Who Controls The Story? Narrative Control in The Wake of ICE Shootings
By Nizar Masri
On the morning of Jan. 24th, 37-year-old intensive care unit (ICU) nurse Alex Pretti was fatally shot by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis, Minn., during the protest of another ICE shooting that killed community member Renée Nicole Good in the city two weeks earlier.
Two hours and 25 minutes after the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security — led by Kristi Noem at the time — issued a statement on X that was notably conclusive, referring to Pretti as an “individual (who) wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”
Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, also made a statement on X the day of the shooting, this time calling Pretti an "assassin.”
The rhetoric from the Trump administration in the wake of the shooting was both swift and definitive; an investigation had not yet begun, but a narrative had already been declared. Public officials carry the power to define reality in the critical moments before facts emerge. That power is being used to shape public perception in ways that outlast the truth.
Multiple videos of the incident have been posted online. In those videos, Pretti appears to be filming ICE agents and putting himself between an agent's pepper spray and an unnamed protester. At no point in the video does Pretti reach for his weapon, which Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara confirmed to be legal and registered.
The footage presents a scene far more ambiguous than a clear act of terrorism. When officials rush to label a person as an "assassin,” they do more than offer an opinion. They assign motive and imply intent, crafting the moral framework through which the public will interpret every subsequent detail. In doing so, they shift the central question away from the actions of federal agents and towards the character of the deceased.
No longer are we asking ourselves if the use of force was justified and necessary; instead, we are debating whether or not Alex Pretti or Renée Good were the kind of people who deserved it. Despite this, ICE agents do not have the legal or moral authority to be judge, jury and executioner.
In the digital polarized age, the first version of events spreads the fastest and sticks the longest — corrections arrive later and quieter. By the time officials begin to walk back their claims, the damage is already done. People are no longer processing new evidence; they are defending or rejecting a story they have already internalized.
Swift official narratives often serve to stabilize institutional legitimacy in the immediate aftermath of a crisis. But when those narratives are delivered one-sided and from the very same agencies whose actions are in question, the line between communication and reputation management becomes blurred.
For Pretti’s family, the consequences are deeply personal. Michael and Susan Pretti have had to contend with their son being labeled a domestic terrorist by senior government officials. They condemned the administration’s characterization, calling the claims “sickening lies” in their interview with The New York Times. Their grief is compounded by the weight of a story that portrays their son as a threat rather than a human being whose final moments are still under investigation.
When those with the power to use force also wield the power to define the meaning of that force democratic oversight is weakened at its source. The same pattern repeats itself with every new crisis. Government officials are making false claims faster than they can be disproven. If Americans do not change course and quickly, reality will become inseparable from controlled narratives.
The question is no longer only what happened on Jan. 24. It is who gets to decide the story, and how committed Americans are to the truth.