Month: January 2026

The ongoing nightmare in Minnesota involving Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents versus Minnesota citizens now resembles Groundhog Day. Saturday’s tragic killing of Alex Pretti is eerily similar to the equally tragic killing of Renee Good just a few weeks ago. Pretti acted incredibly recklessly by interjecting himself into DHS operations while carrying a concealed firearm (albeit apparently legally). However, the agents’ response was highly problematic based on videos taken at the scene.

As in the Good case, federal officials immediately sought to justify Pretti’s killing, making claims for which they offered no support and which were clearly inconsistent with the videos in key respects. DHS Secretary Noem and Border Patrol Commander Bovino branded Pretti a “domestic terrorist” who “attacked” federal agents and intended to “do maximum damage and massacre” them. Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called Pretti a “would-be assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents.”

Federal officials claimed that Pretti “brandished” his gun at the agents, although videos show that he approached them with only a cell phone in hand. The videos don’t show Pretti ever reaching for his gun. Rather, they indicate that an agent confiscated Pretti’s gun moments before he was shot as many as ten times. As in the Good case, the feds initially barred state and local officials from participating in any investigation of Pretti’s shooting.

The Good and Pretti killings evoked polarized political reactions and overheated rhetoric from both sides and do present some gray areas. However, no reasonable, fair-minded person could contest the following:

Federal officials are responsible and accountable for the conduct of their agents but showed zero interest in assuming it here; instead, they took the opposite course. In both cases, they aggressively pushed narratives that are premature at best, lack any apparent evidentiary support, and at worst (and more likely) are blatantly false given available evidence.

They seem determined to stifle efforts to pursue the truth. They stonewalled state and local law enforcement officials. They declined even to investigate the conduct of the agent who killed Good, instead focusing their investigation on her.

Their statements in both cases exonerating the shooters and condemning the victims are highly prejudicial to any objective, credible investigation. No one can have confidence in an investigation when executive branch leaders have already announced the results.

While law enforcement officers deserve considerable leeway in the dangerous and rapidly evolving situations they face, they are not entitled to a total lack of accountability. The administration’s knee-jerk rejection of any possible wrongdoing by DHS agents is not only unwarranted but sends a terrible message both to the agents and the public.

These two cases also highlight broader issues that need urgent attention. By outward appearances, ICE and Border Patrol agents operate in extremely aggressive and confrontational ways. Even if ICE agents could ultimately claim justification for killing Good, they violated DHS protocols throughout their interactions with her. From start to finish, they escalated the situation, increasing the danger both to her and themselves. (See here and here.) Pretti’s intervention with Border Patrol agents came only after one of them threw a woman to the ground. There is no indication that he attempted to do anything but assist her. Even Stephen Miller suggested that the agents who shot him were not following their protocols.

There are many other instances in many places of DHS agents engaging in seemingly gratuitously aggressive, confrontational conduct that invites the left’s frequent portrayal of them as Nazi-like thugs. Clearly, ICE and the Border Patrol need intensive scrutiny. Among the questions to be asked:

Are agents out of control and lacking adequate training and supervision? They undoubtedly face difficult situations and provocations, perhaps even organized efforts to provoke and impede them as many on the right allege. However, professional law enforcement officers are trained to respond to such encounters in measured ways designed to de-escalate them.

Alternatively, are the agents simply doing what the Trump administration expects of them? The administration’s rhetoric coming from Trump on down, including their reflexive defense of the agents and aversion to seeking accountability, certainly suggests that Trump et al. encourage and embrace their hyper-aggressive tactics.

What law enforcement objective justifies the massive surge of DHS agents to Minnesota? It has a relatively low proportion of illegal immigrants compared to other states. The number of DHS agents there now far exceeds the total Minneapolis police force.

Is DHS really focusing on apprehending the “worst of the worst” illegal immigrants as DHS claims? While credible data is elusive, it appears that only about five percent of detainees have criminal convictions and only about half face criminal charges, which may or may not be serious. Many believe the current approach is just a massive, indiscriminate, quota-driven show of force that generates much publicity and chaos but few results that make the country safer.

If there is a silver lining here, the tragic deaths of Good and Pretti may provide an inflection point. Even Trump has backed off slightly from defending these outrages, and he placed “Border Czar” Tom Homan in charge of Minnesota operations.  Homan has his shortcomings, but may still be the closest the Trump administration has to a voice of reason on immigration enforcement.

But much more is needed. The DHS appropriations bill is part of a “minibus” package of bills pending before the Senate as the current continuing resolution nears expiration at the end of January. Democrats vow to oppose funding DHS unless it undergoes reforms. Will this finally be the moment that Republicans in Congress find the courage and integrity to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities by joining in crafting fixes to the DHS mess? We’ll see.

The death of Renee Nicole Good in Minnesota is tragic in many ways and cries out for a comprehensive, objective investigation both as to its specifics and more broadly what it says about the Trump administration’s super aggressive immigration enforcement tactics. Sadly, the politicization of this incident makes it extremely doubtful that these issues will receive the full and fair scrutiny they deserve.

Politicians and ideologues on both sides are guilty of grandstanding and overheated rhetoric over the incident that creates more smoke than light. However, the primary blame falls squarely on federal officials who are responsible for finding the truth here. President Trump and his underlings, most notably Homeland Security Secretary Noem and Vice President Vance, have rushed to judgment with a narrative that lacks support in the evidence that has emerged so far and in fact seems blatantly false in key respects.

It appears that Good was using her SUV as part of a protest and effort to interfere with ICE operations by partially blocking a Minneapolis street. Videos recorded in the moments before her death show an ICE agent approaching her vehicle aggressively and trying to force open the door. Good initially backed her car up and then drove it forward and away from the agent. The car may (or may not) have made contact with another ICE agent standing in front of it who then moved away. The agent was not seriously injured if he was hit. This agent fired three shots, one through the windshield and apparently two through the driver side, killing Good.

From this, Noem proclaimed that Good committed “an act of domestic terrorism” by “weaponizing” her vehicle in an attempt to ram and kill the agent, who was therefore entirely justified in killing her in self-defense. Trump embraced and embellished this narrative in a Truth Social post, asserting that Good “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.” He added, absurdly, that “it is hard to believe he is alive.”

No evidence has come to light that would support this narrative, which is now being dutifully echoed by Vance and other administration officials.^[1]One official, “Border Czar” Tom Homan, was at first a lone voice of reason urging that the investigation be allowed to play out before reaching conclusions. However, he later seemed to back off … Continue reading A more plausible take from the available videos is that Good was trying to escape the ICE agents when she was shot.

Good’s conduct was hardly exemplary. She was wrong to attempt to impede ICE operations as opposed to just protesting them and reckless to use her 4,000-pound SUV in the process. She should not have resisted the ICE agents, although her reaction under the circumstances may be understandable.^[2]One aspect that has been largely overlooked is the very aggressive action of the ICE agent who rushed to Good’s vehicle and reached inside it. This  certainly could have instilled fear and panic … Continue reading Also, one video shows Good’s wife taunting the agent who shot Good and apparently urging Good to drive away.

Obviously, much investigative work remains to be done. On the key issue of whether the ICE agent reasonably believed Good posed a threat justifying the use of lethal force, law enforcement officers are understandably accorded considerable deference. Regardless of his perceptions and their reasonableness, however, nothing revealed so far remotely suggests that Good was a “domestic terrorist” or that she in fact tried to attack the agent.

In sum, the narrative put forth by Trump and his supporters is premature at best regarding the ICE agent’s conduct and wholly baseless if not blatantly false regarding Good. It’s also highly prejudicial to the investigation. How can anyone have confidence in an FBI investigation when the president and other executive branch leaders have already announced the results? The fact that the FBI changed course and excluded Minnesota officials from participating further undermines the credibility of its investigation.

The administration’s knee-jerk rejection of any possible wrongdoing by ICE and its agents is not only unwarranted but sends a terrible message to both ICE and the public. Certainly, law enforcement officers deserve support and must be granted considerable leeway in the many dangerous and rapidly unfolding situations they regularly face. However, they are not entitled to a total lack of accountability. Mistakes are made and rogue actions do occur.

Amid all the issues and ambiguities over this incident, one crystal clear thing that stands out is the lack of integrity on the part of Trump and his supporters. They are singularly focused on absolving themselves of blame at all cost and hostile to seeking the truth. Indeed, they are doing all they can to demonize and suppress those who would dare to question their dubious narrative. Their reactions should be condemned by anyone with a conscience and a sincere desire to see justice done in this case.