- “The actions of the ICE agents deployed to my city are dangerous, and now, even deadly.” – Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey accused President Donald Trump and senior administration officials of spreading false information and escalating tensions in the city following the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis resident by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, as the federal government moved to take full control of the investigation and deploy additional agents to Minnesota.
In a guest essay published Jan. 8 in The New York Times, Frey said federal actions in Minneapolis reflect a sharp departure from the cooperative relationships cities historically maintained with the federal government during crises. He contrasted the current situation with the response to the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge, when 13 people were killed and the George W. Bush administration worked with city leaders despite deep political differences.
Frey said that tradition has not held under the Trump administrations. He wrote that Minneapolis experienced the breakdown most clearly during the civil unrest following George Floyd’s murder in 2020, when he said Trump encouraged violence and denied federal disaster relief.
That pattern, Frey argued, continued this week when 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good was fatally shot by an ICE agent during a protest on a residential street in Minneapolis. Frey said the shooting was not shocking, given what he described as weeks of increasingly aggressive federal immigration enforcement in the city, including agents arresting people in public libraries and malls and dragging a pregnant woman through the street in mid-December.
“The actions of the ICE agents deployed to my city are dangerous, and now, even deadly,” Frey wrote.
The shooting touched off days of protests and a widening standoff between Minnesota officials and the Trump administration.
According to reporting by The New York Times, Minnesota withdrew from the investigation after federal officials denied state authorities access to evidence. Drew Evans, the superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, said Thursday that his agency had stepped aside because of that refusal.
Gov. Tim Walz activated the Minnesota National Guard “out of an abundance of caution,” according to his office, though the troops have not yet been deployed. At least 1,000 people gathered for protests in south Minneapolis Thursday evening, while demonstrators earlier in the day were met with tear gas outside a federal building that houses ICE headquarters and an immigration court, which was closed because of safety concerns.
Documents obtained by The New York Times indicated that at least 100 additional federal agents were being deployed to Minnesota. Frey said in an interview Thursday that the Trump administration would use unrest as an excuse to expand its presence in the city.
“Our community members are not taking the bait,” Frey said.
Federal and local officials offered sharply conflicting accounts of Ms. Good’s killing. Administration officials, including Trump, defended the shooting as lawful and characterized it as an act of self-defense. City and state officials rejected those claims.
Walz said at a news conference that “Minnesota must be part of this investigation,” adding, “I say that only because people in positions of power have already passed judgment.” He said some federal statements about the shooting had been “verifiably false.”
Frey directly challenged Trump’s public claims about the encounter. Trump said Ms. Good “behaved horribly” and “ran him over,” referring to the ICE agent. Frey wrote that after reviewing multiple videos, “it seems clear that Ms. Good, a mother of three, was trying to leave the scene, not attack an agent.”
At a news conference in New York on Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem dismissed requests for state involvement.
“They have not been cut out,” Noem said. “They don’t have any jurisdiction in this investigation.”
At a White House briefing, Vice President JD Vance accused news organizations of acting as “agents of propaganda of a radical fringe” for reporting that Ms. Good did not pose a threat to the agent before she was shot.
The Department of Homeland Security defended the broader enforcement operation in Minnesota.
“In the face of violent attacks, ICE law enforcement arrested pedophiles, rapists and drug traffickers in Minneapolis yesterday,” Tricia McLaughlin, a department spokeswoman, said in a statement. She said Operation Metro Surge had resulted in more than 1,500 arrests statewide.
State and local leaders warned that the surge in immigration enforcement was likely to fuel chaos.
Walz placed responsibility for the escalation on Trump and Noem, saying at a news conference Wednesday, “You’ve done enough,” and calling on the administration to pull back federal agents.
Frey said Minneapolis experienced no major public safety incidents overnight and that the city’s priorities remained “keeping people safe” and then “getting ICE out of here.”
In his essay, Frey argued that the administration’s narrative surrounding the shooting was part of a broader effort to vilify immigrants and cities that welcome them. He warned that the refusal to allow state investigators access to evidence sends a message that constitutional protections may not apply to those present during federal immigration actions.
By conflating public safety with militarized enforcement, Frey wrote, the administration threatens democratic norms and the long-term stability of the country. He urged other mayors to focus on building functional, inclusive cities and supporting residents over ideology, pointing to Minneapolis’ efforts to reduce violent crime, expand housing and support immigrant-owned businesses.
“The best way to convince the country that welcoming and lifting up immigrants is good for its communities is by proving it in our own cities,” Frey wrote.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
There are reports and videos surfacing showing Renee Good’s wife, Rebecca Good, saying “I made her come down here. It’s my fault” moments after the shooting. Renee’s wife was not in the car because she was close by videoing. Being that DHS is saying that Renee’s car was blocking ICE operations this leads to speculation that possibly the Goods were looking for a confrontation in order to video it. The details are still playing out.
Link?
“The alleged wife of Renee Good, 37, who was shot and killed by ICE in Minnesota on Wednesday, was filming the encounter from outside the vehicle when Good was fatally shot.
Video shows Good’s partner following behind federal agents with her phone as they approached Good’s red Honda Pilot, which was blocking the middle of the road. Good’s wife didn’t register the gun shots, but she ran after the vehicle after it sped away and crashed into cars up the street.
In the aftermath of Good’s shooting, footage shows Good’s wife slumped on the ground with her dog beside her crying.
“I made her come down here, it’s my fault,” the woman said.”
https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/video-shows-wife-of-ice-shooting-victim-expresses-self-blame-over-fatal-shooting-who-is-renee-good
“There are reports and videos surfacing … this leads to speculation …The details are still playing out.”
This article is about the provably false, inflammatory lies put forth by the president, the vice president, the head and the assistant secretary of DHS.
There’s no “both sides” here. Nothing about those lies is “still playing out.”
Are you refuting that Good was in the middle of the road blocking ICE operations? Are you refuting that her wife was videoing the incident? Are you refuting that her wife said “I made her come down here, it’s my fault”?
It’s only 2 days since the incident, things are “still playing out”.
The Free Press got it exactly right in their article yesterday “The Right Response to the Minneapolis ICE Shooting” (paid subscription):
“Unfortunately, too many politicians and senior bureaucrats have decided that they must react to every tragedy according to the speed and logic of the internet, which goads them to offer the most partisan take they can muster, as quickly as possible, lest the other side’s narrative sway the public first. They spread falsehoods and baseless conclusions with no apparent remorse . . .
These omissions, overstatements, and distortions reflect the mood of the country, and specifically the debate over immigration enforcement. Walz referred to ICE last year as the “modern-day Gestapo,” while California governor Gavin Newsom and Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson have both smeared immigration officers as the “secret police.” Meanwhile, Noem isn’t alone in tarring a large segment of the left as terrorists. White House adviser Stephen Miller called anti-ICE protests last year an “insurrection” as the administration sent in the National Guard . . .
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, who is in charge of ICE and its response to the incident, did worse in her press conference than leap to conclusions. Her remarks distorted the basic facts of the episode in a way that stamped out any ambiguity. “They got stuck in the snow because of the adverse weather that is in Minneapolis,” she said. “They were attempting to push out their vehicle and a woman attacked them.” This isn’t so. There was little snow on the road, and it seemed to have nothing to do with the violence that unfolded. Noem described the incident as an “act of domestic terrorism.” . . .
Mistakes and distortions like those that followed Wednesday’s shooting are hard to avoid at a moment when so many public figures prejudge every news story. Partisans witness messy events like a rapid standoff-turned-shooting and instantly cram them into neat lines that confirm their worst impressions of their political opponents. There’s a large audience for the quick takes among the polarized public. But that doesn’t absolve officials of their responsibility to wait for the facts and state them clearly.”
Here’a a very balanced opinion piece from the USA Today of all places:
“Again, this is awful, but it is disingenuous at best to frame what happened simply as though Good was a mother killed by an ICE officer as she was out for a leisurely Sunday drive. Good was directly interfering with federal law enforcement operations and posed a threat, namely because she was driving a massive vehicle.
This does not mean that she “deserved” to die or that the ICE agent should have employed lethal force. It just means I can see how the agent fired upon her car, and I am struggling to understand why Good was interfering with ICE agents.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/01/08/ice-agent-minneapolis-shooting-enforce-law/88084377007/
This is not a balanced piece… at all.
The piece is not balanced because it:
Treats disputed facts as presumptively settled
Applies skepticism in one direction
Relies on ideologically aligned authority
Moralizes obedience while minimizing state violence
Resolves uncertainty in favor of federal power
The last point is perhaps most prescient.
So let’s look at some examples…
“She was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent as she appeared to attempt to drive through a group of ICE agents in her vehicle.”
In other words she adopts the federal justification. She also adopts as fact that “Good appears to have purposefully driven into officers…” Again, that’s not balanced.
“Video angles of the incident have allowed for multiple interpretations of the incident. I will go ahead and give mine.” That is a crucial admission. But what follows is not skeptical of her own interpretation—it is skeptical only of critics. Again, not balanced.
She adopts one quoted expect – Amy Swearer, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom – conservative legal advocacy group and the individual has no particular expertise – not a use of force expert, not a civil rights attorney…
I could go on, I think the most interesting part of this is that you believe this is a balanced piece.
“New video shows ICE shooting victim Renee Nicole Good block road for FOUR MINUTES before she was shot so wife could leap out of car to begin filming”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15449045/new-video-ice-shooting-renee-nicole-good-minneapolis.html
Problems with the article…
The headline and narrative repeatedly assert or strongly imply motive—for example that Renee Good blocked the road *so* her wife could film—without evidentiary support. Conjecture (“apparently,” “there is speculation”) is used to construct a theory of provocation rather than to describe verified facts.
The article claims Good “blocked the road for four minutes,” while later conceding that other vehicles could still pass. This inconsistency is not reconciled, indicating that the video is being interpreted to support a conclusion rather than neutrally reported.
The piece links Good’s death to her activism, her child’s charter school’s “social justice” mission, and activist networks, implying causation without proof. This rhetorical move shifts blame through association rather than demonstrated conduct.
Statements made by Good’s wife in visible distress (“I made her come down here, it’s my fault”) are presented without context and used to imply culpability (instead of normal remorse based guilt), effectively criminalizing grief rather than illuminating facts.
The article relies heavily on ideologically aligned or tabloid sources (notably the *New York Post*), anonymous law enforcement voices, and selective quotations from partisan figures, while downplaying or marginalizing contrary evidence from local officials, family members, and independent experts.
The video shows Good’s car stopped vertically on the road, not horizontally like anyone trying to park would do. Who does that unless their plan is to impede?
I feel like there’d be a joke in there regarding drivers who are members of particular groups, if this wasn’t such a serious outcome.
In any case, I’m not seeing any real disagreement regarding any of the commenters on here. Most suspect that she was trying to impede ICE agents from proceeding, but that doing so shouldn’t have led to a hole in her head.
Of course, most people aren’t out trying to impede ICE agents, and ALSO wouldn’t try to escape when several of them have their guns pointed at them.
That’s part of the reason we don’t have holes in our heads, this morning.
We’re also not out in the gulf smuggling drugs in boats from Venezuela.
Obviously, not a comment on whether anyone “deserves” the outcome.
Most people wouldn’t park vertically in the road in front of ICE while their partner jumps out to video the coming action.
You obviously haven’t been to San Francisco. ;-)
Sometimes, “people” themselves reserve a spot. Which also probably leads to shootings, at times.
But yeah, this lady was almost certainly trying to impede ICE. (By the way, I guess they weren’t wearing masks at that point.)
No one on here is going to seriously argue that she wasn’t trying to block ICE from proceeding. If anyone suggests otherwise, they’re the type of people that will soon resemble that guy who was sprayed with orange pepper spray in Oakland, awhile back.
David, I asked ChatGPT to assess your article to see if it was balanced. Here’s the response:
Short answer: it’s not very balanced.
It reads primarily as a one-sided political narrative, even though it includes quotes from federal officials.
Here’s a clear breakdown of why.
Why it leans unbalanced
1. The framing adopts one side’s assumptions
From the opening sentence, the article is framed around Mayor Frey’s accusations and treats them as the central lens through which events are understood. The reader is guided to see federal actions as escalatory, deceptive, and dangerous before competing interpretations are fully explored.
Example:
Frey’s claims are described in detail and repeatedly contextualized.
Federal claims are often summarized briefly or immediately followed by skepticism or rebuttal.
2. Unequal evidentiary treatment
Both sides’ accounts are mentioned, but they are not treated symmetrically:
Frey’s version is supported with:
references to “multiple videos”
historical comparisons (George Floyd unrest, I-35W bridge collapse)
character details about the victim (“a mother of three”)
Federal officials’ version is:
described largely through quotes
often paired with language suggesting bad faith (“vilify,” “passed judgment,” “verifiably false”)
not explored in depth with supporting evidence or detail
This creates an imbalance in perceived credibility.
3. Moral and emotional cues favor one side
The article uses emotionally charged language primarily in support of Frey’s position:
“dragging a pregnant woman through the street”
“dangerous, and now, even deadly”
“militarized enforcement”
“bait”
Federal officials’ language, by contrast, is presented as harsh, dismissive, or propagandistic, reinforcing a moral asymmetry.
4. The article centers a guest essay
Because much of the article is built around a New York Times guest essay written by Frey himself, it inherently reflects his worldview. While that’s appropriate for an opinion piece, the surrounding reporting largely reinforces his claims rather than interrogating them.
A more balanced approach would have:
separated reporting more clearly from Frey’s argument
independently evaluated disputed facts (e.g., videos, sequence of events)
included neutral expert or legal analysis of jurisdiction and use-of-force standards
What does add some balance
To be fair, the article does include:
direct quotes from Trump, Noem, Vance, and DHS
acknowledgment that federal officials claim self-defense
mention of alleged violent crimes tied to ICE operations
However, these elements function more as counterpoints than as equally developed perspectives.
Bottom line
As journalism: It leans strongly toward Frey’s interpretation and values.
As political commentary: It’s coherent and persuasive.
As a balanced account of a disputed incident: No—it privileges one side’s narrative in framing, emphasis, emotional tone, and depth of support.
“The article centers a guest essay” – DUH! Boy that’s a lot of words to point out the obvious. Maybe you should have just read the title of the article!
BTW, you’re the one who called the USA Today op-ed balanced and then failed to respond to my points.
I think it’s also important to understand the Vanguard’s purpose here.
The purpose of the Vanguard’s article is to provide accountability journalism that challenges the Trump administration’s official narrative by situating the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis within a broader pattern of federal overreach, transparency failures, and erosion of democratic norms.
By centering verifiable facts, directly attributed statements from local and state officials, and documented investigative obstruction, the article frames the incident not as an isolated tragedy but as part of a systemic breakdown in federal–local cooperation and due process.
This approach fits squarely within the Vanguard’s narrative focus on scrutinizing state power, exposing institutional abuses carried out under claims of public safety, and foregrounding the real human and civic costs of militarized enforcement, particularly on marginalized communities and local democracy.
DG say, ” . . . the Vanguard’s narrative focus on scrutinizing state power, exposing institutional abuses carried out under claims of public safety, and foregrounding the real human and civic costs of militarized enforcement, particularly on marginalized communities and local democracy.”
And claiming that assumedly marginalized people have a right to wear masks while protesting, even though the masks prevent anyone from being able to asses who they are, much less pass-judgement on whether they are ‘marginalized’ or not, and may be engaging in hate or genocidal speech or vandalizing, or assaulting, etc.
New video just released, tell me now that they weren’t looking for a confrontation:
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/ice-in-minnesota/new-video-shows-officers-perspective-in-ice-shooting-of-renee-good/89-238e5deb-4397-4c50-8304-9c005dc3b454
You continue to attempt to shift this – the issue is NOT whether they were obstructing or looking for a confrontation, the issue is whether the ICE officer was lawful in using lethal force. I posted the law yesterday and your response was “what does this have to do with my comment” or something to that effect, it actually has to do with everything you’ve said on this topic and you never even responded to it.
It shows this simply wasn’t a mother who’s also a poet just happened to wonder into an ICE operation as the left wing media want you to believe. It shows that she and her partner chose to be there to try and impede ICE. It shows that they purposely started the confrontation and put themselves in harm’s way.
Renee Good’s wife Rebecca saying to the ICE agent:
“Do you want to come at us?”
“Do you want to come at us?”
“Go get yourself some lunch, big boy.”
No one is disputing that. The question is about the use of the force.
After looking at the video Keith posted, I would say that (some) of the issue is that some protestors don’t have very good judgement, and seem to think they can view law enforcement orders as “suggestions”. The same issue that we’ve seen time and time again in regard to police shooting videos.
Here’s a more-useful suggestion: If you have a gun pointed out you, it’s not a very good time to be asserting your perceived “rights”. And if you actually think you always have rights, I’d refer you to the video (as well as what George Carlin noted about “rights”).
Truth be told, violent confrontations with ANY authority in the U.S. are usually the easiest type of violent confrontation to avoid. And yet, some people seek them out.
Why not go to Oakland, and try to assert your “right” to not be attacked by criminals, there?
Martyrs, I guess. Was it worth it?
In the video you can hear the contact from Good’s car hitting the officer.
Also not a good idea – even if inadvertently.
Everything’s a lot easier and safer if you don’t view orders as suggestions.
“Everything’s a lot easier and safer if you don’t view orders as suggestions.”
white mansplaining
Well, the person who was shot was “white” at least.
So maybe they just need some nondescript color “mansplaining”.
Or maybe ICE Barbie can “shesplain” it to them. (Didn’t she “splain” this to her own dog, at one point?)
All I can tell you with certainty is that I’m not going to be out blocking ICE vehicles, acting belligerently toward them, or trying to escape from them when they have guns pointed at me.
So maybe the world can use some more “splaining” from someone with common sense – regardless of skin color or sex.
There’s a reason why it’s generally lawyers who do know your rights training, that would be the proper person and venue for such advice
Yeah, I’m sure that some attorneys would have prevented this situation – perhaps even if they were white and male.
You can use a law book to shield yourself from bullets, if it’s thick enough.
Or, you can make choices which don’t expose yourself to extreme danger.
Authorities don’t care what skin color or sex you have in those situations, nor do they care about your precious “rights”.
Follow their orders – what’s so difficult about that? There’s almost NOTHING that’s easier than that – they’re exceedingly clear almost every time. The only people who have trouble with this concept are those who think that orders are voluntary.
Save the legal arguments for courtrooms, not for confrontations on the street (that you yourself ultimately instigated).
And if you don’t like Trump and his policies, maybe next time try harder to convince people not to elect someone like him. Or maybe incidents like this will cause them to reconsider who they vote for.
Actual legal advice
I’ve seen something similar to that, but which also advises you to not run if authorities are attempting to detain you. Left unsaid (in regard to that) is using what can be perceived as a deadly weapon to accomplish an escape.
Which would “solve” a lot of problems, if people followed that guidance. But then, what would people do on weekends – if they had no incident in which to direct their outrage? Hell, they might even have to take a hobby (such as commenting on a blog regarding other topics).
Keith, isn’t that sound the sound of the gun shots?
Also, why did he step in front of her car?
Also, why didn’t his colleagues simply tell her to move on rather than ordering her to get out of the car and pulling her door open?
Matt: That last question might be a good one. As I recall, there were sirens going off (an ICE caravan?), but it seems like there’d still normally be some type of additional warning to move-along.
“Keith, isn’t that sound the sound of the gun shots?”
No – not from what I heard. I heard a “thump” and a frightened/startled agent. Or at least enough evidence to not convict the agent, if he actually ended up on trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INJnqW8yc4I
Maybe the mob has to extinguish their torches for now. Despite THAT comment (which isn’t directed at the incident itself), I actually do believe I can analyze this objectively.
Then again, I thought the same thing regarding a bunch of other incidents on the Internet. Turns out that video interpretation is in the “eye of the beholder” after all. (Yet another great Twilight Zone episode, by the way. But I will say that my own bias caused me to see Donna Douglas as more attractive than the pig-nosed hospital staff, which I suspect the writer already knew.)
Note: to post a comment on the Vanguard you must register with your first and last name. If you fail to do so, your comments will not be posted.
For what it’s worth, I now have a very different opinion of what occurred, and more importantly – how it occurred (compared to what I concluded at first).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INJnqW8yc4I
I do believe that the agent was actually hit by the vehicle, as well. (At which point, it still would have been better had he not responded with deadly force, also causing the vehicle to careen out of control.)
They had her license plate number that point, just let it go and deal with it later. Especially since this lady was not likely a cop-killing fugitive, for example.
The use of the gun did not save the agent’s life.
But I would NOT convict that agent, based on my understanding of the law and the video. I already have enough “evidence” to err on the side of innocence.
Seems like there needs to be some change in policy/law, regarding how/when to use deadly force in response to a threat.