Killer ICE Agent Exposed
PDS Published 01/08/2026
-
A federal immigration agent killed a 37-year-old American citizen in Minneapolis yesterday and now the city is bracing for chaos.
The victim’s name was Renee Nicole Macklin Good.
She described herself as a poet, a writer, a wife, and a mom – and she is remembered by members of her community as a kind, compassionate, and giving person.
But since her death she has been called a professional agitator, a deranged leftist, and a domestic terrorist.
With the Trump administration pushing a narrative that state and local officials say is not supported by the facts or the video evidence.
And so we gotta talk about what actually happened, the fallout, and the patterns that we can find in the violence taking place and the claims being made to justify it.
But starting with what went down, footage of the shooting posted on social media shows an SUV in the middle of a residential street (BROLL: 0:00-0:15)
WIth what appears to be a federal agent walking around the back of the vehicle toward another vehicle – seemingly being filmed by a protester.
And with that, out of frame, you can hear someone shouting:
“Get the fuck out of our neighborhood.”
And then the camera pans, a pickup truck pulls up to the scene, and another two federal agents get out – approaching the SUV and yelling at the driver to “get out of the fucking car” – with one of the agents almost immediately moving to force open the driver’s door.
But the SUV reverses a few feet, revealing the third agent moving in front of the vehicle, which then pulls forward while turning to the right.
And the agent draws his weapon and fires three times – including at least twice when he is clearly outside the path of the vehicle.
The SUV continues a short way down the street, veering to the left, and crashes into a parked car.
It was about ten seconds from the moment the agents exited the truck to shots being fired.
And the agent who fired the shots can be seen in videos walking around afterwards with no apparent injuries.
This, as people started to scream things like:
And one woman with blood covering her face was reportedly heard shouting:
“You guys just killed my wife!”
And when authorities eventually left the scene, people yelled and threw snowballs – and agents hit back with pepper spray and pepper balls.
Last night, thousands gathered at a vigil for the victim and to protest the federal immigration crackdown.
There have also been protests in other U.S. cities – including New York and Los Angeles.
And in Minneapolis today there have been more clashes between protesters and federal agents – with school being canceled in the city for the rest of the week.
And Governor Tim Walz announcing that hehas issued a “warning order” to prepare the Minnesota National Guard.
Warning protesters to stay peaceful and “not take the bait” – arguing that the Trump administration was looking for an excuse to deploy the military.
And seeming to compare the current mood in the city to back when George Floyd was murdered there – just about a mile from where Renee was killed yesterday:
“...we saw after the murder of George Floyd, there are folks that want to cause chaos, there are disruptors. While the vast majority of those protesters were peacefully expressing their First Amendment rights, there were those who destroyed property and put people at risk. The National Guard is there to make sure that peaceful protests are able to be done, and that those who want to do the destruction are stopped from doing that.” (BYTE: 8:43-9:06)
And with that, you’ve had some online sharing another part of Walz’s address, where he speaks out against federal interference and says:
“...these National Guard troops are our National Guard troops.”
And that, paired with other recent comments that Minnesota is “at war” with the federal government have led people to suggest he is intending to pit these troops against the federal government – saying that he was threatening civil war over the shooting.
With at least one Republican lawmaker even calling on Trump to arrest Walz over the National Guard announcement
And while it’s far from clear that Walz is suggesting anything other than using the National Guard to keep a handle on potential protests, it’s true that he and other officials are pushing back hard against the Trump administration’s version of events.
With Walz urging the public not to believe what he called a “propaganda machine” – saying that the shooting was both “totally predictable” and “totally avoidable.”
The Minneapolis police chief also saying he saw this combining – and noting that there was “nothing to indicate that this woman was the target of any law enforcement investigation.”
And Mayor Jacob Frey calling the government’s account of Renee’s death “bullshit” and “garbage” and saying to ICE:
“Get the fuck out of Minneaplis.” (BYTE: 0:02-0:04)
But with all that, we gotta unpack exactly what the Trump administration has said, and why there’s so much reason to doubt it.
As far as Trump himself, you’ve had him sharing a different clip online where very little can be seen and saying Renee was “obviously, a professional agitator” and that she “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer.”
He also said in an interview with the New York Times:
“She didn’t try to run him over. She ran him over.” ASSET []
And he even reportedly had an aide pull the video on a laptop in an effort to prove his point – which it obviously didn’t.
And besides him, you’ve had Vice President JD Vance similarly presenting it as a matter of fact that Renee at least tried to run the agent over, which is also not clear from the video, writing:
“Do you think this officer was wrong in defending his life against a deranged leftist who tried to run him over?”
And you’ve had Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem describing the incident as “...an act of domestic terrorism."
And saying she will ask the Justice Department to prosecute the use of vehicles to block immigration enforcement operations as domestic terrorism.
With her also claiming Renee had been “stalking” officers – saying
She“attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle,”
And adding that the agent who killed her “used his training to save his life and those of his colleagues.”
And finally, Noem also claimed the officer, who hasn’t yet been identified, had been attacked before while on the job – saying it was also a car ramming that time.
But very notably, the Justice Department's own use-of-force policy says that agents may not fire at a moving car that is threatening them unless “no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.”[]
And ICE and the Homeland Security Department’s policy on the use of force also says that officers are authorized to use deadly force only if the officer “has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.”
With the policy further clarifying that officers should “avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force.”[]
And so you have people like an expert on police use of force at the University of South Carolina saying:
“The way you evaluate this is you look to see what’s the imminent threat to life, and there is none.”
“She’s leaving.” []
Also saying: “This is what we call officer-created jeopardy.”
And explaining that the first agent to approach the car had escalated the situation, whereas local police officers are generally trained to de-escalate tense confrontations.[]
With another expert seeing it as less conclusive but also arguing that the fact that the agent fired more than once is significant, saying:
“If you’re able to keep aiming at something that is moving by you, then you have some innate knowledge that it’s moving by you and not running over you.”
But with all that, what’s really notable is that the claim that a driver aimed to use their vehicle as a weapon has often been used as justification for fatal law enforcement shootings of otherwise unarmed motorists.
WIth a 2021 New York Times investigation finding that in many cases the driver was just trying to get away, and that some officers had put themselves in danger and others appeared to face no peril at all.
And now, in the second Trump administration, it’s possible that’s what we’re seeing with ICE.
Right, in the past four months alone, immigration officers have reportedly fired on at least nine people in five states and Washington, D.C.
And very notably, every single one of them were fired on while in their vehicles.
And, in each case, officials have claimed that the agents fired in self-defense, fearing they would be struck by the vehicle.
With at least one other person besides Renee dying as a result. []
And that was a Mexican immigrant named Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez in September, who was shot and killed less than a minute after being pulled over.
With DHS officials claiming that he had hit and dragged one of the officers with his car and that the officer who shot him was acting in self-defense.
Though, notably, analysis of video has called into question the government’s narrative
And when it comes to the government’s narrative, it’s about more than just these incidents that have or have almost turned deadly.
Right, after Renee’s shooting, you had Noem arguing that the incident “goes to show the assaults that our ICE, law enforcement officers are under every single day.”
And in his post afterwards, Trump claimed::
“...the reason these incidents are happening is because the Radical Left is threatening, assaulting, and targeting our Law Enforcement Officers and ICE Agents on a daily basis.”
With that tying into DHS’s truly shocking claims that assaults against ICE agents have been up by as much as 1,150 percent year-over-year.
But there is no public evidence that assaults have gone up as dramatically as the government has claimed.
And the administration has reportedly turned down repeated requests for data backing it up – even as the stat has been used to justify agents using masks and hiding their identities to operate with impunity.
And an analysis of court records by Colorado Public Radio showed only about a 25 percent rise in charges for assault against federal officers through mid-September, compared with the same period a year ago.
And if we look deeper, just like with shootings involving vehicles, there’s a pattern that goes back further.
Right, during Trump's first term, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol reported a 20 percent increase in assaults on officers from 2015 to 2016 and then a 73 percent increase from 2016 to 2017.
And those statistics were quickly brought up when two Border Patrol agents were found injured and unconscious – with one later dying from his injuries.
With many jumping to the conclusion that undocumented immigrants were behind it, even though the FBI ultimately found no evidence of that.
And what’s more, those stats that may have helped shift public opinion? They were probably bullshit.
Right, the uptick in alleged assaults seemed to be at least partly driven by a decision to start counting them in the most absurd way possible.
With a CBP official explaining to the Intercept in 2018 that one incident the year before involved seven agents who were assaulted by six subjects utilizing three different types of projectiles – rocks, bottles, and tree branches. []
And so those numbers – seven, six, three – were multiplied together so it counted as 126 total assaults. []
And while we don’t know if the same bogus methodology is being used with ICE today, it is connected to where we are right now – including the conversation around Renee’s death.
And you’ve Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez being among the most outspoken in pointing to what happened and what we’re hearing to argue ICE needs to be reined in in some way, saying::
“ICE has less accountability than virtually any law enforcement agency in the U.S., yet they are some of the most well-funded, operating with impunity—and we just saw them murder an American citizen in cold blood in the street.
Despite whatever lies the president wants to tell, you can see what happened for yourself.” (BYTE: 0:39-0:58).
-
aRight, and as AOC was answering these questions about the Minneapolis shooting, she was approached by a Fox News producer for the Jesse Watters Primetime show - asking her to make an appearance.And Jesse Watters isn’t alone there - we’ve seen many conservatives jumping online to demonize Renee Good in any way possible.
And this isn’t some new tactic - demonizing and “othering” seemingly normal people when their side is in the wrong is exactly what the right does.
With a major comparison here being drawn between Renee and George Floyd.
Right, at the time of Floyd’s murder, Jesse Watters was speculating that it was a criminal hit that was executed poorly. []
Now, with Renee’s death, people are jumping back in on the topic of George Floyd to undercut the truth - like how they said he died from a drug overdose rather than a cop’s knee to the neck.
The right also likes to sanitize the image of people who they agree with regardless of the circumstances surrounding them.
In fact, Trump himself has really made Babbitt out to be a martyr - calling her, quote, “an innocent, wonderful, incredible woman, a military woman.” []
Then again, there is a certain amount of spinning of the truth that is bound to happen as everyone looks to lay blame.
So I’m going to pass the question off to you - what are your thoughts here?
About AOC, Jesse Watters, the conversation around Renee Good, any of it.
Let me know in those comments down below.
And her response has since racked up millions of views on X.
[“AOC: He has sexualized me on his show. He has sexually harassed me on his show. He has engaged in horrific, sexually exploitive rhetoric. Producer: That’s not true congresswoman. AOC: It is true because he accused me of sleeping - of wanting to quote, unquote, sleep with Stephen Miller. So why don’t you tell me what you think is acceptable to tell a woman? Thank you.” 0:09-0:24]
She even took it one step further by sharing the clip herself and saying on X,
“You can either be a pervert or ask me to be on your little show. Not both. Good luck!” []
She’s specifically referring to a moment on Fox News’ The Five from back in October.
Where the hosts are responding to a live AOC did on Instagram where she was encouraging Democrats to make fun of MAGA men and their, quote, “insecure masculinity.”
She said Stephen Miller looked like a clown, adding,
Which wasn’t necessarily received graciously by the Five.
Now, this is far from the only time that Jesse Watters has made unsavory comments on air - specifically about women.
There’s the time he blamed single women for Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York mayoral race. []
Going on a rant about women with the “wrong degree” living in “the most expensive city in the world” who haven’t gotten married and had kids, quote, “like everybody else.” []
And there were several high-profile examples from when Kamala Harris was running for president.
Including his criticism of white men supporting Harris -
Or the time he said Harris would be “paralyzed” by generals who “would have their way” with her in the White House’s Situation Room. []
This one was particularly rough but Watters refused to apologize - saying that he was speaking “figuratively” and didn’t mean it sexually.
Then there’s his comments back in 2019 about female journalists sleeping with their sources “all the time.” []
Maybe the most recent example aside from AOC is his comments about Renee Good, the victim in the Minneapolis ICE shooting.
Which earned him a hefty dose of backlash - with people calling him, quote, “heartless, cruel, shameless, dishonest, bigoted.” []
And California state Senator Scott Wiener added,
“In the pantheon of psychopaths, Jesse Watters is an apex predator.” []
Go to Brain.fm to get 30 days of free access to science-backed music that really works.
-
People are trying to make big money on Trump’s rogue international strategy.
Because after the U.S. bombed Venezuela and captured Maduro, prediction markets show increasing odds that Trump will take other drastic actions abroad.
Right, on Kalshi, bets that Trump will buy or take control of some part of Greenland are up compared to a week ago.[][]
As are bets that Trump will “take back” the Panama canal.[]
These predictions still only hover in the 30% range, but when you consider that some were at just 16% a week ago, that’s pretty significant.
And it comes as at least one person did make big bucks on the U.S.’s actions in Venezuela.
Right, a relatively new anonymous Polymarket account started by placing its first small bets on U.S. intervention there on December 27.
But over the course of the following week, that trader increased its bets on Maduro not being in power by the end of the month, something that seemed very much against the odds.
And its last wager was placed at 10 PM eastern time on Friday, just before the operation was announced.
And by that time, that trader had put about $34,000 in wagers on this event, most of which were shortly before the operation, and which ended up landing them over $400,000 in profit.
So you have people looking at this and thinking, no one’s timing is that perfect, right? So did this person actually know something?
With the executive of a financial reform advocacy group saying:[]
"This particular bet has all the hallmarks of a trade based on inside information."
And while insider trading is a big legal no-no in the stock market, prediction markets are less regulated.
Right, they technically aren’t even legally considered gambling.
And these platforms do have policies to prevent insider trading, but this is far from the first controversy of this nature.
Last year, a Polymarket user made almost a million bucks after correctly winning 22 out of 23 bets on what Google’s most searched topics of the year would be.
So this is just a massive can of worms in general.
But there are a lot of specific concerns when it comes to placing bets on politics.
Right, you can put money on basically anything here, like who is most likely to leave the Trump administration in the next two years, if Americans will get tariff stimulus checks, who will be the Democratic candidate in 2028, and how long Karoline Leavitt will speak during press briefings.
And that last one there is something that has gotten a ton of attention on Twitter lately.
But some of what people bet on here is pretty complicated, right, especially when you look at the foreign affairs bets that are booming right now.
With Bloomberg explaining:[]
“prediction markets thrive on binary outcomes, while geopolitical reality rarely fits cleanly into “yes” or “no.” Traders can bet on overlapping questions — did the US invade, did troops enter, was a leader removed — that all track the same event but resolve differently.”
So, will the U.S. be working swiftly to regulate this industry?
Well, most reports say, don’t hold your breath.
There is a House Democrat introducing legislation addressing insider trading among government officials on prediction markets, and Kalshi has said it would support this.
But the Trump administration is probably not eager to regulate this space.
Because just before Trump took office last year, his son, Trump Jr. landed a role as Kalshi’s strategic advisor.
And his venture capital firm previously invested in Polymarket.
Also, Trump himself actually announced that Truth Social would be launching Truth Predicts, which will allow people to place crypto bets on events in sports, politics, and more.
So some see this as a major roadblock to regulation, with one professor saying:
"It would be helpful if prediction market platforms themselves do not have political ownership. We need them to be invested in weeding out bad activity like insider trading, without any distracting influences."
And so instead of things maybe getting reeled in, you have some reports suggesting that this kind of betting is set to boom with the midterms,
Which brings about a ton of concerns, with NPR saying:
“Critics of the apps worry that turning election results into casino-like wagers could encourage wealthy donors to make bets that could artificially inflate one candidate's odds on the apps. That, in turn, could fuel the candidate's momentum, lead to a bump in news coverage, and even influence voter behavior.”
And there are also concerns about how foreign actors could use these markets to execute their agendas.
But these markets are likely not going anywhere, right, they are only becoming more and more universal.
Kalshi is partnering with major news outlets like CNN and CNBC to offer its betting wagers in their news coverage. []
Right, so lately if you have tuned into CNN talking about Greenland, you will see them discussing how people are betting on Kalshi on the subject.
And as the CEO of Kalshi previously said:
“The long-term vision is to financialize everything and create a tradable asset out of any difference in opinion.”
So I would love to know your thoughts on any of this, because this is really just the tip of the iceberg in a massive topic, and I would love to know your concerns or where you think this industry is headed.
-
Trump is taking Venezuela's oil and has no plans to give up control of the country.
That’s according to President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who both touched on this yesterday.
It’s unclear what the ACTUAL current plan for Venezuela’s oil is.
Rubio said that America would be seizing up to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil.
That would give Trump “tremendous leverage” to stabilize the place after the vacuum left by Maduro’s capture.
Rubio added:
“We’re going to sell it in the marketplace at market rates, not at the discounts Venezuela was getting. That money will then be handled in such a way that we will control how it is disbursed in a way that benefits the Venezuelan people, not corruption, not the regime.” @0:34-0:49
Rubio also gave the most details to date about what the US plans to do with Venezuela: stabilization, recovery, and transition.
Selling Venezuelan oil and giving them a cut of the proceeds is supposed to help with stabilization.
The plan isn’t to stop with the barrels they currently have.
In an interview with The New York Times, Trump said:
“We will rebuild it in a very profitable way.”
“We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need.”
One big question still left unanswered is how long this is all going to take.
Weeks, months, a year?
To which Trump said: [read]
“I would say much longer.”[]
It’s also unclear how the US means to “control” Venezuela.
It doesn’t seem interested in directly taking over the government and is fine letting it be a de-facto tributary state that pays off America by letting American companies take over the oil industry.
If the new interim President Delcy Rodriguez decides against America’s interest then there’s always the massive fleet sitting off the coast to change things up.
Speaking of Rodriguez, Trump declined to answer why he chose her over opposition leader María Corina Machado.
When asked if he’s spoken to Rodriguez -- who has taken a conciliatory tone with the US -- Trump said no. [read]
“But Marco speaks to her all the time.”
“I will tell you that we are in constant communication with her and the administration.”
While Trump hasn’t spoken to Rodriguez, he has spoken to the president of neighboring Colombia.
Ever since capturing Maduro, Trump hasn't been subtle about making threats to various Latin American leaders -- including Colombia’s president.
But after a phone call Trump wrote they talked about the drug situation in Colombia and:
“I appreciated his call and tone, and look forward to meeting him in the near future. Arrangements are being made between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Foreign Minister of Colombia.” []
Considering Trump had just called him a “sick man,” this was a big improvement.
Circling back to Venezuela though and there’s a big question about how much this will cost taxpayers.
According to Rubio, “it’s not going to cost us anything.”
And that’s because the US expects to make money out of the deal as American companies improve Venezuela’s oil infrastructure.
(Whether that’s true or not is yet to be determined, as they arne’t moving until guarantees are made).
If it truly doesn’t cost taxpayers anything then this move by Trump might be a boost to his polling.
Because according to a CBS News poll 48% of American adults ALREADY approve of what’s going on in Venezuela.[]
And if it actually makes the US money then a majority might see it as a win.
However that could be offset because there’s a lot of outrage over reports that the US might offer Greenlanders $10,000 to $100,000 each to support secession.
It’s not all wins for Trump though.
Five Senate Republicans joined the Democrats in passing a War Powers Resolution that blocks the president from using the military in Venezuela. [broll @0:08]
Trump was not happy about this and instantly went to Truth Social to write:
“Republicans should be ashamed of the Senators that just voted with Democrats in attempting to take away our Powers to fight and defend the United States of America. This Vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief.” []
He went on to say that the resolutions are unconstitutional and that a “more important” vote is next week.
What he means is that there’s technically another vote on this same thing essentially, but it’ll require a simple majority and is expected to pass.
As for the constitutionality of Trump’s actions, that will likely be a Supreme Court decision.
Yes, the president is Commander-in-Chief and that implies he has control over the military.
Congress argues that the Constitution is pretty explicit that Congress controls when war happens.
As we’ve seen, the administration claims it was a “law enforcement action,” and without a doubt this will be litigated in courts if the resolutions continue to pass.
Not to mention this has been a push-pull with presidents for decades now.
Either way we’re watching what will be a new American Imperialism chapter in history books 100 years from now.
