Government Accused of Using Manipulated Images for Propaganda Purposes

In a troubling incident that raises serious ethical concerns, the White House recently published a digitally altered photograph of activist Nekima Levy Armstrong following her arrest at a St. Paul, Minnesota church. The manipulation, which darkened Armstrong’s skin and altered her facial features to appear distressed, came to light after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had earlier posted the original, unaltered image of the same arrest.

The Guardian and numerous other media outlets quickly identified the discrepancy, with The Guardian creating a comparative slider graphic to demonstrate the extent of the alterations. The New York Times subsequently ran both images through Resemble.AI, an artificial intelligence detection system, which confirmed Noem’s image was authentic while the White House version showed clear signs of manipulation.

The Times report further noted that its team was able to recreate images nearly identical to the White House version by instructing AI tools like Google’s Gemini and Elon Musk’s Grok to modify Noem’s original photograph.

Armstrong was one of three activists arrested after entering a church to confront a pastor who also serves as acting field director of the St. Paul Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office.

The National Press Photographers Association condemned the image manipulation in a statement: “Accuracy and truthfulness are core to the credibility of visual reporting. The integrity of photographic images is essential to public trust and to the historical record. Altering editorial content for any purpose that misrepresents subjects or events undermines that trust and is incompatible with professional practice.”

This incident occurs within a historical context of manipulated images being used as propaganda. Time magazine faced significant backlash in 1994 for artificially darkening O.J. Simpson’s mugshot on its cover. Various political campaigns have similarly been criticized for altering photographs of opponents. The practice has deep, troubling roots, recalling Nazi Germany’s anti-Jewish propaganda and American anti-Japanese imagery during World War II.

Legal experts point out potential consequences beyond ethical concerns. The New York Times noted that the doctored photograph could impede Armstrong’s right to a fair trial, potentially providing grounds for her legal team to argue the Trump administration made improper extrajudicial statements that could prejudice potential jurors. Defense attorneys might also claim the manipulated image demonstrates animus against Armstrong, suggesting vindictive prosecution.

The incident highlights the increasing ease with which digital technology can be used to alter reality and raises serious questions about government transparency. Had the Trump administration not released its altered version after Noem had already shared the original, the manipulation might never have been detected, underscoring the importance of preserving Americans’ right to independently document law enforcement activities.

The episode also prompts broader concerns about whether the administration might be manipulating other images for propaganda purposes – perhaps altering photos of the President to enhance his appearance or modifying military or intelligence imagery to justify policy decisions.

While reputable news organizations maintain strict ethical standards regarding image manipulation – typically terminating employees who violate such standards – this incident demonstrates a troubling willingness by government officials to employ technology deceptively.

At a time when digital manipulation tools are increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the incident serves as a stark reminder of technology’s potential for misuse, particularly when wielded by those in positions of authority. Rather than new regulations, experts suggest the solution lies in government adherence to the same ethical standards expected of professional journalists and media organizations.