Watching From the Outside: Why Some Are Drawing Uncomfortable Parallels With America’s Direction

28 January 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

From the outside looking in, the United States feels tense in a way that is hard to ignore. Recent news has heightened that sense even further. On 24 January 2026, federal immigration agents fatally shot 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Pretti during an operation in Minneapolis. Pretti was a lawful gun owner and had no significant criminal record, but video footage circulating online shows him recording officers with his phone and attempting to help a woman before being pepper-sprayed, wrestled to the ground and shot multiple times by agents. His death came amid a broader surge in immigration enforcement actions in the city that has sparked widespread protests and national debate about the use of force and accountability.

Police officers in black riot gear stand in formation on cobblestone street, holding batons, creating a tense and serious mood.

The killing of Pretti, who was widely remembered by colleagues and neighbours as compassionate and dedicated to his work, has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups, local officials and even former U.S. presidents. Public anger has spread beyond Minneapolis to rallies in other American cities and ongoing demands for transparency and reform.

For many people overseas, including in the UK, this adds a stark, human dimension to long-standing debates about immigration enforcement, executive power, and the use of force by federal agents.

Historical Echoes and Patterns of Enforcement

What unsettles observers most is not a superficial comparison to the worst chapters of history, but the processes that unfold when state power is exercised with increasing visibility and limited accountability. In the early 1930s in Germany, for example, enforcement and security agencies were expanded, rhetoric framed certain groups as threats to public order, and legal mechanisms were adapted gradually in the name of national security. Before the worst atrocities occurred, many citizens still believed institutions would hold firm.

The parallels some are drawing today are about how language, enforcement and public perception can shift over time, not about equating present-day events with the horrors of the Holocaust or claiming that history is bound to repeat itself. Democracies do not erode overnight. They do so when extraordinary measures become normalised and when fear is used as justification for expanding state authority.

Immigration Enforcement and Public Fear

The focus on agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Border Patrol under the current administration has made enforcement part of everyday conversation in a way that was once reserved for national security crises. Actions such as raids, aggressive detentions, and high-profile shootings like the deaths of Pretti and Renee Good earlier this month have drawn comparisons to historical moments when internal policing exerted extraordinary authority over civilians.

From the outside, this visibility of enforcement is unsettling. In situations where armed federal agents are deployed in large numbers to American cities, and when deaths occur in contested circumstances, the tendency is for commentators and historians to look back at how other societies responded to similar shifts in state behaviour and to ask whether existing checks and balances are sufficient.

Rhetoric and the Framing of Threats

Language plays a powerful role in shaping public opinion and policy. In the early 20th century Europe, political leaders increasingly used rhetoric that framed certain groups as dangerous or incompatible with national identity. This language made previously unthinkable policies acceptable to a broad public.

In the U.S. context, political rhetoric around immigration has in some quarters suggested that foreign nationals or dissenters pose existential threats. Critics argue that such language sets the tone for enforcement actions that might otherwise be widely criticised.

The Legal System and Incremental Change

One of the most important lessons from modern history is that authoritarian systems often emerge through the reinterpretation or expansion of existing laws, rather than through the overt suspension of democratic systems. Courts, legislatures, and enforcement agencies remain in place in the United States, but when emergency powers or discretionary enforcement are normalised, the public’s trust in institutions can be eroded.

These concerns are not hypothetical. Critics have pointed out that the legal frameworks governing immigration enforcement give federal agencies enormous discretion. When enforcement is paired with aggressive tactics in civilian urban environments, it raises questions about oversight, accountability and the protection of civil liberties.

Why Observers Abroad Are Paying Attention

The United States has long been seen as a beacon of democratic values, a country where civil liberties and the rule of law are central to national identity. From the UK and Europe, watching developments in Minneapolis and across the U.S. feels significant precisely because it tests that assumption.

Modern communication accelerates polarisation and magnifies every incident. Historical memory informs how we interpret patterns. Europe’s twentieth-century experience serves as a backdrop that makes observers sensitive to early indicators of democratic erosion, such as expanded enforcement powers, heightened rhetoric about internal threats, and the normalisation of force against civilians.

It is not that the United States today mirrors Germany of the 1930s in outcome or intent. The difference lies in context, institutions and culture. What resonates is not the specific ideology, but the processes by which states can extend authority, restrict dissent, and normalise exceptional measures in the name of order.

A Cautionary Perspective

What worries many observers is not that a totalitarian system is inevitable. Democracies are resilient and multifaceted. The U.S. still has strong independent courts, vibrant civil society and free media. But history teaches that complacency is dangerous. Democracies do not disappear because people want tyranny. They erode when early warning signs are dismissed as exaggeration.

From Minneapolis to broader immigration enforcement debates, what is happening in the United States prompts reflection on how democratic societies balance security, liberty and accountability. From the outside, that balance feels more fragile than many expected.

And in a world where U.S. domestic policy often influences global norms, those questions matter far beyond America’s borders.

Current Most Read

Why the ‘Driverless’ Narrative Is Failing the Freight Industry

Two Reasons Why Businesses Are Losing Their Leads

The Grey Areas of Influencer Marketing

ITK Magazine
Jun 10, 2024
4 min read

Originally Posted June 7th 2021

Growing up with the internet, as I did, it’s of no surprise to me that traditional methods of marketing are failing to grab the attention of millennials and Generation Z. Many have wised up to the artifice and pretence of the advertisements that would’ve persuaded their parents and grandparents.

Today, brands must double down on their relatability and authenticity to cater to younger consumers. With an estimated buying power of over 600 billion dollars, it’s certainly within any brand’s interests to market themselves towards millennials.

They are a generation with the highest levels of brand loyalty, but it seems increasingly difficult to earn their trust from traditional marketing. Elite Daily’s study shows that ‘only 1% of the 1300 millennials surveyed said that a compelling advertisement would make them trust a brand more,’ suggesting that, ‘millennials believe that advertising is all spin and not authentic.’

Turning to streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+ for their entertainment, millennials are less likely to watch traditional advertisements, and therefore unlikely to be exposed to a brand or product that wasn’t already on their radar. Even the five-minute ad break between television shows appears to be too long to hold the attention of millennials and Generation Z, with the optimal duration for an advert likely to capture their attention being 15 seconds, perfect for scrolling through Instagram or TikTok, or even at the start of a YouTube video. Not all internet advertisements are engaging for millennials, however, with pop-up ads seemingly the worst. 96% of respondents admitted that they disliked them. Around 50% of millennials preferred YouTube advertisements and email updates, possibly because they were easier to skip and ignore.

One of the advertising strategies that appeals to millennials the most is influencer marketing—appreciated for its honest and transparent approach. To garner a significant following, influencers must develop a relationship with their audience, by creating a relatable and down-to-earth image. If a product apparently works well for the influencer, their followers are likely to believe that it will work in the same capacity for themselves also. Many influencers claim that they will only partner with a company and create sponsored content that aligns with their own personal brand and values, which only furthers their aura of authenticity.

What AI thinks Influencers Look Like

Instagram appears to be the most popular platform for influencer marketing, with more than 1 billion active users and its emphasis on photo and video content, which allows brands to visually promote their products. Similarly, aside from the skippable ads at the start of their videos, many YouTube creators earn money by taking on sponsorships with a variety of brands—either promoting their product within a section of the video or creating dedicated content to endorse it. Companies seem keen to incorporate social media influencers into their marketing strategies, as ‘two-thirds of firms plan to increase the amount spent on influencer marketing within the next year, and 80% forecast to spend at least 10% of their marketing budget on it’ (Haenlein, et al 2020). This clearly has the desired effect on millennials and Generation Z, who are more likely to purchase a product or service if it’s promoted and endorsed by an ‘admired and respected person’.

However, whilst younger people are adept at discerning the artifice of traditional advertisements, influencer marketing can be more deceitful than imagined. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces rules and guidelines to protect consumers, which includes disclosure agreements, i.e. prompting influencers to reveal their relationship with the brand. The FTC guidelines are fairly vague, so even writing ‘#Ad’ suffices as proper disclosure; however, this is often placed discreetly within the post, and therefore missed by their followers. Whilst these influencers can be fined for not properly disclosing sponsorship, because there are so many posts within the Wild West of the internet, murky advertisements can be missed. One study found that 93% of influencer sponsorships are undisclosed, and therefore violate FTC guidelines.

FTC fines are not the only possible consequences of influencer marketing. Their audiences want relatability and authenticity, which can be difficult to maintain after numerous brand deals and sponsorships. Even if the audience accepts that their favourite celebrity is shilling a product to them, there is the expectation that the company they’re partnering with should align with the influencer’s values.

‘Understanding influencer marketing: The role of congruence between influencers, products and consumers’ gives the example of an Instagram influencer who partnered with Volvo to promote a toxic-free car cleaner. Her followers resented this endorsement, as it appeared forced and performative; this eco-friendly, sustainable message was incongruous to her usual jet-setting, travel-related content. Not only did this partnership backfire, wasting money for Volvo, the consequences may have also extended to a loss of followers for the influencer because she’d broken their trust.

Influencer marketing is not as straightforward as it may seem. Something as artificial as product marketing must still be perceived as authentic and genuine. Once an influencer grows and accepts more sponsorships, it’s likely that their followers will realise that they’ve become simply a target demographic. The ‘I’m just like you’ mentality could come crashing down. Whether this happens before the FTC cracks down on undisclosed partnerships remains to be seen.