Minneapolis - “If you support the death penalty or accept the inhumane treatment of migrants, the word pro-life loses all coherence.” Last September, replying to a question from an American journalist, Leo XIV pushed the debate back onto the ground of moral consistency that runs through the propaganda of some American Catholic politicians and activists: protecting life in the womb and protecting life outside the womb, rejecting the death penalty, condemning killing, defending the dignity of migrants and detainees.
An institutional showdown in America’s cities
That principle is back at the centre today, as in the United States the actions of federal agents - in particular ICE and the Border Patrol, under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - are turning certain cities into a testbed for an institutional showdown and social tension. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, the anti-immigration operation has become, in scale and methods, the most visible in the country: round-ups, daily protests, accusations of racial profiling, and an open conflict between local authorities and the federal government.
The Pretti case and the fairytale of “self-defence”
In the last few hours Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old US citizen, was brutally killed by some agents in the street. The federal version spoke of “self-defence”; verified videos from multiple outlets, however, show a different sequence: Pretti was filming on his phone, he is hit with pepper spray, then tackled and pinned down by several agents; an agent is seen pulling a pistol from his clothing when Pretti is already on the ground, and immediately afterwards multiple shots are fired at close range. In a few seconds you hear around ten gunshots. That scene has the contours of a murder: brutal, senseless violence that cannot be filed away as self-defence or as a proportionate use of force. Pretti was already on the ground, immobilised, clearly in a non-dangerous condition. Even the tackle appears, by its dynamics and context, unjustifiable: he was simply recording with his phone, an act that should not constitute any threat. If the presence of a camera becomes a cause of agitation, the inevitable suspicion is that these agents were doing something they were not allowed to do.
And it is a knot that concerns Italy too. In many public-order situations, police intervention becomes a mechanical execution of operational directives, with little assessment of context and with methods that are sometimes brutal and, in some cases, go well beyond the limits of legality. The problem worsens because, even in a courtroom, the word of a public official tends to weigh more than that of a citizen: if you do not prove that the agent’s version is false, that version remains the “truth”.
Evidence as a barrier against abuse
So evidence becomes decisive. Often the only concrete tool is a video. That is also why, when someone raises a phone to document a stop, the reaction is immediately hostile: the challenge begins (“you can’t film”), intimidation, the attempt to remove the scene from public scrutiny. But a power that fears the documentation of an event is not defending public order: it is defending crime. The point, ultimately, is proportionality. When force is used as an automatism, when the role of “action” is performed as if it were a film scene, the risk is always the same: forgetting that on the other side there is not a target, but a person.
Escalation and distrust: the risk of an irreversible spiral
In the United States, in recent weeks, many try to protect themselves in one way above all: documenting. It is often the only tool of immediate protection, the only barrier between an abuse and its denial. But if this spiral is not broken, the risk is that tensions will degenerate irreversibly. In a country where access to firearms is wide and culturally normalised, the erosion of trust in institutions can become an accelerator of violence. When the ordinary citizen comes to perceive the state no longer as a guarantee, but as a threat, a dangerous mechanism clicks into place: the temptation to “defend oneself” alone, with whatever means one has. And in that passage, public safety ceases to be a shared horizon and becomes a war of all against all.
Other episodes and Vance’s political line
There have been multiple episodes. Among the first to trigger the protests was the killing of Renée Nicole Good, on 7 January 2026 in Minneapolis during a federal operation: in that case too the authorities spoke of self-defence, but footage circulating online tells a different story. And yet Vice President J.D. Vance, Catholic and pro-life, chose to defend the work of the killers. In less than a month, other cases in the same context have confirmed that the use of force by US security apparatuses is taking on an increasingly systematic character, rather than an exceptional one.
Copwatchers, the First Amendment, and the delegitimisation of those who film
In this scenario a decisive element comes into play: those who film. In Minneapolis and other cities, copwatchers have multiplied, groups that follow patrols and document interventions. The practice is protected by the First Amendment. Precisely for that reason, for weeks now, Trump and security leadership have been trying to delegitimise those filming, describing footage as “doxxing” or “violence” and thus justifying a harder response on the ground. Because by now it is well known: first comes delegitimisation, then the blow.
Pressure on journalists: the case of Rai correspondents
It is within this framework that, in the last few hours, some Italian journalists on the ground to produce reports have denounced pressure and intimidation. The most striking case concerns two Rai correspondents, Laura Cappon and Daniele Babbo (programme “In mezz’ora”). In a video circulating on social media, ICE agents are seen approaching the vehicle and ordering the window to be lowered, going so far as to threaten to force it and drag the occupants out, while the journalists tried to document what was happening in the street.
The rhetoric of “protection” and the case of the stopped child
Politically, Vice President J.D. Vance has chosen to defend the federal operation: he pinned the chaos mainly on the lack of cooperation from local authorities, asking them to “meet” the government “halfway” to make enforcement “less chaotic”. In parallel, commenting on the case of the five-year-old child stopped during an operation, he claimed the intervention was meant to “protect” him. Nonsense that once again reveals a certain propensity for lying among this type of propagandist. The child, in reality, was arrested together with his father after an operation in Minnesota; the story – photographed and reported by international media – has become a symbol of the climate of these weeks: families caught inside the machinery of raids, minors involved, tension between official versions and local testimony.
March for Life and the question of pro-life coherence
In recent days Vance spoke at the March for Life, relaunching the imperative to defend unborn life. What we ask is: does protection of life apply only to children before birth, or also afterwards, when an adult is killed while filming and a minor is dragged into a federal operation? Do A-class lives and B-class lives exist?
Leo XIV has reminded us: the word “pro-life” loses meaning when it is reduced to a single chapter and disconnected from the rest. He said it clearly – triggering political reactions – challenging the idea that one can invoke life and, at the same time, accept inhumane policies towards migrants or support the logic of death as an instrument of the state. Part of the US episcopate is also watching the escalation with unease. The bishops’ conference has issued various messages of concern about the effects of the deportation campaign on families and communities; bishops and local Catholic leaders have spoken of widespread fear and the need for reforms, asking that state action remain within limits of legality and dignity. Yesterday the President of the US bishops wrote: “Today Pope Leo XIV reminds us that ‘the Gospel must be proclaimed and lived in every context, serving as leaven of fraternity and peace among all individuals, cultures, religions and peoples’. It is in this spirit that I invite prayer for calm, moderation and respect for human life in Minneapolis and in all those places where peace is threatened. Public authorities, in a particular way, have the responsibility to safeguard people’s wellbeing in service of the common good. As a nation, we must find ourselves again in dialogue, moving away from dehumanising rhetoric and from actions that endanger human life. In this spirit, in unity with Pope Leo, it is important to proclaim: ‘Peace is built on respect for persons!’”.
Leo XIV, while continuing to exercise his magisterium even on such delicate matters, intends that those who speak first are the pastors on the ground: the local bishops, who know the concrete situation and bear responsibility for their flock. This way of living the Petrine ministry, moreover, shows clearly how much Leo believes in synodality and shared responsibility in the Church, without superimposing his voice on that of legitimate pastors.
ICE at Milano-Cortina 2026
Meanwhile, the issue also touches Italy. In the last few hours, controversy has erupted over a possible presence of ICEagents for the security of the US delegation during Milano-Cortina 2026. Interior Minister Piantedosi stated that “at the moment it does not appear”, while other accounts speak of a practice of cooperation between security apparatuses for major events, with delegations bringing their own protection personnel. The question is: does the Meloni government, which for years has celebrated Donald Trump even speaking of a Nobel Prize, have nothing to say about it?
In Italy, the debate on proportionate use of force and on protecting the most vulnerable in police operations remains a serious and unresolved knot. The Meloni government has repeatedly taken a public stance in support of members of the law enforcement agencies; however, reporting and judicial investigations have shown how, in day-to-day reality, abuses, omissions and cover-up dynamics can occur that make the timely establishment of responsibility difficult. The Cucchiand Aldrovandi cases remain two emblematic examples, also for the impact they have had on the relationship between citizens, institutions and democratic oversight of the use of force.
Importing, even indirectly, operational models perceived as aggressive and opaque means increasing the risk of normalising practices that rest on fear: fear of being stopped in the street, fear of filming, fear even of producing a report for journalists.
L.S.
Silere non possum