Over the past several years, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) stood at the forefront of federal law-enforcement transparency and accountability. At a time when public trust in policing was eroding nationwide, CBP built an oversight model that was not merely reactive or rhetorical, but structural, well-resourced, and unusually transparent.
That progress is now at risk.
CBP’s recent actions appear to signal a departure from the framework that allowed it to become a national leader in handling the most difficult and politically charged incidents a law-enforcement agency can face. If that course is not corrected immediately, CBP’s hard-won reputation for credibility, transparency, and accountability may be lost. The U.S. government’s handling of Alex Pretti’s death, at the hands of CBP agents in Minneapolis last month, brings this concern to a head.
How CBP Built a World-Class Oversight Model
CBP’s transformation did not happen by accident. It was born of tragedy.
In late 2018, two Guatemalan children died while in CBP custody, exposing serious deficiencies in medical screening, care, and oversight. The U.S. Congress responded with more than hearings or rhetoric. Beginning in fiscal year 2022, it made a substantial, bipartisan investment in CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) with explicit expectations for transparency, standardized reporting, and accountability.
That investment allowed OPR to expand to approximately 550 special agents, making it the largest internal oversight organization within the Department of Homeland Security. OPR was empowered to build a critical incidents program capable of responding nationwide to officer and agent-involved shootings, other uses of force, employee deaths, vehicle-pursuits involving serious injuries or fatalities, and deaths in custody. Just as importantly, OPR was designated as the coordinating authority, making it responsible for validating facts, coordinating with external investigative entities, and ensuring timely notification to Congress and the public.
This was a deliberate institutional design choice. Independence, expertise, and transparency were treated as operational necessities, not public-relations options.
Proof, Not Promises
That model was tested repeatedly — and publicly.
OPR led the investigation into the 2021 Del Rio Horse Patrol incident, examined the tragic death of Anadith Reyes, an eight-year-old girl who died while in CBP custody after delayed medical care, and reviewed the use of force by Border Patrol tactical officers following the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. CBP also oversaw the routine release of body worn camera footage related to officer-involved shootings. In each case, CBP did not retreat from scrutiny, even when the findings were uncomfortable.
What set CBP apart was not the absence of tragedy — no law-enforcement agency can promise that — but the refusal to obscure it. CBP routinely published in-custody death notifications to Congress and the public, investigative summaries, and body-worn camera footage, regardless of whether the material reflected well on the agency. It also published its investigative standards and review frameworks, allowing Congress, courts, journalists, and the public to evaluate not just outcomes, but the process.
Anyone skeptical of this claim can review the record at CBP’s public transparency portal. Compared to the more than sixty federal law-enforcement agencies operating today, CBP was not merely performing better within the same system. It was operating under a fundamentally different one.
The Inflection Point
That credibility depended on one core principle: investigative independence anchored inside the agency but structurally insulated from operational command.
CBP policy is explicit on this point. OPR is designated as the agency’s lead for critical-incident response, review of uses of force, and coordination with external investigative entities, including the FBI. This structure was built, staffed, trained, and exercised.
Recent actions to shift or dilute that responsibility — including assigning Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) to assume a lead role in managing CBP use-of-force reviews — risk undermining that framework. HSI is a capable law enforcement organization, but it does not have CBP OPR’s mandate, policy authority, or institutional role in examining the actions of CBP personnel. Substituting it for OPR is not a neutral administrative adjustment. It is a rollback.
Why Minneapolis Is the Moment That Matters
The recent CBP shooting in Minneapolis is not simply another high-profile incident. It is a stress test, where failure is resulting in an erosion of both congressional and public confidence in the established oversight mechanism.
CBP complied with its obligation to notify Congress within 72 hours of the shooting. That initial notification, prepared by OPR, was factual, and consistent with long-standing policy. It made no analytical judgments.
However, more than ten days after the incident, CBP has not issued the corresponding 72-hour public notification, despite having done so consistently in more than one hundred prior in-custody deaths. This omission is a departure from established practice at precisely the moment when transparency matters most.
Publicly filed court documents now shed additional light. Sworn affidavits filed in federal court confirm that CBP OPR has the authority and responsibility to oversee CBP use-of-force incidents. Indeed, between 12 and 14 OPR personnel were deployed and present in Minneapolis, where they were prepared to respond to critical incidents and bring specialized investigative expertise to bear at the time of the incident.
Despite that capacity and mandate, OPR did not collect evidence at the scene and was relegated to an assisting posture. A separate sworn declaration confirms that HSI was designated to serve as the lead investigative entity for the use of force review.
This is not a question of competence. It is a question of institutional legitimacy and public confidence. CBP OPR routinely conducts shooting reviews in coordination with the FBI, manages bifurcated criminal and civil-rights processes, and serves as the institutional firewall that protects investigative integrity and public confidence. HSI was not designed to serve as CBP’s internal use-of-force oversight authority, and its mission and training framework differ materially from the specialized oversight functions Congress assigned to OPR.
The Fix Is Immediate
CBP does not need new policy or new oversight mechanisms. The solution already exists.
First, CBP should immediately publish the public in-custody death notification, as required and as it has done consistently in past cases. Second, CBP should issue a public update, clearly explaining OPR’s role in the investigation and providing any appropriate updates. This would confirm the oversight system the public and Congress have come to trust is active and functioning.
Breaking from policy at this moment is not simply imprudent, it risks eroding the exact credibility these protocols were enacted to protect. Exceptions jeopardize the safeguards Congress funded and CBP implemented.
CBP built a world-class oversight model with bipartisan support, significant investment, and real results. Minneapolis presents a choice: reaffirm that system or allow a quiet deviation to erode credibility in ways no after-action report can repair.
Transparency is not a concession. It is essential. Will CBP act while it still can?
Author’s Note: I write this as the former head of investigations for CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility. Everything described above is drawn from publicly available policies, statements, and court filings and can be checked at the links provided. No nonpublic or privileged information is relied upon.
– Daniel Altman, Published courtesy of Just Security.
