At approximately 10:25 am (CST) on January 7^th in Minneapolis, an ICE agent shot and killed a 37-year old woman, Renee Nicole Good. Videos of the incident quickly hit the mainstream and social media.   

Four hours after the shooting, at 3:28 pm (EST), President Trump posted about the event on Truth Social.  He stated conclusively that the woman, “violently, wilfully, and viciously ran over the ICE officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.”  

To be precise, here’s the full text of his post below:

“I have just viewed the clip of the event which took place in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is a horrible thing to watch. The woman screaming was, obviously, a professional agitator, and the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense. Based on the attached clip, it is hard to believe he is alive, but is now recovering in the hospital. The situation is being studied, in its entirety, but the reason these incidents are happening is because the Radical Left is threatening, assaulting, and targeting our Law Enforcement Officers and ICE Agents on a daily basis. They are just trying to do the job of MAKING AMERICA SAFE. We need to stand by and protect our Law Enforcement Officers from this Radical Left Movement of Violence and Hate!”

President Donald Trump on Truth Social, January 7, 2026

Seven hours after the shooting, at 5:41 pm (CST), Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, held a press conference in Minneapolis.  In no uncertain terms, she defended the shooting by saying, “Our officer followed his training, did exactly what’s he’s been taught to do in that situation.” 

Noem further stated that the woman was obstructing law enforcement and refusing to obey orders.  The woman “then proceeded to weaponize her vehicle and attempted to run a law enforcement officer over.” 

Noem said this was an attempt to kill or cause great bodily harm, and that the officer feared for his life and those around him.  He fired “defensive shots to save his own life and those around him.”  Noem characterized this as an “act of domestic terrorism.”

Millions of Americans who have viewed the video footage are troubled by what they see and how it squares with what the Trump Administration is telling us. Some have jumped to the conclusion that it was outright murder. Others of us are troubled by what we see and are not convinced that the use of deadly force was necessary under the circumstances. Still others see the video footage as validating the Trump Administration’s conclusions. And, millions more of us are reluctant to draw conclusions until we have the benefit of a full investigation laying out all the facts and circumstances.  Given these mixed perspectives, how do we proceed?

It’s inconceivable that the Trump Administration could conclusively determine, in just a few hours and without a thorough investigation, that the use of deadly force was justified.

For those of you who are not attorneys, the law on self defense and the use of deadly force is complicated.  Determinations inevitably rest on an examination of the totality of the facts and circumstances. The basic standard is a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, with the use of force being proportional to the threat.  And, when it comes to Homeland Security, its policies on self defense and the use of deadly force are set forth in 13 single-spaced pages.  You don’t just view a video clip and make a decision.

The larger point here is that neither the Trump Administration, nor anyone else, should be drawing definitive conclusions about the use of deadly force in this case until there has been a full investigation into the totality of the facts and circumstances as related to the law.  Let me explain.

Without attempting to be exhaustive, here are just some of the questions that need to be investigated and answered before the Trump Administration could definitively declare that the use of deadly force was justified.

What happened with respect to Renee Nicole Good in the time leading up to the shooting?  How long had she been at the scene?  What were her interactions with ICE officials?  Did she make threatening remarks?  Was she highly agitated or showing signs of being out of control? 

What were the specific interactions immediately before the shooting?  What did ICE officers tell her as they approached her car?  Did they tell her to get out of the car or leave?  Were directives from ICE officials consistent or mixed?  What was their tone of voice  (e.g., calm and firm versus angry and shouting)?  What did the victim say and do in response to the ICE directives?  Did she threaten violence or say she was going to run them over?  Did she say she was going to pull out or move her car of their way? 

What were the exact conditions immediately before and at the time of the shooting?  What were the movements of her vehicle?  What was the timeframe between her backing up and then moving forward?  How fast was she going?  Where were her wheels pointed, at the officer or elsewhere?  How much time transpired between the time she was told to stop and when shots were fired?  Did the ICE agent have an opportunity to move out of the way of the vehicle?   Did the agent continue to fire shots after the vehicle had moved past him?

After considering the totality of the circumstances, after a full investigation, we can then draw conclusions. Given all the facts and circumstances, was it reasonable for the ICE agent to conclude that his life or the lives of others were in imminent danger?  Was it reasonable for him to conclude he or those around him faced imminent great bodily harm?  Did he have a reasonable opportunity to avoid this imminent danger or great bodily harm?  In short, was the deadly force that he used reasonable under the totality of the facts and circumstances?

Only after a full and objective investigation can we draw conclusions about the shooting. The video footage alone is not sufficient for us to draw definitive conclusions.  We also need to consider all of the evidence related to the kinds of questions I raise.  It could make all the difference in the world, for instance, if ICE officers told her to leave, and she responded that she was pulling out.  On the other hand, if they told her to stop and she yelled threats about running them over, this could support the officer’s conclusion of imminent danger to his life.   Similarly, it could make a huge difference if the ICE officer continued to shoot after the car moved away from him.

It was both irresponsible and a breach of trust for the Trump Administration to preemptively declare that the use of deadly force was justified prior to a full and impartial investigation into the shooting.

Neither the President, Secretary Noem, nor anyone else in the Trump Administration had the benefit of a full investigation regarding the incident at the time they made their pronouncements. It was irresponsible for any of them to vindicate the ICE officer regarding the use of deadly force because at the time they spoke they simply did not know the answers to all the critical questions.

The Administration’s preemptive declarations were also a breach of trust with the American people.  The federal government, as the employer of these ICE agents, is responsible to ensure that they comply with the law in performing their duties. Trust in the federal government is maintained when the people see it objectively and evenhandedly investigate incidents where its agents may have acted against the law. And trust is enhanced when the government shares its conclusions and investigative findings with the people. On the other hand, trust is broken when Americans see the federal government vindicating its employees before even conducting an objective and evenhanded investigation.  Americans lose faith in a government that appears more interested in enforcing its point of view than being accountable for acting within the law.

Credibility and trust In the Trump Administration is further eroded because it is denying Minnesota law enforcement officials access to the evidence and participation in the FBI’s investigation of the matter. 

At a White House press conference on Thursday (January 8), Vice President JD Vance doubled down on the position that the ICE agent who shot and killed Good acted within his authority to defend himself from a vehicle moving toward him. He further doubled down on the federal government’s exclusive role in the investigation. He dismissed Minnesota Governor Walz’s request to let state and local investigators rejoin the investigation and declared that the ICE office had “absolute immunity because he was doing his job.”

Tens of millions of Americans are conflicted between what we see with their eyes and what the Trump Administration is telling us about the shooting.  We are rightly concerned about trusting determinations made in just a few hours, without the benefit of a thorough investigation into the facts of the matter.  How credible might the investigation be if the Trump Administration has already stated its conclusions?  And, what chance is there that the investigation will be objective if the Administration is keeping the entire effort to itself? 

The Trump Administration is undermining its credibility and the people’s trust, perhaps irretrievably, because of its actions related to shooting in Minneapolis.

I believe the shooting in Minneapolis is a tipping point for Americans when it comes to their trust and confidence in the Trump Administration. Sharply declining job approval numbers indicate tens of millions of Americans are already unhappy with his performance and aren’t buying his incessant efforts to blame and condemn Democrats for every problem.  Most Americans recognize that he lies.  We know he frequently offers little proof or evidence to support his claims.

Whether or not the Trump Administration is successful in controlling the investigation and its findings, the evidence will come out. The Trump Administration cannot prevent Americans from viewing the video footage and considering media efforts to answer many of the questions that merit investigation.  As the facts do come out, the people will realize it was impossible and irresponsible for the Administration to prejudge the matter. The Administration will suffer yet another hit to its trust and credibility. Americans are going to resent being bullied into accepting a conclusion that our eyes aren’t so sure about.  And we’re going to resent the Administration for keeping the facts from us. I believe it’s likely the President and his Administration will not recover from this loss of credibility and trust.