Professor Paul Levinson
Communication Ethics and the Public Sphere
Fordham University
May 8, 2025
sblinn@fordham.edu
Pistols and Paperwork: The Politics of the UnitedHealthcare CEO Assassination
Intro
Early in the morning of December 4, 2024, a man was shot dead in the middle of the street. That morning, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, arrived at a hotel on West 54th street to prepare for a conference. It was supposed to be a perfectly standard affair; investor conferences took place regularly to ensure that stakeholders remained pleased with the business trajectory of UnitedHealthcare (or, as I will refer to it henceforth, UHC). Unbeknownst to Thompson, a man had arrived ten minutes prior and stationed himself at precisely the entrance Thompson planned to use. The man wore a dark, hooded jacket, a gray backpack, and a face mask. A gun was concealed on the man’s person. Just as Thompson approached the entrance, the masked gunman approached him from behind and fired at least three shots into him. Surveillance footage from the moment of the shooting reveals that the weapon was a pistol already outfitted with a silencer, suggesting that the weapon was prepared with clandestine violence in mind. This, combined with the fact that the gunman ignored many passersby while he lay in wait, indicated that the shooting was not random, but, rather, a premeditated assassination. The suspect used multiple means of transport to flee the scene after the deed was done, including a bicycle and a taxi. To many, this seemed a deliberate effort to avoid capture by authorities, and law enforcement agreed. Spurred on by the calculated appearance of the crime, authorities began a frenzied manhunt.
The case spurred immediate and widespread interest not only among the residents of New York, but nationwide. Public outcry was abuzz even before the arrest of any suspect, and this only became truer with the arrest of Luigi Mangione, the now-prime suspect in the case. It did not take long for media outlets to respond to this flurry of attention. Beginning with social media outlets and quickly escalating to the most well-known mainstream media outlets, talk of the assassination—and, by extension, Mangione—flooded every platform for information and then some. So began a nationwide spectacle not unlike a game of telephone; the story twisted in focus and framing with every new ear it reached and every new voice that conveyed it. Even the presidential administration had a rendition of the story to tell. It became so warped and full of embellishment that some retellings border on fiction, but each new incarnation of the narrative, even the most absurd, comes with consequences as real and dire as the murder itself. In fact, these consequences may even be poised to cause another death.
It is indisputable that Mangione has become a prominent public figure as his criminal cases have proceeded, for better or for worse. While discourse regarding him, his circumstances, and his alleged crime has become commonplace, it should not be any less subject to reflection and scrutiny. That he has been made to bear the notoriety and ill repute of a Hollywood antagonist does not make it acceptable for him to be vilified as flippantly as a fictional character. Mangione ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty. That is the purported disposition of the justice system. Media outlets around the nation, however, have acted in accordance with the opposite, and in doing so, they have made a guilty verdict more likely. The role of communication in this case therefore cannot be ignored. If Mangione’s case is allowed to pass without notice, America risks becoming a nation in which media stories influence the courts’ verdicts rather than the reverse.
Status Report 1
Ominous though the Mangione case has become, it did not begin that way; in fact, enthusiasm and humor accompanied the case’s debut in the public eye. When authorities began circulating images of the suspect and imploring the public to aid in the search, people took to social media, cheekily implying that they would not help the authorities even if they were to come across the suspect. “Steal the fit” memes flooded platforms across the Internet, immortalizing the outfit worn by the subject at the time of the crime. The jacket in particular became iconic among the suspect’s supporters. The fanfare surrounding the suspect was so pronounced that, only four days after the shooting, a lookalike contest of the shooter took place in Washington Square Park (Jane). That the contest took place in the very state where the shooting occurred is an apt testament to the pervasiveness of the support people had for the subject. The crime may have happened close to home, but it clearly did not hit close to home. Some of the subject’s supporters even flaunted their apathy by taking jabs at UHC, saying that their condolences were “out of network” or that Thompson’s healthcare plan did not cover sympathy.
As these remarks suggest, much of the admiration for the suspect and indifference toward the murder owed to the public’s disdain for UHC, and as the days progressed, scathing remarks toward the company increasingly accompanied the outpouring of support for the suspect. Chief among the public’s grievances was UHC’s long-known past of frequent and controversial claim denials. UHC has long been perceived as rejecting claims as frivolous without any legitimate reason, and with rumors spreading that UHC was beginning to use AI to facilitate those denials, health insurance horror stories featuring UHC as the villain had long since risen to prominence by the time of the shooting. In fact, these accounts had already gained enough traction to reach the courts by 2023, with one lawsuit claiming that UHC was denying claims using “an AI model known… to have a 90% error rate” (Napolitano).
The claims put forth in litigation were damning, so it stands to reason that the stories shared on social media, not subject to the same scrutiny as a legal argument, amplified that condemnation a hundredfold. One such anecdote detailed UHC repeatedly denying a doctor’s request to provide a powered wheelchair for a child. In a decision seemingly devoid of any regard for comfort or quality of life, UHC insisted that “‘a simpler wheelchair’” would be sufficient to aid the child’s mobility (The UNILAD Team). These stories and others of the like reduced UHC to an emblem of avarice in the eyes of the public. Thus, when Mangione was brought into police custody on December 9th and declared the prime suspect in Thompson’s murder, people on both sides of the political aisle saw him as a hero: a bastion against UHC’s greed. UHC was quick to try to extinguish this viewpoint. On December 13, 2024, UHC published a fact sheet that, among other things, claimed that the company approved and paid “about 90% of medical claims” without any need for an appeal and that “any other numbers…purporting to be the [UHC] approval rate” were deceptive (UnitedHealthcare). The aim was to frame any support for Mangione as baseless and to diminish the credibility of dissenting sources. Instead, many people saw this response as dismissive and insensitive to the lived experience of UHC’s customers, which further stoked public outrage.
The growing fervor and animosity surrounding the case drew the attention of the media. Social media influencers were among the first to respond to the case, and of these, few recounted it in a more polarizing fashion than Ben Shapiro. He uploaded a YouTube video about the case on December 10, 2024, the day after Mangione was brought into custody. The video condemned Mangione for his alleged crime, but rather than doing so on a strictly legal basis, Shapiro attempted to turn the matter into a partisan issue. Shapiro highlighted that Mangione’s X account had shifted from being right-leaning or “center-right” to echoing left-leaning ideals in the months immediately prior to the assassination (Shapiro). To Shapiro’s audience, this was not only a brazen attempt to conflate left-leaning political preferences with a murderous motive, but also an implicit rejection of the idea that right-leaning folk could possibly be upset with the United States health insurance system. The video all but confirmed both points, with Shapiro stating that the tendency to regard career profiteers as morally bankrupt was “predominantly on the left” (Shapiro). As a result, even Shapiro’s long-time followers took exception to the video. The idea of positing a certain political alignment as an indicator of erratic and even murderous behavior sparked indignation in his audience, not least because this view left no room for their lived experiences. To those who took to the comments in their rage, it seemed as if Shapiro had cast Mangione as a radical villain to draw attention from a force that had hurt far more people.
When other media outlets picked up the case, they operated along similar lines, selectively curating information to draw attention away from what allegedly motivated Mangione to commit the assassination. Sources across all mediums began depicting the shooting as an act of terror and an affront to American values, highlighting that Brian Thompson was a “family man” with a wife and kids. Doing so allowed them to frame the murder as an atrocity of the highest magnitude, quashing any nuanced discussion about the matter. The New York Post is a prime example of this. In their coverage of the case, they posted an article focusing not on the original crime itself, but on the bomb threat hoaxes directed at Mrs. Thompson’s house in the wake of the assassination (Morphet et al.). The piece aimed to convince the public that Mangione was more than a mere murderer. He was a symbol of terror, the article argued: a catalyst and ground zero for widespread violence in the United States. Along these lines, tempered discussion was nigh impossible by design. This incendiary reporting by both social media influencers and conventional media outlets laid the groundwork for a disturbing trend in the Mangione case: an incessant attempt to distract the masses from the particulars of the crime and its context by making a villainous spectacle of the prime suspect.
At first, the emotionally charged coverage of the Mangione case appeared to be just another typical example of inflammatory American journalism, but when one of the jurisdictions involved in the case levied an unusual charge against Mangione, that coverage suddenly gained a new magnitude of influence over the courtroom. The charge in question was a terrorism charge, and it was brought against Mangione in New York. Such a charge marked a bizarre escalation in the case. An act that warrants a terrorism charge, per its definition, must seek to effect change in a manner that menaces the masses and causes widespread distress. For the requirements of a terrorism conviction to be satisfied, the general public must believe that there is a credible threat of harm to their person if they do not abide by the intended changes. This harm is usually the same as or similar to that which prior victims of the terrorist have experienced. Such stipulations hardly apply to the Mangione case. Only a small subset of the population—relatives of Thompson and other CEOs—can reasonably claim to have any warranted fear of harm as a result of Mangione’s alleged actions, and even then, that claim would be questionable. It is widely acknowledged that the successful assassination of a figure with so many resources and such ample protection is exceptional, so it is unlikely that it could be easily repeated, if at all. With media outlets stoking public fear and outrage against Mangione, however, a terrorism charge has the chance to become more credible. After all, if the public learns to fear the violence Mangione is accused of, that violence can come to retroactively represent an act of terror.
Mangione’s indictments on federal charges introduced more troubling possibilities for the role of hostile coverage in the court system. Not content with allowing state courts to try Mangione for his alleged involvement in the assassination, the federal courts claimed jurisdiction to saddle Mangione with a new charge: federal murder through use of a firearm. This charge is uniquely dire because it creates the possibility for the death penalty, which was not a conceivable outcome of the charges levied against Mangione prior to this indictment. When the federal charges were first introduced, however, this was still a far-fetched result. The federal courts had stretched the bounds of their jurisdiction to take up the case, and public sentiment was incredulous. For the time being, it seemed unthinkable that any jury would recommend the death penalty. That buffer was far from ironclad, though, and a stark enough shift in public sentiment had the potential to erase it at any time.
Status Report 2
As if to barge through that barricade by the quickest means, media outlets released an outpouring of incendiary reporting. Instances of investigative journaling on Mangione’s life, including full-length documentaries in some cases, surged into the spotlight. The pieces in question were crafted to direct public focus further and further away from the facts of the crime by placing Mangione at the center. Among the emerging works were a 20/20 special titled “Manhunt: Luigi Mangione and the CEO Murder,” “Who is Luigi Mangione?”, The New York Post’s “Luigi Mangione: Monster or Martyr?”, and a TMZ piece called “Luigi Mangione: The Mind of a Killer.” These pieces often delved deep into Mangione’s past and personal life in search of answers about how he could have turned into a “killer.” Absent from these pieces, however, was any question about whether or not Mangione was a killer in the first place. The new reporting framed Mangione’s guilt as a given, characterized by a strange sense of certainty that one would expect to see in a true crime podcast about a convicted serial killer, not an explorative piece about a not-yet-convicted suspect. It was an approach that deviated wildly from the conventional handling of the criminal process, but, backed by the funding of the massive media outlets on which the pieces were hosted, it quickly rose to prominence.
The absurdity of characterizing Mangione as a definitive criminal before the trials had gotten underway was not lost on the public, with many balking at the exaggerated stories. With every new tale spun against Mangione, public admonishment followed shortly after, leaving nearly every offending piece drowning in an endless sea of critical reviews. These reviews rejected the idea that the documentaries and investigative reports were as benign as mere entertainment despite the spectacle that characterized them. Because these pieces inhabited media platforms at the same time as current reporting on the case, many viewers judged—and overwhelmingly condemned—them by those journalistic standards. Both the timing of the investigative pieces’ release and their lack of substantial engagement with the facts of the crime at issue came under intense fire by the public. Audiences feared that such provocative pieces would muddy the waters when it came to information about the case. If this happened, it would be nigh impossible to select a fair jury in any of Mangione’s cases, leading many to believe that a mistrial was inevitable.
When President Trump echoed the incensed attitude of the media, however, the distorted stories escalated from frivolous to frightening. In a statement given by Trump regarding the outpouring of social media support for Mangione, Trump stated that not only was Mangione morally reprehensible, but so, too, was anybody who agreed with him. He said that aligning with Mangione was “‘a sickness, actually’” and that he could not comprehend “‘how people can like [him]’” (“After CEO Shooting”). Expanding upon this condemnation, he argued that the disdain the public felt toward Thompson was another symptom of an ideological ailment. This symptom, however, indicated a more “‘general sickness,’” according to him (“After CEO Shooting”). This addendum to the statement suggests that Trump viewed the public’s rage against a larger party—perhaps the health insurance system in general, CEOs in general, or perhaps even the upper class in general—as an illness severe as supporting a man accused of murder. The message sent by the president was clear: Mangione, his supporters, and even people who feel disdain for those similar to Thompson were to be considered unstable and unwell. When President Trump echoed the inflammatory rhetoric of the media, he lent it a new degree of legitimacy. No longer was it merely one view of the crime among many; it was the endorsed view of the White House, and those who disagreed were reduced to lesions on the skin of a leprous nation.
In his efforts to cure the nation of its supposed sickness, Trump signed Executive Order 14164: the Death Penalty Executive Order. The order was signed on January 20th, and it encouraged the increased use of the death penalty in certain cases. However, there was an issue in how these particular cases were outlined and prescribed by the order: they weren’t. The order was frightfully vague, advising the pursuit of the death penalty in “all crimes of a severity demanding its use” with few specific guidelines as to what criminal behavior was to be considered “severe” (The White House). Only two cases, located in subsections 3bi and 3bii of the order, provided any clues. The former advised that illegal immigrants who are tried for crimes should be given the death penalty, while the latter encouraged the capital punishment of those who murder a law-enforcement officer. While the order only mentioned these two stipulations in particular, both the general public and officials within the government understood that the order was not intended to apply solely to those circumstances. This left every other possible application of the order completely in the hands of case-by-case interpretation. Because the order did not prescribe any broad protections from capital punishment, these interpretations had the potential to be quite expansive indeed.
While the order did not specifically mention Mangione, the unspoken power in its vague and subjective language did not go unnoticed. The case had already been so sensationalized that it invited further escalation at every turn. Placing an emphasis on the death penalty in an environment already fraught with premature assumptions of guilt was, in the eyes of many people, an act done in exceedingly poor taste. Supporters across the nation began to fear that the executive order would invite the politicized use of capital punishment in Mangione’s federal trial. As a result, donors flocked to Mangione’s legal fund on GiveSendGo, sending in a steady stream of donations valuing in the tens of thousands. At least four high-paying donors even cited the death penalty directly as part of the reason for their contribution. One anonymous donor who provided $30k to the fund said that pursuing the death penalty for Mangione “would personally & strongly tilt [them] in favor of defense” (The December 4th Legal Committee). Another donor contributed $11k and stated that “[t]he DP should never be politicized.” New donations remained high and frequent for weeks after the order’s signing, with almost a thousand unique donations coming in during the week before March 5th. Those following the Mangione case had become aware of a severe and compounded threat. Under the vague language of the order, anybody who could be characterized as a heinous villain risked facing capital punishment, and through incendiary reporting, that villainous visage could be easily imposed upon Mangione.
The possibility that Mangione could be put to death became all the more alarming when it came to light that much of the evidence being used against him—evidence primed to determine the fate of the cases in all three jurisdictions—may have been collected improperly. According to Mangione’s Pennsylvania defense team, Mangione was made to feel as though he was not free to leave when police first confronted and questioned him in McDonald’s. This revelation meant that the initial questioning did not constitute a voluntary interrogation, during which those being questioned need not be Mirandized and may leave at any time, but a custodial interrogation, during which the questioned party must be read their rights. Mangione was not read his rights, nor was he given any information as to why he was being questioned. If true, this error means that any of the evidence collected during this initial interrogation has the potential to be null and void. The suppression of unlawful evidence has the potential to alter the trajectory of the trials in all three jurisdictions in Mangione’s favor, while the inclusion of this evidence may unjustly dismantle his defense on multiple fronts.
The media would not allow this possible injustice to disrupt its antagonistic characterization of Mangione, however, so allowing Mangione to come across as even a potential victim was strictly out of the question. Instead, media outlets implied that the desire to have the unjust evidence suppressed did not come from a wish to preserve the integrity of the trials, but from desperation to hide information that would surely cement Mangione’s guilt. A Law & Crime Network video titled “Luigi Mangione Begs for Evidence to be Thrown Out” perfectly encapsulates this approach (“Luigi Mangione Begs”). Not only does this title attribute the motion to suppress evidence to Mangione personally rather than to his defense team, but it also creates the impression that Mangione feels a panicked urgency to conceal the evidence in question. This interpretation is not rooted in any observable fact. The comments beneath the video denounced this skewed verbiage with such singular and overwhelming outrage that the vast majority of the comment section neglected to mention the content of the video at all. With the stakes in the Mangione case climbing higher and higher, the public became more and more sensitive to disingenuous reporting, exaggerated narratives, and inflammatory word choice, and they made a concerted effort to hold accountable any entity that contributed to it. The public knew that the media was constructing a monster, and they feared that the purpose of doing so was to give the courts a reason to fight it.
Status Report 3
On April 1st, those fears were validated when Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that she had “directed prosecutors to seek the death penalty” in Mangione’s federal murder trial (“Attorney General Pamela Bondi”). Despite Mangione representing no further threat to the nation on account of him being a lone actor and being confined to the state’s custody, Bondi alleged that Mangione could not be allowed to live, even in prison, on account of Trump’s mission to “Make America Safe Again” (“Attorney General Pamela Bondi”). One would expect Bondi to elaborate on the necessity of this approach in such a case, especially on account of Mangione having no criminal record and no accomplices that may yet pose a threat, but she did not do this. Instead, she played up the horror of the crime by shifting the focus away from Mangione and emphasizing Thompson’s sympathetic qualities. She emphatically reminded people that Thompson was “an innocent man and father of two young children,” mirroring the provocative rhetorical strategy employed by all levels of the press before her (“Attorney General Pamela Bondi”). This strategy would be more acceptable if it were paired with irrefutable evidence of Mangione’s potential to harm the country simply by virtue of existing in a cell, but any such proof was absent from Bondi’s statement. It cannot be overlooked that even in a prepared statement by one of the highest legal authorities in the land, the foremost case made for Mangione’s execution was a parroted performance of a script designed to manufacture outrage.
In fact, incendiary language was so crucial to justifying the pursuit of capital punishment in the Mangione case that Bondi went beyond merely echoing the charged rhetoric of the media; she expanded upon it. Previous attacks on Mangione’s character framed him in a variety of unflattering ways: a calculating killer desperate to hide the proof of his guilt, an epitome of radical left outrage, and even a terrorist putting the public in fear for their lives. Bondi’s announcement of the pursuit of the death penalty, however, saw Mangione pinned in the center of the broadest frame to date. According to Bondi and, reportedly, President Trump himself, effectuating Mangione’s execution is crucial to “‘stop violent crime’” in America (“Attorney General Pamela Bondi”). Now, Mangione may have become the face of many ideas since the legal proceedings and media coverage turned him into a public figure, but the vast majority of the nation would likely agree that Mangione is not the embodiment of all violent crime in the United States. Conflating him with such an all-encompassing menace is not a reflection of reality by any means, but neither is it a mistake.
By casting Mangione as a representation of America’s violent crime, Bondi accomplishes—or, at least, seeks to accomplish—several key goals. Among the most prominent of them is reducing the general public’s outspoken support for Mangione, especially on social media. It is true that claiming Mangione represents violent crime in general may not convince the nation, but suggesting that the presidential administration will enforce this viewpoint can still coerce it. Vocally and financially defending Mangione becomes much harder for the general public if doing so means defending the very embodiment of violence in the eyes of the executive branch. Donating to Mangione’s legal fund no longer simply means taking a stand against a corrupt healthcare system or making a statement in opposition to capital punishment; it now implicates donors in an attack against the nation. This artificial moral complication puts pressure on Mangione’s supporters to stifle their views. By presupposing that Mangione is guilty and demanding nothing less than unconditional ruthlessness toward him, the presidential administration effectively subjects those who would support him to moral blackmail.
The declaration that Mangione is a threat and the subsequent enforcement of this assertion also serve to place the courts under duress. Not only is there the obvious pressure of Bondi demanding prosecutors to pursue the most severe sentence possible, but there are also additional, less apparent expectations placed on the judge, defense attorney, and jury. This is because Bondi’s announcement seeks to establish a shared reality in which Mangione is a pure representation of a multitude of evils. In such a reality, a judge who imposes any sentence less severe than the death penalty is negligent and complicit. Similarly, an attorney who constructs a more earnest and hard-fought defense for Mangione than their job requires risks being seen as an accomplice. Naturally, then, a jury that fails to recommend the death penalty or—worse yet—acquits Mangione completely is a blight on the nation’s moral character. None of this is directly stated in Bondi’s statement, but the foundations are there, and they are there on purpose. After all, Bondi’s actions are rooted in Trump’s desires, and in Trump’s view, all those who support Mangione or even harbor similar grievances to him are “sick.”
That a man not yet convicted has been antagonized to such an extreme is disturbing enough, but more egregious still is the fact that there is evidence to suggest that this hostility does not originate from a desire to uphold the rule of law. In fact, Trump and his officials have repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the legal system’s authority since he took office. The litigation surrounding unlawful deportation contains the clearest examples of this; in just the first 100 days of his presidency, Trump has defied multiple judges in multiple courts, including all nine Supreme Court justices, to barge ahead with his plan to deport people en masse without due process. These acts of defiance include the dismissal of instructions from Judge James Boasberg, who demanded that planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador be turned around so that the would-be deportees could have their day in court (Cheney). The administration displayed a similar indifference toward the ruling of Judge Paula Xinis, who ordered that Kilmar Abrego Garcia be returned from El Salvador and brought back to the United States (Sherman). Even when the Supreme Court reaffirmed Xinis’s ruling in a staggering unanimous decision, the administration played semantics to ignore it. Since the Supreme Court had only asked the administration to facilitate the return and not to effectuate it, the administration claimed, they were not obliged to do anything more than “provide a plane” if El Salvador decided to return the man by its own accord (The Recount). The current administration has therefore proven itself willing to defy even the highest legal authority in pursuit of its goals. Given that this is the case, it cannot be that the administration’s antagonistic role in the Mangione case is just in nature or in motive.
While the Trump administration’s desire to make an example of Mangione is demonstrably separate from any purported efforts to uphold the rule of law, it is a prime example of a different trend within the administration: a trend of intimidating the courts into submission. One of Trump’s executive orders, for example, targeted the Paul Weiss law firm, threatening to strip the company of its security clearance and its ability to do business with federal entities. The basis for this punishment did not lie in any officially recognized crime on the part of the law firm, however. Instead, it was the law firm’s participation in a lawsuit against Jan 6 rioters that drew the president’s ire. Trump did not take kindly to the law firm’s speech in court, so he abused his presidential power to either cripple them or force them to grovel for forgiveness. He did this even in spite of the fact that the firm’s statements in court constituted protected speech. It was not until the Paul Weiss firm offered Trump $40 million in pro bono legal services to have the order rescinded that he relieved them of the punitive restrictions. Not only does this further demonstrate that Trump and his administration will disregard the law—right down to the most fundamental and well-known rights protected by the Constitution—to achieve their ends, but it also goes to show that the Trump administration is not above intimidating the entities of the legal system to ensure that they do not support causes he dislikes. This motivation, the desire to eliminate dissent within the justice system, is the reason for the Trump administration’s meddling in the Mangione case, not the preservation of law. At the heart of the matter, Trump simply dislikes Mangione and wants to pull enough strings to compel the courts and the public to regard him with the same distaste.
The Mangione case therefore stands to reach its culmination in a courtroom that is deliberately inhospitable. The prosecutors and judges are under pressure to materialize a punishment for Mangione that is not only harsh, but as harsh as humanly possible. Mangione’s defense teams have to contend with an environment that, because of the prematurely accusatory media, has already predetermined Mangione’s guilt. So hostile is the atmosphere that even advocating for the suppression of unjust evidence—a gesture that, by all accounts, should bolster the trials’ legal integrity—is framed as an admission of guilt. To make matters worse, the media and the presidential administration have drawn both public and legal consideration far from the original facts of the case to reforge Mangione’s image into a perfect picture of villainy. Mangione is no longer a suspect in the government’s eyes or in the eyes of the media. They have convicted him in the court of opinion and normalized his presupposed guilt to the point that a careful, thorough review of Mangione’s actions seems unreasonable to demand. This leaves the courts with only one viable job: to agree.
At the center of it all sits the insidious sway of the media, which now enjoys a seat (or five) in the jury box. It looms especially large in Mangione’s federal murder trial. In trials where the death penalty is being pursued, which now includes the federal murder trial, the jury selection process is altered significantly. Normal jury selection processes primarily revolve around choosing a jury that will be impartial to the defendant and the facts of the case, thereby ensuring the most just verdict. Death penalty trials add a new requirement to the jury selection process: a requirement that usurps a monumental degree of consideration and demands the highest regard. This requirement is the necessity of a “death-qualified jury.” For a death-qualified jury to be formed, the jurors must be open to the death penalty as a legitimate and moral form of punishment. Any juror that views the death penalty is unconstitutional or otherwise unjust is disqualified immediately. There is another caveat that requires the jurors not to view capital punishment as the only viable penalty for capital crimes, but this meager qualification does little to pacify the hostile environment in Mangione’s case.
To understand why the very pursuit of the death penalty is so damaging, it is important to note how the media coverage of Mangione factors into the case and how it has a stronger influence over a death-qualified jury than a typical jury. Consider the first requirement for death-qualified jurors: the requirement that they must not oppose the death penalty on principle. This means that, by definition, there will be none among Mangione’s jury of peers who are completely unwilling to see him killed. Every single juror will have the capacity to be convinced that Mangione deserves to die, for it is mandatory. It is highly unlikely that anybody who is supportive of or even neutral toward Mangione would meet this requirement. The candidates most likely to satisfy the demands of a death-qualified jury, then, are those who have already fallen for the antagonistic caricature of Mangione put forth by the media and the presidency. Where such jurors might have been balanced out in a typical jury, they will saturate a death-qualified jury. The question to be answered in deliberation is now less likely to be whether Mangione is guilty or innocent and more likely to be whether he ought to be killed or allowed to live.
Through unerringly and exaggeratedly malicious coverage, the media and the presidential administration have ensured that only one of Mangione’s trials truly matters, and they have done everything in their power to see to it that it is a trial he is unlikely to win. By saddling Mangione with the label of “terrorist” and conflating him with the epidemic of violent crime in the United States, the media and the government alike have endeavored to make any support for him morally unconscionable. Any supporters that remain, Bondi has barred from the courtroom through the demand for a death-qualified jury. The federal courts’ jurisdiction over the case reduces the likelihood that any attempts by the Pennsylvania defense team to discard improper evidence will have a significant effect, and the jury—destined to be more easily predisposed to disavow Mangione—reinforces that barrier. From the judges to the prosecutors to the jury, nearly all legal entities involved in Mangione’s trials have been either convinced or pressured to condemn him. The case title “United States of America v. Luigi Nicholas Mangione” could not be more apt.
Conclusion
The case of Luigi Mangione and the UHC assassination represents a profound warning for the American people: in the hands of authority figures, communication is not merely a vehicle for knowledge, but a potential weapon sheathed in the guise of information. It may be the case that Mangione is guilty, and it certainly is the case that speculation—even damning speculation—ought to be permitted in public discussion. Forbidding opinions informed by currently available evidence would be a catastrophic blow to the integrity of free speech. However, neither of these concessions make the conduct of the media and the government in this case any less foreboding. That is because much of the coverage of the Mangione case has been not speculative, butpresumptive. Social media influencers, reputable journalists, and even the attorney general and president of the United States have foregone presenting Mangione’s guilt as a possibility in favor of framing it as fact, as fact better serves them.
This quiet equivocation on the distinction between opinion and assumption is not unique to Mangione’s situation. Rather, Mangione’s case serves as a symptom of a growing trend that poses a glaring threat to American justice. This trend has already found victims in the nation’s immigrants. Not long ago, the belief that immigrants are morally dubious masqueraded as an opinion, but now, it serves as the justification for the deportation of thousands, stripping them of due process, dignity, and humanity. The nation has only one recourse if it wishes to avoid this communication cataclysm: the public’s ability to recognize it. For this, vigilance is crucial. After all, the unjust coverage of the Mangione case did not begin with demands that he be put to death. It began with skewed editorials; with Trump’s disdainful speech; with sensationalized documentaries and vague executive orders. Those who donated to Mangione’s legal fund in the aftermath of Executive Order 14164 did so because they recognized the danger of this: when the power of disingenuous language is not recognized, it becomes a blank check. Some may dismiss the urgent need to bring attention to this or call it hypersensitivity, but Mangione’s case is a testament to its importance. We the People must take note each time communication is weaponized, lest that weapon one day take the form of a lethal injection.
Works Cited
“After CEO shooting, Donald Trump calls social media reaction to Luigi Mangione ‘a sickness’.” YouTube, uploaded by DMRegister, 16 December 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw28BjMMd78.
“Attorney General Pamela Bondi Directs Prosecutors to Seek Death Penalty for Luigi Mangione.” Justice.gov, Apr. 2025, www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-pamela-bondi-directs-prosecutors-seek-death-penalty-luigi-mangione.
Cheney, Kyle, and Josh Gerstein. “Boasberg Signals He May Hold Trump Officials in Contempt over Deportation Flights.” POLITICO, Politico, 3 Apr. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/04/03/judge-boasberg-contempt-trump-deportations-00271484. Accessed 7 Apr. 2025.
Jane, Talia. “Healthcare CEO Shooter Lookalike Contest Held in New York City.” YouTube, uploaded by Storyful News & Weather, 9 December 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Yla0DYacM.
“Luigi Mangione Begs for Evidence to be Thrown Out in Murder Case.” YouTube, uploaded by Law&Crime Network, 5 March 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVQ3kqMJyMI.
“Manhunt: Luigi Mangione and the CEO Murder – a Special Edition of 20/20.” IMDb, 19 Dec. 2024, www.imdb.com/title/tt35051326/.
Martins, Andrew. “Memorable TV.” Memorable TV, 31 Dec. 2024, www.memorabletv.com/news/tmz-investigates-luigi-mangione-mind-killer/.
Morphet, Jack, et al. “Assassinated UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and Wife Had Lived Separately for Years: Report.” New York Post, 5 Dec. 2024, nypost.com/2024/12/05/us-news/assassinated-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thomson-and-wife-had-lived-separately-for-years-report/.
Napolitano, Elizabeth. “UnitedHealth Uses Faulty AI to Deny Elderly Patients Medically Necessary Coverage, Lawsuit Claims – CBS News.” Www.cbsnews.com, 20 Nov. 2023, www.cbsnews.com/news/unitedhealth-lawsuit-ai-deny-claims-medicare-advantage-health-insurance-denials/.
“New York Post Presents: Luigi Mangione Monster or Martyr? (TV Special 2025) – User Reviews – IMDb.” IMDb, 2025, www.imdb.com/title/tt35087093/reviews/
Shapiro, Ben. “Alleged UnitedHealthcare CEO Shooter CAPTURED…HERE’S WHAT WE KNOW.” YouTube, uploaded by Ben Shapiro, 10 December 2024, https://youtu.be/Ecwxq9fDiQU?si=cYM7JPkJkLyrv2tg.
Sherman, Mark. “Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Block Order Returning Man Deported to El Salvador because of Error.” PBS News, 7 Apr. 2025, www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-returning-man-deported-to-el-salvador-because-of-error. Accessed 7 Apr. 2025.
The December 4th Legal Committee. “Legal Fund: Luigi Mangione – CEO Shooting Suspect.” GiveSendGo, www.givesendgo.com/legalfund-ceo-shooting-suspect.
The Recount. “MSN.” Msn.com, 2025, www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ag-pam-bondi-says-us-is-only-required-to-provide-a-plane-to-facilitate-deported-maryland-dads-return/vi-AA1CUz6i?ocid=socialshare.
The UNILAD Team. “Health Insurance Company’s Letter Denying Child a Wheelchair Goes Viral and People Are Outraged.” UNILAD, 6 Dec. 2024, www.unilad.com/news/us-news/united-healthcare-josh-penner-viral-064760-20241206.
The White House. “Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety – the White House.” The White House, 20 Jan. 2025, www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-the-death-penalty-and-protecting-public-safety/.
UnitedHealthcare. “UnitedHealth Group Provides Fact Sheet on Medical Claims.” Uhc.com, UnitedHealthcare, 13 Dec. 2024, www.uhc.com/news-articles/newsroom/fact-sheet.
“Who Is Luigi Mangione?” Rotten Tomatoes, 17 Feb. 2025, www.rottentomatoes.com/m/who_is_luigi_mangione
