“The hearts and minds of the people are on our side. We will do everything we can to seek justice.”
That was Minnesota Democratic Governor Tim Walz on Jan. 10 on X once again putting federal law enforcement and immigration enforcement efforts by President Donald Trump and the Department of Homeland Security in Minnesota but also nationwide into a military context after the shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer on Jan. 7 as she and her wife were said to be obstructing ICE operations and then Good veered her vehicle into the officer who then shot her.
These follow repeated remarks by Walz that he’s “at war with our federal government” and when asked said he is planning to use National Guard against “a rogue federal agent”. Now he says he is winning “hearts and minds” quoting Field Marshall Gerald Templer from the Malayan counter insurgency. Walz is a fool.
As if the President enforcing immigration laws were some sort of act of war and not simply the popular mandate that the President was elected on overwhelmingly in 2024 after former President Joe Biden let in more than 10 million illegal aliens in the backdoor only to shrink into the shadows of our communities — aided and abetted by willing Democratic state and municipal officials like Walz.
Everyone knows sanctuary cities and states are the problem, and voters sent President Trump back to the White House to fix it. Now, rank and file Democrat voters are being radicalized and enlisted to serve as human shields for illegal aliens, including groups like ICE Watch.
All of which underscores beyond the questions about the use of force—if anything the biggest mistake was made by Good’s wife, who urged Good to drive off in haste—is how Democratic governors, leaders, aligned organizations and funded efforts like ICE Watch are encouragin citizens to get into these very dangerous kinds of situations.
The Goods and everyone else are being actively encouraged to join these types of “resistance,” living out a fantasy of fighting Trump, ICE and “Nazis”.
It is hard to come up with a reasonable argument in favor of these anti-ICE activists while Walz and others maintain the ICE officer’s actions were unjustified. No matter what, Good did not have a right to “drive, baby, drive” (Good’s wife’s last words to her) when she had already been told to get out of her vehicle. Vehicles definitely pose an ongoing threat to officers and in this case, the car actually did strike the officer, with video showing the officer visibly moved by the vehicle.
Politically, there appears to be a degree of panic in both parties to Good’s death, understandable but also dangerous. Besides the George Floyd riots of 2020, the 1970 Kent State shooting of anti-war protesting students by the National Guard that led to nationwide riots and other clashes with police seems to be the closest corollary. Then, as now (and in 2020), the radicals are overplaying their hands.
In the meantime, recent Supreme Court precedent from 2025 states that when it come to the use of deadly force by officers, one must consider a larger timeframe than just the two seconds the incident occurred, instead looking at the “totality of the circumstances”. Depending on how much of the “totality” is viewed, it’s going to get political real quick.
What is ICE Watch? It and organizations like it are designed to monitor, confront and obstruct legitimate law enforcement operations by ICE and DHS. Except nothing empowers members to do it. It’s far beyond any legal conception of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
They are breaking the law and officers have a right to disband ICE Watch and other activists when encountered or to move vehicles they believe pose a hazard to their operations or are just in the way. Officers have died by vehicular means. Cars are dangerous and risk death and bodily harm, the very standard being discussed for the use of force in the Good case.
These are all reasonable concerns shared by millions of Americans and the stakes could not be higher. Consider the “totality of the circumstances” not just legally but politically and culturally: The prospect of nationwide riots, Democratic governors saying they’re at war with the federal government and using Good as a martyr. The fuse is lit.
Even if the use of force in this case was just 50/50 — it seems to be higher — that would not justify the escalation blue states are countenancing, whereas the argument against Trump and enforcing immigration law in sanctuary cities appears to be that it’s dangerous and provocative to this radical faction that apparently would be appeased by lesser presidents. I don’t see a good argument for Trump “backing down” from enforcing immigration laws. This is what the American people voted for not once but twice when it comes to Trump.
As others have noted, the Good encounter has almost nothing to do with the normal execution of immigration laws, because the Goods are citizens and not subject to deportation. Instead, they were in a special case presenting themselves as obstacles and human shields.
Well, now Governor Walz is the one who’s in the way, and it is worth noting that sanctuary cities and states have always been the problem. The President has a constitutional duty that the laws of the land be faithfully executed, including the nation’s immigration laws. This obstruction of law is now down to the grassroots level, from top to bottom, Democrats have organized their own alternative political society around it. This is a clash not merely of worldviews, but worlds.
Robert Romano is the Executive Director of Americans for Limited Government Foundation.
