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

Rebranding 101: Balancing Innovation and Tradition

Paul Francis
May 15, 2024
3 min read

Rebranding can be a thrilling yet daunting process for any company. Whether it’s tweaking a logo, updating marketing materials, or completely overhauling a brand’s image, the goal is always to stay relevant, modern, and appealing to both current and potential customers. However, it's not always a straightforward journey.

The Need for Rebranding

Even the most established and successful businesses need to refresh their brands from time to time. Why? Because the market is constantly evolving, and what worked a few years ago might not resonate with today's consumers. Keeping up with trends and technological advancements is crucial for maintaining a competitive edge.

Some companies opt for a complete overhaul, while others prefer small, incremental changes. Coca-Cola is a prime example of a brand that has managed to stay relevant through subtle tweaks over time. Their logo has evolved, yet it retains the classic elements that make it instantly recognizable, proving that sometimes, less is more.

Successful Rebranding Examples

Apple (1997): When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he led a significant rebranding effort. The iconic, colourful striped apple logo was transformed into a sleek, monochromatic version. This shift signified a new era of innovation and sophistication, helping to reposition Apple as a leader in the tech industry and paving the way for its resurgence.
Starbucks (2011): Starbucks simplified its logo by removing the words "Starbucks" and "Coffee," focusing solely on the iconic siren. This change reflected the brand's expansion beyond coffee into a broader lifestyle brand. The minimalist design reinforced Starbucks' global recognition and adaptability.
Google (2015): Google updated its logo to a modern, sans-serif typeface that was more versatile and mobile-friendly. This change represented Google's evolution and its emphasis on digital and mobile platforms. The updated logo maintained the brand's playful and approachable image while enhancing its digital presence.

When Rebranding Misses the Mark

Rebranding can be risky, and sometimes it misses the mark entirely. This often happens when corporate leaders, disconnected from the brand's core identity, attempt to emulate the success of others without considering their own brand's unique attributes.

Tropicana (2009): Tropicana's redesign replaced the iconic orange and straw image with a glass of orange juice, significantly altering the logo. Consumers did not respond well to the new packaging, resulting in a 20% drop in sales within two months. Tropicana quickly reverted to the original design, highlighting the importance of understanding consumer attachment to brand elements.
Gap (2010): Gap introduced a new logo that replaced its long-standing blue box with a minimalist design. The backlash from consumers and design critics was swift and severe, leading Gap to revert to its original logo within a week. This incident underscores the risks of drastic changes without thorough consumer research and engagement.
Pepsi (2008): Pepsi's rebranding included a new logo and packaging design, which significantly altered the iconic globe symbol and typeface. The redesign was costly and failed to resonate with consumers, leading to confusion and criticism. While Pepsi did not revert to the old design, the update did not achieve the desired impact and required further adjustments.

Key Takeaways for Brand Updates

Consumer Research: Understanding consumer preferences and attachment to current brand elements is crucial. Engaging with consumers through surveys, focus groups, and feedback can provide valuable insights. Tropicana and Gap's failures highlight the importance of this step.
Gradual Evolution vs. Radical Change: Brands like Apple and Google succeeded by making thoughtful, evolutionary changes rather than radical overhauls. This approach can help maintain brand continuity while modernizing its appearance.
Clear Communication: Effective communication about the reasons and vision behind a rebrand can help consumers understand and embrace the changes. Starbucks’ successful rebrand was partly due to clear messaging about its broader vision.
Flexibility and Adaptability: Successful updates often involve designs that adapt well to various platforms and media, as seen with Google's logo update. Ensuring the new brand elements are versatile and scalable is essential in today's digital landscape.
Internal and External Buy-In: Engaging both employees and consumers in the rebranding process can foster acceptance and enthusiasm. A rebrand should reflect the company's values and culture, which requires internal alignment and support.

Rebranding, while challenging, can rejuvenate a brand and align it more closely with its current mission and market. The key is to approach it thoughtfully, keeping consumers at the heart of the process and ensuring that the changes genuinely reflect the brand’s evolving identity.