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

Raja Jackson: Wrestling Dreams Derailed After Assault Allegations

Paul Francis
Aug 27, 2025
3 min read

The son of MMA legend Quinton “Rampage” Jackson has found himself at the centre of a storm after an independent wrestling match in Los Angeles turned violent. Raja Jackson, a trainee wrestler, has been accused of assaulting an opponent after a scripted move went wrong, leaving fans, promoters and even his own father facing difficult questions about his future.

Raja Jackson pins opponent in the ring. Referee watches. Crowd in the background. Action is intense and dynamic, with vibrant lighting.

What Happened in the Ring

During a recent Knokx Pro Wrestling event in California, Raja was booked in a standard exhibition match against local performer Stuart “Syko Stu” Smith. What began as a routine bout allegedly turned dangerous when Raja delivered repeated blows to his downed opponent, continuing well after the scripted finish. Eyewitnesses described it as a chilling moment where the staged performance gave way to something far more real.

Smith was reportedly left bloodied and unconscious, requiring medical treatment. A GoFundMe page has since been launched to cover his hospital costs. The incident was severe enough that Knokx Pro immediately suspended Raja and confirmed he would no longer appear in their shows. The Los Angeles Police Department has also confirmed an investigation into possible assault charges.

Who is Raja Jackson?

Raja, in his early twenties, is the eldest son of Quinton “Rampage” Jackson, one of the UFC’s most colourful champions during the 2000s. While his father became famous in the Octagon for his power slams and knockout punches, Raja pursued a different path, entering the world of professional wrestling rather than mixed martial arts.

Training at Knokx Pro Wrestling Academy, which is closely tied to WWE Hall of Famer Rikishi and the Anoa’i wrestling family, Raja was seen as a young talent with potential. Until this incident, he had no public history of violence or criminal behaviour. Within the wrestling community, however, some described him as brash and eager to prove himself.

Rampage’s Remark About Bail Money

Attention has also turned to comments Rampage Jackson made in an interview several years ago. Speaking candidly about his children, Rampage joked that he had saved money for two of his sons to go to college, while setting aside money for bail for his third. The remark was made in a light-hearted tone at the time, but fans have since speculated whether he was referring to Raja and whether that comment reflected a deeper concern about his temperament.

While it may have been nothing more than a joke, the resurfacing of that quote has added fuel to debates over whether Raja had shown warning signs of volatility before stepping into the ring.

Retired Pro Wrestler Stevie Richards Breaks Down What Has Happened

Why This Crossed the Line in Wrestling

Professional wrestling is unique in that it blurs the lines between performance and sport. Matches are choreographed, and opponents work together to create the illusion of combat without causing real harm. This cooperative aspect is considered sacred in the industry.

When a wrestler breaks from the script and intentionally hurts their opponent, it is known as a “shoot.” A scripted, staged performance is referred to as a “work.” While works are the foundation of the business, shoots are seen as unprofessional and dangerous, violating the trust between performers.

What happened in Raja’s match is being widely regarded as a shoot, and one that placed his opponent’s health in jeopardy. For that reason, industry insiders have been quick to condemn his actions, stressing that pro wrestling has no place for unsanctioned violence.

The Legal Implications

From a legal perspective, Raja’s situation is serious. While athletes consent to physical contact within the rules of their sport, the law draws the line at excessive or intentional harm beyond what is reasonably expected. Courts have repeatedly held that consent does not cover actions “outside the ordinary scope of play.”

If police determine that Raja’s extra strikes constituted assault, he could face charges ranging from misdemeanour assault to felony assault, depending on the injuries sustained by Smith. Beyond criminal charges, Raja could also be sued in civil court for medical costs, damages and loss of income.

What Happens Next?

Knokx Pro Wrestling has made it clear that Raja will not return to their shows, and larger promotions like WWE or AEW are unlikely to take a chance on him while legal questions hang over his head. What was meant to be the beginning of his career could, in fact, become the end of it.

For now, all eyes are on the LAPD investigation and whether formal charges will be brought. If the case proceeds, it could be a defining moment not only for Raja Jackson but for the reputation of independent wrestling promotions, which must reassure fans and performers that safety remains a priority.