Listen to the article
Trump Administration Officials Halted Federal Probe Into ICE Agent’s Fatal Shooting, Report Reveals
Senior Trump administration officials intervened to stop a federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent last month, according to a recent New York Times report that cites anonymous sources familiar with the matter.
Hours after Good was killed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross, federal agents in the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota had begun preparing to investigate the incident as a potential civil rights violation. The office had already obtained a warrant to search Good’s vehicle to examine critical evidence including blood spatter patterns and bullet holes.
However, high-ranking Department of Justice officials, including FBI director Kash Patel, abruptly ordered Minnesota prosecutors to halt their inquiry. Sources indicate the directive came amid concerns that the investigation, led by then-Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson, might contradict President Trump’s public statements about the incident.
The administration had claimed that Good “ran over” the ICE agent—an assertion that video evidence has since proven false. Rather than pursuing the civil rights investigation, DOJ leadership reportedly instructed the Minnesota office to shift focus toward investigating whether Good had assaulted Ross prior to the shooting or examining statements made by Good’s partner to ICE agents before the incident.
The disruption of the investigation has had significant consequences. Thompson and five other prosecutors from the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office resigned in mid-January, reportedly due largely to the orders redirecting the investigation away from examining the circumstances of Good’s death.
Attorney General Pam Bondi later appeared on Fox News claiming she had fired the officials because “they didn’t want to support the men and women at ICE”—a characterization that contradicts the reported sequence of events leading to their resignations.
The federal government’s handling of the case has created tension with state authorities. Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has accused the DOJ of withholding critical evidence and files needed for the state’s own investigation into Good’s death.
“I expect the federal government to provide the requested information, documents and physical items to our office,” Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said earlier this month. “The federal government has been clear that they are not conducting an investigation into Renee Good’s death. But we are.”
The DOJ has indicated it will not pursue criminal charges against Ross, effectively closing the federal case without a thorough investigation into potential civil rights violations.
Public opinion appears to diverge significantly from the administration’s position. A recent Marquette University Law School poll found that only 37 percent of respondents believed Good’s killing was “justified,” while 62 percent disagreed with that characterization. Similarly, a CNN/SSRS poll last month revealed deep public skepticism about federal handling of the case, with just 17 percent of Americans expressing full trust in the federal government to conduct its own investigation into Good’s death.
The controversy highlights growing tensions between federal and state law enforcement agencies under the current administration, particularly regarding the oversight and accountability of federal agents. It also raises questions about political influence over DOJ investigations, especially in cases that might contradict White House narratives.
As Minnesota authorities continue pushing for access to evidence and information to complete their investigation, the case illustrates the complex interplay between different levels of government in addressing potential misconduct by federal law enforcement personnel, and the challenges that arise when political considerations appear to influence investigative priorities.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
Concerning if the DOJ halted a federal probe into this incident based on Trump’s unverified statements. It’s important investigations are allowed to proceed independently, without political interference. I hope the full truth comes to light through proper channels.
This is a serious allegation, if true. The public has a right to know the facts around this incident, without political interference. I hope the relevant authorities will thoroughly investigate the matter and hold anyone accountable who may have overstepped their bounds.
Shutting down a federal investigation in this manner, if the reports are correct, sets a dangerous precedent. Government institutions must remain impartial and uphold the rule of law, not bow to political pressure. I hope this will be properly addressed.
I agree, the impartiality and independence of law enforcement investigations is critical to maintaining public trust. This situation warrants close scrutiny.
If true, the DOJ’s reported actions here are deeply troubling and undermine public trust in government institutions. Investigations must be shielded from political interference to ensure the integrity of the process and the rule of law.
I agree, the independence of law enforcement is critical. Proper oversight and accountability are necessary to prevent such abuses of power.
If the reports are accurate, the DOJ’s actions here are concerning. Federal agencies should not be used to shield political figures from scrutiny, even former ones. A full, independent investigation is warranted to get to the truth.
I’m concerned by the allegations that the DOJ halted a federal probe into this incident based on the former president’s unverified statements. Investigations should be allowed to proceed independently and not be subject to political influence.
The reported intervention by the DOJ to halt a federal probe into this incident is very concerning. Investigations must be allowed to proceed without political interference, no matter who is involved. Transparency and accountability should be the top priorities here.
I’m curious to learn more about the specifics of this case and the rationale behind the DOJ’s decision to halt the federal investigation. Transparency around such matters is crucial for maintaining trust in government institutions.
This is a troubling development if the DOJ really did intervene to stop an investigation that could have contradicted the administration’s claims. Transparency and accountability should be the priority, not political expediency.
Absolutely. The public deserves to know the facts, regardless of who they may implicate. Proper procedures must be followed without undue interference.
This is a very serious allegation, and if substantiated, it would represent a grave abuse of power. The DOJ should be acting in the public interest, not to shield political figures from scrutiny. A full, impartial investigation is warranted.
This seems like a troubling abuse of power if the DOJ really did intervene to stop an investigation that could have contradicted the administration’s claims. The public deserves an objective, fact-based accounting of what happened.