DHS Use-of-Force Rules Under Scrutiny After Fatal ICE Shooting in Minneapolis
MINNEAPOLIS — A fatal shooting by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in south Minneapolis has thrust the Department of Homeland Security’s own use-of-force rules into the center of a growing national controversy, as federal officials move quickly to defend the agent while legal experts and former DHS officials urge caution and a full investigation.
The shooting, which occurred on January 7, left 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, a local wife and mother, dead after an encounter with ICE officers that was captured on multiple bystander videos.[1][4] The footage shows Good’s SUV attempting to drive away from masked ICE personnel before an agent fires three shots into the vehicle, including through the driver’s side window.[3][4]
Conflicting Narratives Emerge
Top officials in the Trump administration rapidly described the shooting as a justified act of self-defense, even as key facts remain under investigation and state and federal authorities clash over who should lead that probe.[1][3][4]
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters that the ICE officer “followed his training” and “feared for his life,” asserting that Good had disobeyed commands and used her vehicle to attack the agent.[2] Noem did not say whether any of the agents on scene were equipped with body cameras that might clarify what happened before the shots were fired.[2]
Local officials and witnesses strongly dispute that account. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who said he viewed video of the incident, accused federal officials of trying to reframe the encounter as self-defense.[2][3] “They’re already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense,” Frey said. “That is bullshit.”[2]
One witness told local station FOX 9 that Good appeared to be trying to turn around and leave the area when she was shot through the driver’s side window, not ramming officers with her vehicle.[2]
What DHS Use-of-Force Policy Says
The incident has renewed scrutiny of DHS’s own rules governing when agents may fire their weapons, particularly at moving vehicles. A 2018 DHS “Use of Force” memorandum, obtained and reviewed by Axios, lays out the circumstances under which lethal force is permitted.[1]
According to that memo, DHS law enforcement officers may use deadly force only when they have “a reasonable belief” that the person against whom force is used poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person.[1] The standard is intended to be both objective and fact-specific, requiring more than mere noncompliance.
The memo is even more pointed when it comes to moving vehicles. It states that deadly force “shall not be employed merely to prevent a fleeing subject from escaping” and that DHS officers are generally prohibited from discharging firearms for the purpose of disabling a moving vehicle.[1][2]
However, there are narrow exceptions. The policy allows an agent to fire at a person in a vehicle if:
- The individual in the vehicle is using or is about to use deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or
- The vehicle is being operated in a way that presents an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, and there are no other objectively reasonable defensive options available to the officer.[1][2]
The memo also specifies that DHS officers are “forbidden” from firing at the tires of a vehicle, except in situations where deadly force would already be justified under the above standards.[1]
That framework leaves open critical questions in the Minneapolis case: whether Good’s vehicle presented an imminent threat at the moment shots were fired, and whether any reasonable alternatives to shooting existed.
Experts: Too Early to Declare Shooting Justified
Several former DHS officials and law enforcement experts have criticized the speed and certainty with which some federal leaders have defended the agent, noting that the department’s own policy requires a fact-intensive assessment that cannot be made from brief video clips or initial statements alone.[1][4]
“Anyone claiming to know precisely what transpired is entirely mistaken,” one former DHS official told Axios, emphasizing that no one can credibly determine whether the rules were followed until a thorough investigation is complete.[1]
Tom Homan, a former acting director of ICE and vocal defender of the agency, likewise told CBS News it would be “unprofessional” to speculate on the agent’s decision-making before the inquiry concludes, insisting that investigators “allow the investigation to unfold and hold individuals accountable based on its findings.”[1]
Another former official interviewed by Government Executive warned that high-level political commentary risked eroding public trust. “When you make statements like that, it’s going to hurt the public trust,” the official said, underscoring that investigators must weigh the agent’s perspective, the available video, and physical evidence before judging whether the deadly-force standard was met.[4]
Graphic Videos Intensify Public Outrage
Multiple bystander videos have circulated widely online, fueling protests and calls for accountability in Minneapolis and beyond.[4] In the videos described by Government Executive, ICE officers are seen approaching Good’s SUV as it sits stopped at an angle across the street. As she accelerates and turns away from the officers, one agent who had been positioned in front of the vehicle fires once through the windshield and then twice through the driver’s side window.[4]
The SUV then continues down the street before crashing and coming to a stop. Good died at the scene.[4]
President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary Noem have characterized Good as an aggressive protester who was obstructing a lawful ICE operation, while critics and community advocates say the videos show an overreaction by armed federal agents to a panicked driver attempting to leave the area.[3][4]
State–Federal Rift Over the Investigation
The fallout from the shooting has widened into a rare and public clash between Minnesota officials and the federal government over who should control the investigation.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has demanded that federal authorities “leave Minnesota alone” and allow state investigators to take the lead.[3] He denounced what he called a “reckless ICE mobilization” in the state and urged residents to support Good’s family as they mourn.[3]
Initially, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and the FBI agreed to conduct a joint investigation into the shooting.[3][4] But within a day, the FBI informed the BCA that it would assume sole control and that the state agency would no longer have access to case materials, scene evidence, or interviews necessary to carry out an independent review.[3][4]
“The BCA would no longer have access to the case materials, scene evidence or investigative interviews necessary to complete a thorough and independent investigation,” BCA Superintendent Drew Evans said, announcing that his agency had been effectively sidelined.[4]
At the White House, Vice President Vance argued that federal authorities are better equipped to handle the case and blamed “the far left” for what he called the broader environment surrounding the shooting.[3] He claimed that activists had “radicalized a very small segment of the population” by portraying ICE as engaged in widespread rights violations, describing the incident as “a tragedy of the making of the far left.”[3]
Legal Questions: Federal Immunity and State Prosecutions
The Minneapolis shooting is also reviving debates about federal immunity and how state and federal law apply when federal agents use deadly force.
Federal law enforcement officers generally enjoy certain protections when acting within the scope of their official duties, but that shield is not absolute.[1] Legal scholars note that states can and do prosecute federal officers if they violate state criminal law and their actions are not authorized by federal law or policy.[1]
How those standards intersect with DHS’s use-of-force policies will be central to any legal assessment of the shooting. If investigators conclude that Good’s vehicle did not pose an imminent threat and that other reasonable options existed, the agent could be found to have acted outside the bounds of both federal policy and state law. If, by contrast, evidence shows an immediate threat and no viable alternatives, the agent’s conduct may be protected.
Next Steps and Ongoing Investigations
Incidents involving lethal force by DHS personnel typically trigger multiple, overlapping investigations by both federal and local authorities, though the level of state participation is now in dispute in Minnesota.[1][3][4]
The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security have launched internal reviews of the shooting, according to federal officials.[3][4] DHS has not publicly released detailed timelines for those inquiries or indicated whether the results will be made public.
Secretary Noem said the ICE agent involved was briefly hospitalized, released, and is currently with family, but did not specify whether the employee has been placed on administrative leave or reassigned pending the outcome of the investigation.[4]
As protests continue and political rhetoric intensifies, former DHS officials and law enforcement leaders are calling for restraint from all sides until investigators can fully examine physical evidence, video footage and witness statements.
“Is it 100% he should have shot? I’m not going to say that,” one former federal official told Government Executive, underscoring the uncertainty that still surrounds the case.[4] “I don’t know what was going through his mind at that time. I don’t know what he’s been through in his life prior to that.”
For now, the central question remains unresolved: did the ICE agent’s split-second decision to fire on a moving vehicle comply with DHS’s own stringent use-of-force rules, or did it cross the line those rules were intended to draw?