Earlier this month, the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO) faced an internal revolt. Photographers objected to distributing official photographs of Sara Netanyahu that had been heavily retouched, some using AI, to make her appear younger. The manipulations were so extensive that veteran political journalist Shabi Gatenio, who broke the story in The Seventh Eye, warned that these images would “forever infect [the national archive] with a virtual reality that never existed.”
The GPO’s compromise? They now credit Sara Netanyahu as “photographer” on images in which she is the subject, a tacit acknowledgment that the photos have been altered, without actually saying so. One major outlet, the Times of Israel, announced it will no longer carry official state photos that appear to have been manipulated. The Associated Press already refuses to publish manipulated images as a matter of policy.
Whatever the reason for the retouching, be it vanity, political image-making, or simple aesthetic preference, it is unacceptable for an official government body to release and distribute photographs that alter the information they contain without clear disclosure. Authority figures have a duty and moral obligation to foster trust, if only to be respected and obeyed. As representatives of the people they govern, they have an obligation to inform transparently, avoiding any form of deception.
The altered photographs come into direct opposition to that mandate.
Five days ago, it was the U.S. government’s turn.
On January 22, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security arrested civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong in connection with a protest at a Minnesota church. At 10:21 AM, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted a photograph of the arrest on X. Armstrong appeared calm, her expression neutral as an officer escorted her out.
Thirty-three minutes later, the official White House account posted the same photograph, but with Armstrong’s face digitally altered to show her sobbing, tears streaming down her cheeks. Her skin also appeared darker. The accompanying caption called her “a far-left agitator.” Vice President JD Vance reposted the manipulated image.
A composite shows a detail of the original photo of Levy Armstrong, left, and the altered version, as posted by The White House, right. (CBC/@Sec_Noem via X/@WhiteHouse via X)
When confronted, the White House did not apologize or explain. Deputy Communications Director Kaelan Dorr wrote: “Enforcement of the law will continue. The memes will continue.”
Armstrong’s attorney, Jordan Kushner, was present at the arrest. “It is just so outrageous that the White House would make up stories about someone to try and discredit them,” he told reporters. “She was completely calm and composed and rational. There was no one crying. So this is just outrageous defamation.”
Leave aside, for a moment, the specific politics involved. Consider two distinct harms.
First, disseminating images of anyone being arrested by official government channels violates due process. An arrest, rightly or wrongly, signals guilt to the public before any verdict has been rendered. An official government department should not be in the business of promoting either side of an ongoing investigation and judicial process, especially when justice has not yet ruled.
Second, and more fundamentally, altering an image without clear disclosure is an attempt to deceive. Whether the source is an official government account or a casual exchange between friends, not revealing that pixels have been rearranged, that the information captured by the camera has been changed, is an attempt to fool the recipient into believing something that did not happen.
In other words: a lie.
The manipulated image of Armstrong was not designed to make her look younger, like the Netanyahu photos. It was designed to make her look broken. To suggest she regretted her actions or had lost her resolve. To invite the administration’s supporters to laugh at the weakness of their opponents.
But the underlying breach is the same: official channels distributing images that do not represent reality, without disclosure.
The consequences of such deception are predictable.
Within 24 hours of the Armstrong image appearing, the National Press Photographers Association issued a formal statement. “The National Press Photographers Association emphatically opposes the manipulation of journalistic imagery that misleads the public,” the organization declared. “Alterations that change the substance of a scene, distort context, or convey a false impression, especially when distributed by official government channels, violate the basic ethical standards of our profession and weaken public trust in visual media.”
The NPPA’s statement noted the particular irony of the moment: “This is especially true during a time when the government dismisses truthful images as ‘fake news.'” A government that cries “fake” while manufacturing fakes has forfeited any claim to credibility on visual truth.
When the Times of Israel announced it would no longer carry GPO photos that appear manipulated, it was not a political statement. It was a statement about institutional trust. Once a source lies to you, you cannot trust anything else from that source, past, present, or future.
This is already happening. After Kensington Palace distributed a manipulated family photograph of Princess Kate last year, Agence France-Presse’s global news director said the palace is “no longer considered a trusted source.” The AP, Reuters, and AFP all pulled the image. What might have been a minor embarrassment, a mother retouching a family snapshot, became an institutional credibility crisis because it was released through official channels without disclosure.
With governmental authority, the damage extends further. It is not just a specific department or official that loses credibility; it is the entire apparatus of state communication. Every image, every statement, every claim becomes suspect.
History offers no shortage of examples. Stalin’s regime erased Nikolai Yezhov from photographs after his execution, the “Vanishing Commissar.” Mussolini had a horse handler removed from a portrait to appear more heroic. These manipulations distorted the historical record and served authoritarian ends.
A history of using images to deceive, before they called “Memes” : Stalin Airbrushes Out His Enemies, circa 1930
But there is something different about the current moment. When the White House was caught distributing a fabricated image, it did not deny or apologize. It boasted: “The memes will continue.”
This is not carelessness. It is a strategy.
And yet the strategic calculus is flawed. While one might take enjoyment in the immediate effect of disinformation, the humiliation of an opponent, the rallying of supporters, the long-term consequences so thoroughly backfire that there is little to no gain. Everything coming out of this office will be tainted with doubt and untrustworthy.
The institutions that stop carrying your photos, the journalists who fact-check your every claim, the public that learns to assume deception by default: these are not temporary inconveniences. They are permanent erosions of the very authority that makes governance possible.
Trust, once broken, is extraordinarily difficult to restore. And without trust, authority is just noise.
