gregory Bovino and dispatched former "Border Czar" Tom Homan to assume control, a move that underscores the crisis's gravity.

The change in command, however, does little to address the core concern voiced by law enforcement experts, sociologists, and former federal trainers: the agents being deployed, primarily from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), lack the specific training, experience, and mindset required for urban policing and crowd control. The result is a dangerous mismatch that critics argue is escalating tensions rather than restoring order.

Why It Matters: A Strategic Mismatch

The deployment of thousands of federal agents to the Twin Cities places officers trained for remote border interdictions into complex, volatile urban environments. This strategic choice is now under intense scrutiny as experts question whether the agents' skills are transferable, or if they are, in fact, contributing to the chaos.

Irene Vega, an associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine, who has studied CBP culture extensively, calls the situation "very dangerous." Her research, which included interviews with over 90 CBP officers, reveals an organizational mindset shaped by the unique conditions of the U.S. border.

• Training Profile: Vega notes that officers described their training as focused on desert tracking and patrol. "They would tell me that they were trained to hike in the desert," she states.
• Enforcement Experience: The typical enforcement action for these officers involves arresting small, compliant groups of individuals in isolated areas, a stark contrast to confronting large, agitated crowds in a dense city.
• Use-of-Force Calculus: The isolation of the border directly influences tactical decisions. One officer explained to Vega that without the option of taking cover in an urban landscape, the imperative is to neutralize a threat immediately. "He said, 'I'm going to have to do what I have to do,'" Vega recalls.

A History of Scrutiny

CBP's use-of-force policies have been a source of significant controversy long before the events in Minnesota. For years, the agency faced immense pressure to reform its practices, particularly regarding the use of deadly force against individuals throwing rocks from across the border.

This pressure culminated in a critical external review in 2013, which delivered a damning assessment of the agency's conduct.

The report concluded that "too many cases do not appear to meet the test of objective reasonableness with regard to the use of deadly force." It specifically faulted agents for, in some instances, putting themselves in danger by remaining close to rock throwers when they could have moved to a safer distance.

Following the report, CBP updated its use-of-force handbook in 2014, mandating that officers be equipped with less-lethal options, such as pepper spray and other chemical irritants.

From Border Tactic to Urban Escalant

Those same less-lethal tools are now being used extensively on the streets of Minneapolis, but their application is drawing sharp criticism for inflaming confrontations. In the moments leading up to the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse, reports indicate the use of pepper spray appeared to escalate the encounter.

Leon Taylor, a retired Baltimore police officer and former military peacekeeper, argues that the federal agents are failing to adhere to a fundamental principle of policing.

• Duty of Care: Taylor emphasizes the legal and ethical obligation an officer has for an individual they have incapacitated. "If [a pepper-sprayed person] stumbles out into traffic and gets run over and killed, that's on me," he explains. "There's a duty of care."
• Escalation vs. De-escalation: Analyzing video from Minnesota, Taylor and other former officers conclude that federal agents are consistently escalating conflicts. "They live in a toxic environment of their own creation that has nothing to do with policing," he says.
• The Role of Leadership: Taylor points to rhetoric from high-level officials, such as Vice President Vance's reported comments about "immunity," as a critical failure. He argues the message should be one of responsibility, not impunity. "If they told these guys instead... that you have an absolute responsibility, instead of absolute immunity… it starts with the mindset."

The Training Gap

The gap between the agents' training and their current mission is a known issue, even among those who designed the curriculum.

David "Kawika" Lau, a former senior instructor at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), helped shape the de-escalation training implemented after the 2013 report. This training emphasizes emotional intelligence, self-awareness, and self-regulation to calmly manage confrontations.

However, Lau issues a critical warning.

• Training's Intent: These de-escalation techniques were designed to defuse one-on-one encounters, not to manage large, raucous crowds.
• Mission Mismatch: Lau is candid about the limitations of CBP's design. "That is not what that position [CBP officer] was designed to do," he states. "Therefore, that's not what the training is designed to produce."

The Official Perspective

For its part, federal agency leadership acknowledges the challenges. CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott told Fox News that his agents are being forced into an unfamiliar and difficult role.

"The primary training was to go out and arrest suspects, which is already dangerous," Scott said. "This entire environment, where the community is encouraged by local leaders to come out and actually prevent you from making a felony arrest, it's a new dynamic. We're trying to evolve to it."

What's Next

The appointment of Tom Homan, an enforcement hardliner, signals the administration is doubling down on its strategy, prioritizing control over de-escalation. Yet, the core problem remains: the agents on the ground appear ill-equipped for the mission they have been assigned.

The coming days will reveal whether a change in leadership can correct the course of a deployment plagued by a fundamental mismatch in training, tactics, and temperament. Failure to do so risks further violence, a deeper erosion of public trust, and continued questions about the wisdom of using border patrol agents as an urban police force.