Frame by frame analysis of an eyewitness video the new York TimesAlex Pretty raises one hand and holds the phone in the other hand. Federal agents tackle him, and one appears to find and remove a gun placed on his hip. Then, one agent opens fire – and another follows. When Preeti is lying on the ground, they are seen firing nine more bullets.
The Trump administration has claimed Preeti was shot with a legally held gun – which agents later identified in records viewed ProPublica Border Patrol Agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officer Raymundo Gutierrez acted in self-defense. But the device he was holding seconds before he was killed is the one the Trump administration is really afraid of — and one it has had to work hard to control.
The phone Preeti was holding — like the one the audience used to record her murder and share it with the world — had a kind of power that the Trump administration has repeatedly identified as both a threat and a tool, depending on who was using it.
The scene of Preeti holding her phone moments before her death is symbolic for millions of people turning to digital evidence and online forums to understand the events happening across the country. For those who oppose the federal government’s immigration enforcement tactics, technology – particularly in the form of phones and social media – has become one of the strongest defenses, whether used to alert others to ICE’s presence, organize actions and assistance, or help people from afar see what is happening on the ground. For the Trump administration, this is a clear thorn in its side.
The administration recognizes and utilizes the power of information technology. Official government accounts regularly share right-wing memes that speak of authoritarians and white supremacists, while Cabinet secretaries and President Donald Trump quickly jumped on X&Truth social to broadcast their version of events. Shortly before Pretty’s murder, authorities used social media to counter video evidence of another murder on the streets of Minneapolis: the murder of 37-year-old Renee Good at the hands of a federal agent. In a Truth Social post, Trump claimed that Goode “brutally crushed the ICE officer,” and pointed to a bizarre and far-fetched aspect of the incident, which he said made it “hard to believe” that the agent was alive. A Times Analysis of multiple angles of the shooting – including those taken very close to the incident – found that “the agent was not in the path of the victim’s SUV when he fired three shots at close range.”
The phone Preeti was carrying had the kind of power that the Trump administration has repeatedly identified as both a threat and a tool
Officials in each administration have dismissed negative press reports or downplayed their significance. Conservatives often point out that the Biden administration recognized the immense power of social media platforms to amplify information — with administration officials urging platforms to remove or limit the spread of medical misinformation during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Yet, the Trump administration has proven particularly willing to ignore obvious truths and particularly savvy in using technology to shape its narrative of history. It is condescending towards influencers, believing that they can be as effective, if not more so, than traditional media at spreading messages far and wide. Its sharp reflexive recall on policy issues speaks the language of the Internet fluently. And it is associated with or built upon platforms that facilitate the flow of information.
Trump learned an important lesson after his first term in office about how valuable it can be to control the platforms where narratives spread. In 2020, a bystander’s video of Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, kneeling on the neck of a Black man named George Floyd for nine minutes sparked protests in cities across the country, and led to tangible – albeit short-lived – change. Trump said Americans were “rightly sickened and revolted” by Floyd’s “brutal death,” but he also blamed antifa and “professional anarchists” for fueling his pledge to deploy additional law enforcement to quell demonstrations.
He also harbors more personal grudges. In 2021, Trump was removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube due to concerns that he would incite further violence following the insurrection at the US Capitol. A year later, he launched his own social platform, Truth Social. By the time he was elected to a second term, Elon Musk, a Trump supporter who briefly joined the administration, owned the recently renamed Twitter X. And instead of banning TikTok as required by law last year, Trump claimed to forcefully extend the sale deadline until ByteDance eventually reached an agreement with some of its close allies.
A big reason why lawmakers from both parties voted to force the sale of TikTok was that they feared an adversarial government could control what narratives ultimately reach American users. Some have already blamed the app for creating generational differences in Americans’ views on Israel. It’s not surprising that in an era where tech platforms are left mostly to their own devices to determine what voices can and cannot be heard, policymakers would be concerned about what messages are able to get through – and would realize the unmatched potential of owning those pipes. Before buying Twitter, Musk waxed poetic about being an absolutist of free speech, then almost immediately removed journalists from the platform who pointed to public information about the whereabouts of his private jet. Musk’s actions reveal what has long been true about social media platforms: Privately held businesses are not truly a public square, yet they continue to shape the messages that inform our reality.
That’s why the administration has also moved quickly to counter, and sometimes suppress, stories spread online by opponents. Following the killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk by a gunman at a university in Utah, some conservative lawmakers and activists pressured employers and platforms to take action against people who posted critical comments about Kirk, and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi promised to target those using “hate speech” before clarifying that “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is protected by the First Amendment.” is not done.” reuters found that hundreds of people faced consequences from employers over their comments related to Kirk’s murder – while some celebrated or mocked his death, others simply repeated Kirk’s own words or criticized his political stances.
In many cases, administration officials have directly targeted platforms that promote opposition messages. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr threatened broadcasters carrying comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s show after he joked about conservatives’ reaction to Kirk’s death. Recently, amid a backlash in more liberal cities against ICE, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel promised to investigate Signal groups where users share information about the activities of immigration agents. And after criticism from the administration, both Apple and Google removed apps that notified users of ICE sightings in public places.
As private sector businesses, tech platforms do not have a legal obligation to ensure that these types of apps or users’ posts remain available, but the First Amendment and Section 230 protect their choice to leave or remove third-party content anyway. While Section 230 has become a common target of Big Tech critics, supporters of the law warn that eliminating it could encourage platforms to limit speech they deem risky in a way that could invite legal liability.
Trump’s first administration also recognized the power of technology. The President was notoriously a powerful user of what was then called Twitter. But at the time, his Cabinet included more officials willing to push back on the most norm-breaking actions, and the president often faced greater scrutiny on his power. Today, Republicans control both houses of Congress, and many of the remaining lawmakers have tied their political fortunes to Trump. This has created an environment where threats against speech are likely to be worse than ever before.
Protesters stood on the cold streets of Minneapolis holding their phones and records
Yet, in today’s social media landscape, it is still possible for an incident like Preeti’s death to shock people on all corners of the internet and inspire some unexpected online communities to speak out. Soon after the shooting, when Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that Preeti was “wielding” a weapon with the intention of causing “maximum damage”, many people had already seen the video. Instead he chose to believe his eyes.
After Preeti’s murder and the first video spread on social media, people immediately looked for other angles. The protesters who stood on the cold streets of Minneapolis clutching their phones and pressing record will play an important role, armed with the First Amendment and one of the most powerful tools to use it.
Preeti’s phone did not protect her on the day she died. But the people who captured his murder at the hands of federal agents helped the world see what was happening in Minneapolis, and prevented many of them from turning a blind eye to it. For an administration that has worked so hard to control the narrative, this is just as dangerous a threat.
<a href