Listen to the article
The Trump administration’s recent actions and communications have sparked growing concerns about its ideological direction, with critics pointing to an increasingly open embrace of rhetoric and positions that many characterize as far-right extremism.
Last week, the shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis became a flashpoint in the ongoing immigration debate. Videos circulating on social media show the masked agent, later identified as Jonathan Ross, stepping in front of Good’s car while another agent demanded she exit her vehicle. When Good, an anti-ICE protester, attempted to drive away, Ross fired three shots at her—two apparently when he was no longer in the path of her vehicle. After shooting Good, Ross was recorded calling her a “fucking bitch.”
Rather than expressing concern over the death or reserving judgment pending an investigation, President Trump quickly took to Truth Social to defend the agent. Trump characterized Good as “a professional agitator” who had “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.” Vice President JD Vance and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem echoed these sentiments, with both suggesting the agent was defending himself against what they described as “domestic terrorism.”
This response appears out of step with broader public sentiment. A recent YouGov survey found that 53 percent of Americans favor criminal charges for Ross, compared to just 30 percent who oppose such action.
Even more concerning to many observers has been a pattern of federal agencies posting content that appears to reference white nationalist themes and materials. Just three days after Good’s killing, the Department of Labor tweeted, “One Homeland. One People. One Heritage. Remember who you are, American”—phrasing strikingly reminiscent of the Nazi slogan “One People, One Realm, One Leader.”
This wasn’t an isolated incident. In January, the Department of Homeland Security posted “We’ll have our home again,” a lyric from an anthem adopted by the neo-fascist group The Proud Boys and other white nationalist organizations, alongside a link to join ICE. In August, DHS shared an ICE recruitment poster with the phrase “Which way, American man?”—widely interpreted as a reference to the white supremacist tract “Which Way, Western Man?”
Other controversial communications include a Border Patrol Facebook video featuring a Michael Jackson song clip with antisemitic lyrics, posts suggesting a desire to return America to its 1943 demographic composition, and ICE recruitment materials urging potential agents to “Defend your culture!”
Meanwhile, Vice President Vance has refused to condemn Republican activists who praised Hitler and used racial slurs in private communications that became public.
Political analysts are puzzled by this communications strategy. When Trump first took office, his immigration policies enjoyed considerable public support. The administration could have maintained this mandate by emphasizing ICE’s role in removing undocumented criminals and deterring unauthorized migration while insisting on high standards of conduct.
Instead, these openly provocative communications appear calibrated to appeal to the most extreme segments of the online right, rather than the broader electorate. Public support for both ICE and Trump’s immigration agenda has declined as a result.
Some observers attribute this to the administration’s deep immersion in social media environments where extremism flourishes. Both Trump and Vance are prolific social media users, and younger conservative staffers managing federal agencies’ accounts are likely even more embedded in online right-wing communities.
Social scientists point to “group polarization,” a phenomenon where like-minded people discussing shared beliefs tend to gravitate toward increasingly extreme positions. On algorithmic social media platforms, this effect is amplified as users seek attention and demonstrate ideological purity through increasingly provocative statements.
While the Trump administration has shown strategic restraint in its messaging on other unpopular policies—such as cutting health benefits to fund tax cuts—its immigration rhetoric appears increasingly tailored to a narrow, radicalized online audience rather than the general public.
The result is what critics describe as government messaging that increasingly resembles fascist propaganda, even as polling suggests such rhetoric alienates most American voters.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
22 Comments
While the details remain unclear, the use of lethal force against a civilian, especially one who was not an immediate threat, is extremely concerning. I hope the investigation is thorough and impartial.
Absolutely. The public deserves a full accounting of the facts and an assurance that the appropriate measures will be taken, regardless of who is involved.
I’m curious to hear more details about the incident and the specific circumstances that led to the shooting. Were there any de-escalation attempts prior to the use of lethal force?
That’s a good question. Understanding the full sequence of events is crucial to evaluating whether the agent’s actions were appropriate and proportional.
Regardless of one’s political views, the loss of life is always tragic. I hope the investigation can provide clarity and that all sides approach this with empathy and a commitment to the rule of law.
Well said. This is a sensitive situation that requires compassion and a willingness to listen to different perspectives, not divisive rhetoric.
While I understand the administration’s desire to defend its agents, the tone and substance of the response is concerning. A measured, fact-based approach is more likely to foster trust and promote accountability.
I agree. Rushing to judgment and making inflammatory statements is counterproductive and undermines the integrity of the investigative process.
The administration’s response seems to be more about scoring political points than addressing the complex issues at hand. Responsible leadership means putting justice and public safety first, not partisan interests.
I agree. Politicizing this tragedy is counterproductive and undermines efforts to find the truth and prevent similar incidents in the future.
This incident highlights the ongoing challenges around the use of force by law enforcement and the need for comprehensive reform. I hope the investigation can provide clarity and lead to meaningful policy changes.
You make a good point. Addressing the systemic issues that contribute to these types of incidents should be a priority, not just political posturing.
While the administration’s stance is concerning, I appreciate the call for an investigation. Objective analysis of the evidence, not political posturing, should guide the outcome.
Agreed. A fair and transparent process is the best way to ensure justice is served and prevent further polarization.
This is a very concerning incident that warrants a thorough, impartial investigation. Jumping to conclusions before all the facts are known does not serve justice or promote constructive dialogue.
I agree. We should withhold judgment until an independent review can determine what exactly happened and whether the use of force was justified.
This incident highlights the need for better training and protocols around the use of force by law enforcement. De-escalation should be the priority, not immediate escalation to deadly measures.
You make a good point. Improving policies and practices to minimize the risk of lethal force should be a key focus going forward.
This is a complex issue without easy answers. I encourage everyone to withhold judgment and allow the investigation to run its course before drawing conclusions. Constructive dialogue, not partisan attacks, is what’s needed.
Well said. Maintaining an open mind and a commitment to the truth is the best way to ensure justice is served and prevent further escalation of tensions.
The administration’s response seems to further inflame tensions rather than seek understanding. Responsible leaders should call for calm and due process, not rush to defend questionable actions.
Absolutely. This is a complex issue that requires nuance and restraint, not partisan rhetoric that risks escalating the situation.