Your ultimate weapon for resistance is already at your fingertips.
In a gripping video analyzed frame by frame, Alex Pretti is seen raising one hand while holding a phone in the other. Federal agents quickly tackle him, and one agent appears to discover and remove a gun from his hip. Then, shots ring out—first one, then another, followed by nine more as Pretti lies on the ground.
The administration has asserted that Pretti was shot due to his legally carried firearm, claiming that the agents, later identified as Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez, acted in self-defense. However, the real concern for the administration seems to be the phone Pretti was holding just before his death—a device that symbolizes the power of digital evidence and the ability to share it widely.
This moment captures the essence of countless individuals across the nation who rely on their phones to document and make sense of unfolding events. For those opposing federal immigration enforcement, technology—especially smartphones and social media—has become a vital tool for alerting others to ICE activities, organizing support, and providing real-time updates from the ground. To the administration, this represents a significant challenge.
The administration is well aware of the influence of information technology. Official accounts frequently share right-wing memes and narratives, while key figures, including the president, quickly utilize social media to present their version of events. Just before Pretti’s death, the administration leveraged social media to counter video evidence of another fatal incident involving a federal agent in Minneapolis, where 37-year-old Renee Good was killed. In a post, the president claimed Good had “viciously run over the ICE Officer,” referencing a distant video angle that he argued made it “hard to believe” the agent was in danger. However, a detailed analysis revealed that the agent was not in the path of Good’s vehicle when he fired.
Every administration has faced negative press and often sought to downplay its significance. Conservatives have pointed out that the current administration recognizes the power of social media to amplify information, as seen when officials urged platforms to combat medical misinformation during the pandemic.
Yet, the previous administration was particularly adept at manipulating technology to shape its narrative. It cultivated relationships with influencers who could spread messages more effectively than traditional media. Its rapid-fire meme responses to policy issues resonated with internet culture, and it aligned with platforms that facilitated information dissemination.
Trump learned the importance of controlling the platforms where narratives are formed during his first term. The public outcry following the release of a bystander’s video showing Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck for nine minutes sparked nationwide protests and led to significant, albeit often temporary, changes. While Trump acknowledged the public’s outrage over Floyd’s death, he also blamed antifa and “professional anarchists” for inciting his decision to deploy more law enforcement to manage the protests.
On a personal level, Trump harbors resentment after being banned from major social media platforms in 2021 due to concerns he might incite further violence following the Capitol insurrection. A year later, he launched his own platform, Truth Social. By the time he sought re-election, Elon Musk, a supporter who briefly joined his administration, owned X (formerly Twitter). Instead of banning TikTok as required, Trump extended the deadline for a forced sale until ByteDance reached an agreement with his allies.
Lawmakers from both parties pushed for a TikTok sale, fearing that a foreign government could manipulate narratives reaching American users. Some blamed the app for deepening generational divides over issues like Israel. In an era where tech platforms largely operate without oversight, policymakers are understandably concerned about which messages are amplified and recognize the immense power of controlling these channels. Musk, who once championed free speech, quickly deplatformed journalists who reported on his private jet’s movements, highlighting the reality that private companies are not public forums, yet they significantly influence the narratives that shape our understanding.
This is why the administration has acted swiftly to counter and sometimes suppress opposing narratives online. Following the death of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, some conservative lawmakers pressured employers and platforms to take action against those who criticized him. The U.S. Attorney General pledged to target individuals using “hate speech,” clarifying that threats of violence are not protected under the First Amendment. Reports indicated that many faced repercussions from their employers for comments related to Kirk’s death, whether they celebrated, mocked, or simply critiqued his views.
Administration officials have also targeted platforms that amplify dissenting voices. The Federal Communications Commission Chair threatened broadcasters airing comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s show after he joked about conservatives’ reactions to Kirk’s death. More recently, amid backlash against ICE in liberal cities, the FBI Director promised to investigate Signal groups sharing information about immigration agents. Following pressure from the administration, Apple and Google removed apps that allowed users to report ICE sightings.
As private companies, tech platforms are not legally obligated to keep such apps or posts available, but the First Amendment and Section 230 protect their right to manage third-party content. While Section 230 has become a target for critics of Big Tech, supporters warn that dismantling it could lead platforms to restrict speech they deem risky to avoid legal liability.
The Trump administration recognized technology’s power, with the president being a prolific user of Twitter. However, his cabinet included more officials willing to challenge his most controversial actions, resulting in more checks on his power. Today, with Republicans controlling Congress and many lawmakers aligning their fates with Trump, the environment has become more conducive to chilling threats against free speech.
Despite this, the social media landscape still allows events like Pretti’s death to resonate across the internet, prompting unexpected communities to speak out. After the shooting, when the Department of Homeland Security Secretary claimed Pretti was “brandishing” a weapon to cause “maximum damage,” many had already seen the videos and chose to trust their own observations.
While Pretti’s phone didn’t save him, those who recorded his death at the hands of federal agents played a crucial role in revealing the truth of what happened in Minneapolis, ensuring that many could not look away. For an administration intent on controlling the narrative, this represents a formidable threat.
