It’s probably too much to ask for the Republican Party to honestly reflect on just how far it has strayed from its traditionally conservative roots of limited government and constitutional fealty. 

But even tepid criticism within the “New Right” is a breath of fresh air at this point — and the death of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Minnesota, might have finally aroused enough within the GOP to begin dabbling in a little strategic mutiny against the all-powerful cult of Trumpian politics. 

“Regardless of what side of immigration enforcement you’re on, we are not in a good place right now,” Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) told The Nevada Independent while discussing the need for immigration enforcement efforts to “pivot” away from what has been taking place in Minnesota. 

Cheers to that. 

What’s frustrating, however, is that unleashing thousands of newly recruited and hastily trained federal agents onto American streets with guns, masks and “immunity” should have always been considered a step too far for any serious constitutional conservative. 

The threat of unaccountable federal agents descending on American communities is the sort of thing the right used to warn against — and still would if Democrats were in charge. For example, one can only imagine the outcry if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was using the same techniques to round up illegal “assault weapons” under a hypothetical President Kamala Harris — or if federal authorities had used the same tactics to impose harsh coronavirus restrictions during President Joe Biden’s tenure. 

Or for a less hypothetical example, let’s recall how Republicans were incensed over the Internal Revenue Service hiring 87,000 new “agents” — who presumably wouldn’t be expected to conduct armed patrols in American cities while wearing balaclavas. 

However, the White House’s reaction to yet another American citizen being killed by U.S. Border Patrol merits far more than a mere pivot in immigration enforcement tactics. It should also incite a full-on rebellion against Trump’s populist agenda among anyone who claims to be a conservative in any sense of the word. 

On the morning of Jan. 24, Alex Pretti was shot to death after he and officers collided during a chaotic immigration raid in Minneapolis. Immediately following the shooting, the official line from the Trump administration was that Pretti posed an imminent threat to law enforcement. 

The evidence for Pretti’s supposedly murderous intent, and therefore the justification for shooting him, was a legally carried 9 mm handgun and a spare magazine he had on his person at the time of the altercation. 

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said that Pretti had “brandished” the firearm and “attacked” authorities. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller referred to Pretti as a would-be “assassin.” Greg Bovino, the recently demoted Border Patrol commander, asserted that Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” 

Of course, none of those propagandistic talking points reflected reality. 

In Minnesota, it’s perfectly legal for someone with a concealed carry permit, such as Pretti, to carry a firearm while attending a protest. Furthermore, the presence of an extra magazine is fairly common among concealed carriers. It is so common, in fact, that most mainstream holster manufacturers offer models that accommodate the carrying of a spare mag. 

Even more important, however, is that cellphone footage of the incident shows Pretti did not “attack” federal law enforcement, nor did he ever attempt to display or brandish his firearm during the incident. It’s unclear whether agents even knew he had a firearm until it became visible on his waistline as they tackled him. 

Not that details matter at this point, but it’s also probably worth noting that agents engaged with Pretti only after he attempted to help a woman who had just been violently pushed to the ground and was about to be pepper-sprayed. 

And yet, following his death, the White House’s immediate reaction was to insist we “reject the evidence of our eyes and ears,” and unquestioningly accept a narrative completely untethered from reality. That narrative seemed deliberately designed to undermine the core constitutional rights Pretti was trying to exercise when he was killed. 

Even as recently as Jan. 27, President Donald Trump told reporters “you can’t have guns” if you’re showing up to an anti-ICE protest — as if American citizens must choose between exercising one constitutional right or another at any given moment.   

Understandably, for Second Amendment advocates, such talking points are a massive betrayal coming from a Republican administration. 

Such a betrayal should not have been surprising. The remaking of the Republican Party has largely been a movement built entirely around the whims of a malignantly narcissistic reality television personality rather than any set of core fundamental principles. The movement has relentlessly attacked conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists whenever such members of the coalition have criticized Dear Leader’s populist agenda. 

Such a cultish movement within the GOP was never congruent with conservative values, nor was it some outgrowth of principled dedication to the Constitution or the concept of limited government. Instead, it has always been an abhorrent exercise in partisan sycophancy. And, ironically for those on the right, it has been every bit as hostile (if not more) to constitutional protections than any supposed far-left Democratic bogeyman. 

Trump has not been shy about showing disdain for the Bill of Rights during his tenure. His administration has sued incessantly to silence speech he dislikes, ignored the plain language of the 14th Amendment in an effort to disenfranchise children of immigrants, claimed “total authority” over states in contradiction to the 10th Amendment, argued that federal officers can enter homes without judicial warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment and now asserts the mere presence of a legal firearm at a protest is sufficient evidence to label someone a domestic terrorist.

The acceptance of such hostility to basic civil rights within the American right wing is an affront to what conservatism used to represent. 

“Don’t tread on me” used to be a widespread right-wing rallying cry against the sort of blatant disdain for individual liberty and constitutional restraint we now see on full display in the White House. Among the Trumpian “New Right,” however, that once-proud Gadsden flag has apparently become nothing more than a symbol for the government to merely tread harder, so long as it primarily treads over political enemies. 

Amodei is right that a “pivot” is needed when it comes to immigration enforcement tactics, but a pivot is also clearly needed within Republican and conservative politics.

After all, a “small government” political movement that has become complicit in flooding the streets with aggressive masked federal agents is not, by any objective measure, “in a good place right now.” 

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas and founder of Schaus Creative LLC, an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him on Twitter @schausmichaelor on Substack @creativediscourse.