A small but growing number of Republicans are raising public concerns about the killing Saturday of a 37-year-old Minnesota man by federal agents.

Hours after the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti on a Minneapolis street, one House GOP chair called for the top ICE leader and other Trump administration officials to publicly answer lawmakers’ questions. GOP Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Thom Tillis of North Carolina called for independent probes into the shooting, with Cassidy arguing the integrity of ICE and the Department of Homeland Security are “at stake.”

Another House GOP chair appeared to suggest President Donald Trump should withdraw from Minneapolis and send the agents there to another city.

“If I were President Trump, I would almost think about, OK, if the mayor and governor are going put our ICE officials in harm’s way and there’s a chance of losing more innocent lives, or whatever, then maybe go to another city and let the people of Minneapolis decide: Do we want to continue to have all of these illegals?” Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said Sunday on Fox News, adding that he expected Minnesotans to “rebel against their leadership.”

However gentle and equivocal the pushback might be, it is growing increasingly conspicuous as congressional Republicans privately discuss how to respond to Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement campaign ahead of the midterm elections. Some Republicans have been privately warning administration officials and GOP leaders for months that the operation is not going over well in some pockets of the country.

“Many of us wonder if the administration has any clue as to how much this will hurt us legislatively and electorally this year,” said one House Republican granted anonymity to candidly discuss private reactions.

While some of those speaking out, like Tillis, are retiring or known to be at odds with Trump, not all fit that bill. Rep. Dusty Johnson, who called Sunday for “a thorough investigation” of the officer-involved shooting and for all parties to “deescalate,” is running in a June GOP primary to be South Dakota’s governor.

After House Homeland Security Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) called Saturday for ICE, Border Patrol and other DHS officials to testify before his panel, Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) praised the move, saying it was important “the American people and Congress be given a better understanding of how immigration enforcement is being handled.”

Still, most Hill Republicans have not weighed in publicly or are backing the Trump administration, which was quick to argue Pretti was a “domestic terrorist” intent on massacring federal agents. Eyewitness video shows no evidence he drew his weapon or otherwise threatened agents with deadly force before he was shot.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday that people are not allowed to carry a gun while committing another crime. “And interfering with law enforcement is a felony,” he added.

“Peaceful protesters don’t have 9mm weapons with two extra magazines,” Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) said on Fox News, referring to the concealed handgun Pretti had a permit to carry.

The shooting and backlash from Democrats has upended a crucial government funding package that the Senate was expected to pass this week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Saturday that Democrats won’t vote to advance the legislation so long as DHS funding is included, raising the likelihood of a partial shutdown at midnight Friday.

Amid the uncertainty, some Republicans have privately fretted about the lack of guidance coming from the Trump administration about the shooting. Four GOP lawmakers and several GOP aides noted they had received many more updates from the administration about the weekend’s major winter storm than the situation in Minneapolis or immigration enforcement operations generally.

Compounding the confusion, a DHS official sent an email alert with incorrect and contradictory information to congressional Republicans about three hours after the shooting Saturday, according to three people with direct knowledge of the message, which Blue Light News obtained.

The email described “the incident this morning between US Border Patrol officers and an illegal alien with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, who was wanted for violent assault.” But it linked to a DHS social media post that said federal agents were pursuing “an illegal alien wanted for violent assault” and then an “individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun,” referring to Pretti, who was a U.S. citizen.

As Republicans wrangle with the shooting, Democrats are discussing internally how to mount a response — with senators strategizing over the funding bill and House leaders considering options including targeting Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with sanctions.

There’s a growing demand in the caucus to impeach Noem, with one purple-district Democrat who voted for DHS funding last week, Rep. Laura Gillen of New York, publicly backing the move shortly after a Sunday morning caucus call.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and state Attorney General Keith Ellison, both former House Democrats, briefed the lawmakers on the private call.

Walz “sounded the alarm” over the “illegal” DHS activity in Minnesota, “and he urged everyone to unite and defend the integrity of the victims who are being smeared by the Trump administration,” said one House Democrat on the call who was granted anonymity because participants were encouraged not to leak its contents.

“This is dark, unthinkable stuff, but I’ve never seen Democrats more militantly united,” the lawmaker added.

Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump’s second term is already delivering a massive payday for Washington’s top lobbying shops — especially those with close ties to the administration.

According to disclosures filed this week, Trump’s wide-ranging policy upheavals across trade, tax, health care, tech, defense and energy boosted the bottom lines of almost every one of K Street’s biggest lobbying firms.

Thirteen of the largest 20 firms by revenue reported growth of 10 percent or more compared to 2024. In total, they brought in nearly $824 million, up from $595 million during the final year of the Biden administration.

Several reported their highest-ever annual revenues, including Ballard Partners, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, BGR Group, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Holland & Knight.

“The real driver was that it’s the most activity that we’ve seen from a first year of a new administration in a long time,” said Holland & Knight partner Paul Stimers, whose firm brought in $54.6 million in lobbying revenues last year.

While federal lobbying spending has been climbing steadily for the past decade — and the typical Year 1 of an administration also juices revenue — Trump’s aggressive use of executive power and influence is supercharging the trend.

“Every quarter it seems that there are more challenges and opportunities from the administration and Congress,” said Brownstein policy director Nadeam Elshami.

Some of the firms that saw the most dramatic windfalls were those with close ties to Trump and top administration officials.

Ballard Partners, which counts Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles among its alumni, signed more than 200 new clients after Trump’s election. It led K Street last year with more than $88.3 million in lobbying fees — a 350 percent increase from 2024.

In the fourth quarter alone, Ballard brought in more revenue than it did in all of 2024. (Blue Light News’s parent company, Axel Springer, was a Ballard Partners client for less than two months last year.)

Ballard contends that it’s focused on long-term success, beyond its sharp rise last year and close ties to the current administration.

“We remain doggedly committed to growing a fiercely bipartisan firm that is built to thrive in Washington’s dynamic political environment for decades to come,” said the firm’s founder and president Brian Ballard, who credited his employees for the firm’s growth.

Brownstein, K Street’s previous top earner and No. 2 for 2025, brought in $73.9 million in lobbying revenues last year, up from $67.9 million in 2024.

Coming in third last year was BGR Group, which employed former Wisconsin Republican Rep. Sean Duffy before he became Trump’s Secretary of Transportation. It also counts former Trump campaign adviser David Urban as a managing director. BGR reported $71.5 million in lobbying revenues last year, a 58 percent increase from 2024.

Among the upstart lobbying firms that cashed in on Trump’s second term were Continental Strategy, which was launched in 2021 by former Trump diplomat and adviser Carlos Trujillo. Continental, which also employs a top former aide to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and one of Wiles’ daughters, saw its lobbying revenues skyrocket from $1.8 million in 2024 to more than $27 million in 2025.

Checkmate Government Relations, which is led by Ches McDowell, a friend of Donald Trump Jr., reported receiving $70,000 from a single client at the end of 2024 but signed 80 clients and brought in more than $21 million in 2025.

Looking ahead, lobbyists expect trade to continue driving client interest in 2026, especially as businesses await the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs.

Even as they forecast a slowdown in legislation ahead of the midterm elections, lobbyists say they’ll also remain busy with congressional oversight, the government funding process as well as the administration’s latest foreign policy moves.

“Frankly, the lesson learned going forward is, Don’t be surprised,” Elshami said.

One of Congress’ loudest climate hawks is trying to fend off a push within his party to abandon calls to combat climate change as left-leaning agenda-setters are plotting to reclaim both chambers of Congress in the midterms.

“There’s a thing out there called a ‘climate husher,’” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, posted as part of a long social media thread last week.

“Anyone who cares about what fossil fuel pollution is doing to Earth’s natural systems needs to ignore these so-called ‘climate hushers’ — people who think Dems should stop talking about climate,” he said.

In a later interview about his posts, Whitehouse warned these “climate hushers” have also made their way into strategy conversations on Capitol Hill. He noted he’s been present for some of them, which he described as “polling presentations made to the Senate Democratic Caucus in a so-called strategy retreat that didn’t ask about climate change … There’s this massive blind spot.”

In recent years, Democrats have been handwringing over the best messaging on environmental issues to reach an electorate that cares about “kitchen table” matters – and doesn’t uniformly consider the rapidly warming planet to be one of them. Environmentalists made a strong argument during the 2024 presidential campaign that the climate crisis should be a motivator in electing Kamala Harris — but the contest went to Donald Trump.

Now Democrats are increasingly showing they have decided it’s a losing message to tout the ways in which they’d curb fossil fuel production to thwart the most dire effects of climate change. Instead, they’re choosing to focus on policies that would lower energy costs and lean hard into affordability talking points embraced by Trump and congressional Republicans.

Whitehouse understands the importance of talking about affordability — for years he’s spoken about the climate crisis as a threat to the global economy.

His social media thread notes that people are feeling the economic burdens of climate change throughout the country, from home insurance hikes to drops in property values.

That’s the message Democrats should lean into, he said, rather than shy away from.

“When leaders don’t talk about something, enthusiasm falls among voters,” Whitehouse wrote in his post. “In politics, you can often make your own wind, or you can make your own doldrums.”

This is something Democrats are grappling with on Capitol Hill. Interviews with a half dozen House and Senate Democrats revealed how many are still struggling with how to discuss climate change, a problem they consider existential but that doesn’t register among voters’ top immediate concerns.

Some are talking nearly exclusively about competitive prices for clean energy — largely in hopes of beating Republicans at their own messaging game.

“My theory of the case is that the argument that I’ve been making for 30 years is finally breaking through,” said Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.), a former clean energy professional.

“The urgency of climate change means that we have to focus on it especially when it’s not as salient with the American people, if we are to be the leaders we claim to be,” he added. “But I think that’s largely a separable conversation from what is the best way to talk about it in any given moment, that has the most ability to move public opinion.”

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who is on track to be the next Senate Democratic whip, has a similar perspective.

Last year, he removed “climate hawk,” along with other self-descriptions, from his bio on X. And during an event this fall affiliated with New York Climate Week, he said that “those of us in the climate community who are used to making a more broad argument about where we are in the sweep of history have to get comfortable making a more immediate argument that says the reason prices are going up is a deliberate policy choice of the Republican Party.”

Schatz said in a statement last week that he and Whitehouse were united in their ideas around “climate action,” but he also doubled down on the importance of affordability messaging at this time.

“There are think tanks and advocacy organizations that are dedicated to the proposition that climate action is incompatible with affordable energy, but those factional rivalries have been overtaken by events,” Schatz said. “Cheap is clean, and clean is cheap.”

Recent actions from the Democrats’ Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, or SEEC — of which Casten is vice-chair — have also focused squarely on energy costs and the ability of clean energy to lower Americans’ bills.

At a SEEC press conference earlier this month meant to respond to the last year of energy and environment policy under President Donald Trump, a roster of climate-focused Democrats spoke nearly exclusively about energy prices. “Trump lied; Energy costs are up,” read the main sign at the presser.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, said in an interview that Democrats need to focus on energy prices because Trump has used that as a justification for executive actions that bolster oil and gas.

“People, when they see the ways in which the energy policies that are serving big oil are hurting their pocketbooks, it makes it more tangible for why folks should care, in addition to the welfare of the planet,” Stansbury said.

Meanwhile, Republicans have picked up on the Democrats’ shift in talking points and have used it to their advantage.

“You actually see on the left, this debate going on right now, where a lot of people within the Democratic Party, they are talking about how they’ve lost the narrative, or the culture war, on climate,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said on Fox Business this month.

Left-leaning thinkers and independent analysts have also argued that Democrats may have gone too far in following the lead of environmental groups they say were out of touch with most Americans.

Columnist Matt Yglesias argued in a New York Times op-ed that Democrats should not be hostile to oil and gas. Longtime energy expert Daniel Yergin wrote in Foreign Affairs about the “troubled energy transition” and the need for a “pragmatic path” forward. And Veteran Democratic operative Adam Jentleson started the think tank the Searchlight Institute to curb the influence of the “groups” on party positions, including climate.

Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce’s Energy Subcommittee, downplayed the notion that congressional Democrats were at odds over how to message on climate change. Talking about affordability need not negate the focus on the impact of climate change, she said.

“I think they are one in the same,” Castor said. “Take my community in Florida. We’re still recovering from Hurricane Helen and Milton and people understand that those storms were supercharged because the Gulf was very, very hot, very warm. And the rain was unlike anything we’ve ever seen. So they are trying to afford rebuilding their homes and paying their property insurance and also suffering higher rate increases.”

Whitehouse in an interview acknowledged some shortcomings to Democrats’ past depictions of climate change “as sort of a moral imperative, as an intangible thing floating out there, something that will affect polar bears,” but said the solution wasn’t to be silent in calling out the harmful impacts of fossil fuel emissions and the influence of oil and gas companies on Trump administration policy.

Ultimately, there’s only so much he can do to press his case. In recent months he has organized forums on climate change as the senior Democrat on the Environment and Public Works panel, toured red states to talk about rising insurance rates related to natural disasters spurred by global warming and said he has commissioned his own polling on the issue.

Those activities, plus delivering speeches and crafting social media posts, are among the limits of what he can achieve with his party in the minority and his colleagues making their own messaging choices.

He isn’t giving up.

“Democrats and environmental groups’ climate messaging for years has been crap, and so if you go back to that crap messaging, obviously it’s not going to succeed,” Whitehouse said. “But that doesn’t mean that the alternative is to throw in the towel.”

Andres Picon and Timothy Cama contributed to this report.