Mounting outrage over an ICE agent’s killing of a woman in Minneapolis spilled into streets across the country on Saturday, as crowds of protesters mobilized against what they called the excesses of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.
— The New York Times January 10, 2026.
So now we have plenty of outrage over the killing of a Minneapolis citizen by an ICE officer during a deportation event. The only thing we lack are facts.
Immediately after the shooting, the combatants confidently began to frame a narrative around the events that had just taken place. The protesters led by arguing passionately that the shooting was legally unjustified. Contrary to that, others insisted that not only was the killing justified, but that the deceased woman had herself committed a crime by interfering with a legitimate police action.
Neither side gave any indication of having sufficient evidence to back up their respective claims. On the one hand Mayor Jacob Frey, after viewing a tape of the incident, announced that the assertion the ICE agent acted in self-defense was false; that the claim that Ms Good “ran over” the ICE agent was “bullshit.” He went on to say that ICE should “…get the fuck out of Minneapolis.” He described the federal response as reckless, claiming that the footage he viewed did not support a self-defense claim. Then he urged the protesters to remain peaceful and not escalate tensions.
Enter Kristi Noem, Director of Homeland Security. Ms. Noem sprang to the defense of the ICE agent saying that the agent acted in self-defense. She claimed that Good “attacked ICE and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over with her vehicle.”
JD Vance chimed in by blaming what he characterized as the “far left,” liberal cities, and media coverage for creating a hostile environment for law enforcement. He described Ms. Good’s death as “a tragedy of her own making” and went on to say that Good was a “victim of left-wing ideology.”
Needless to say, none of this amounted to much more than theatre. No one produced any evidence whatsoever that clearly supported their preferred position. They only offered undocumented impressions, which is to say opinions, that aligned with their political stances. Which is something worth talking about.
(A side note. I have attached to this document an analysis of the legal issues involved, written by Jeb Rubenfeld, a professor of Constitutional Law at Yale Law School.) See this link. http://www.onlibertywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/The-Free-Press-The-Legal-Stakes-for-the-Minneapolis-ICE-Shooter.pdf
There is a good deal of chatter among the participants about the importance of the rule of law. But that conversation conflates law and policy. The pros and cons here have to do with policy preferences, not abstractions about the rule of law.
I, for one, think that the Trump Administration has gone way overboard in adopting a mass deportation strategy. Saying that though raises a serious question. Does anybody seriously doubt that the Executive branch is responsible for enforcing the law as it is written? If not then what is to prevent the Executive from announcing that it will refuse to enforce the tax code on upper-income earners. High income earners would be able to simply ignore what had previously been their tax obligations. That is worth thinking about.
There are also jurisdictional issues that need to be considered. There are also questions about which shot was the “kill shot” and whether it matters. Jeb Rubenfeld considers these questions in the attached brief.
When it comes right down to it, the problem that exists resides with Congress. The last time Congress enacted a major overhaul of immigration law was 40 years ago. In 1986, during the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Since then all changes have been made administratively or have been on the margin.
The reason for Congressional paralysis is fairly straightforward. Three factors are responsible for this. (1) Congress has gotten out the habit of passing actual laws. They pass aspirational wish lists and let the bureaucracy make the hard decisions, if it even comes to that. (2) Passing actual legislation with designated policy after a thorough and informed debate that reaches a consensus has become a thing of the past. (3) With an electorate that is (and has been) polarized for about 40 years, developing a reasonable consensus is an exercise in frustration. It also requires leadership, which we sadly lack, and have lacked for quite some time.
Now, instead of passing laws, legislators have been busy building their personal “brands”. Think Marjorie Taylor Green or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. With the advent of campaign finance “reform” party discipline has vanished and political entrepreneurship has replaced regular order. Fiery speeches (largely brimming with stupidity) and executive orders now act as replacements—until the next administration comes along and changes course.
JFB
