Tom Homan went on CNN Friday and did something unusual for a senior administration figure under fire: he drew a clear line between himself and a cabinet secretary's public statements, then refused to say anything that might compromise an active investigation.

President Trump's border czar appeared on CNN's News Central and was pressed by anchor Sara Sidner about the shooting death of Minneapolis man Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had claimed last month that Pretti brandished a gun before he was killed. Sidner pointed out that video evidence tells a different story.

"Pretti was not brandishing a gun. The gun was on his hip and was taken by Border Patrol officers, on video, and he was shot and killed after that. Does your agency, or the entire agency, have a lying problem?"

The Daily Beast reported that Homan's response was measured and deliberate. He separated himself from Noem's characterization without throwing her under the bus.

"I don't know what information the secretary had when she made those statements. I can tell you I didn't make those statements."

He then refused to offer his personal assessment of the shooting, saying he didn't want to "influence an investigation." That restraint is worth noting. In a political environment where everyone races to the nearest microphone to deliver a verdict before the facts are in, Homan chose process over performance.

"I have an opinion, and I won't share my opinion, because I want a thorough investigation. If people violated the law, if people violated policy, they need to be held accountable."

The Bovino problem

Sidner also raised the case of Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino, who led the Trump administration's immigration enforcement push in both Chicago and Minneapolis. Last November, a federal judge found that Bovino had lied in a deposition about being hit in the head with a rock, a claim he used to justify deploying tear gas against protesters in Chicago.

When Sidner asked whether there was an investigation into Bovino's deposition conduct, Homan redirected cleanly: "That'd be a question for the secretary." He then described the standard process for handling misconduct.

"If anybody acts outside of policy, then internal affairs opens an investigation. That's the way we handle it."

This is the right answer, even if it's not the dramatic one. An enforcement apparatus that cannot police its own ranks loses credibility with the public it serves.

Conservatives who champion law and order understand that the principle applies to the enforcers too, not as a concession to the left, but because accountability is what separates legitimate authority from raw power.

A new chain of command in Minneapolis

The backdrop to all of this is a personnel shakeup. President Trump deployed Homan to lead on-the-ground immigration enforcement in Minneapolis, effectively replacing both Noem and Bovino in the operational chain.

Last week, Homan outlined plans to defuse tensions in the area by withdrawing 700 federal immigration officers from Minnesota and establishing what he called a "unified chain of command so everybody knows what's going on."

"This is smart law enforcement, and smart law enforcement makes us safer."

The move reads as a course correction. Minneapolis had become a flashpoint, and when operations generate more chaos than compliance, consolidating leadership under someone with Homan's operational credibility is a straightforward management decision.

Fewer boots on the ground, clearer authority, tighter command structure. That is how you scale enforcement without the situation spiraling further.

The Noem question

Noem and Homan have reportedly been feuding for months, though the exact contours of their disagreement remain murky. What is visible is the divergence in approach. Noem claimed Pretti was a "domestic terrorist" who wanted to harm federal agents.

Trump administration officials used similar language to characterize Renee Good, a Minneapolis woman shot by ICE agent Jonathan Ross. These characterizations ran ahead of the evidence and created problems that Homan is now being asked to clean up on national television.

There is a lesson here that conservatives should absorb honestly. The case for enforcing immigration law is overwhelming on the merits. Public safety, sovereignty, the rule of law: these arguments win when they are grounded in facts.

They lose ground every time an official makes a claim that video footage contradicts. The left doesn't need to be handed ammunition. They manufacture plenty on their own.

Homan seems to understand this. His refusal to speculate, his insistence on process, his willingness to say "I didn't make those statements" rather than defend claims he didn't believe in: all of it signals that the priority is getting the operation right, not winning a news cycle.

The investigation into Pretti's shooting continues, though the investigating authority and its current status remain unclear. The Department of Homeland Security has not publicly commented on the discrepancies between Noem's statements and the video evidence.

For conservatives, the takeaway is not complicated. Immigration enforcement is necessary, popular, and legally sound. But enforcement without discipline produces the kind of headlines that let sanctuary city mayors play the victim. Homan's deployment to Minneapolis suggests the administration knows the difference between being tough and being reckless.

The mission doesn't change. The execution has to be clean enough to withstand scrutiny. That's not a liberal standard. That's a professional one.