WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance on Thursday forcefully defended the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who fatally shot 36‑year‑old Renee Good in Minneapolis, asserting the agent acted in clear self‑defense — a characterization that remains unverified as state and local officials continue to dispute the federal narrative.
Speaking from the White House briefing room, Vance said the officer “was clearly acting in self‑defense” and accused journalists of “gaslighting” the public about the circumstances of the shooting. “What you see is what you get,” he said, arguing that media outlets were manufacturing ambiguity around the incident.
But a closer look at available evidence, official statements, and witness accounts shows that several of Vance’s assertions are either unsubstantiated or directly contradicted by what is known so far.
1. Claim: The ICE officer was “clearly justified” and acted in self‑defense.
What Vance said:
He insisted “what you see is what you get,” arguing the officer “was clearly acting in self‑defense” and that ambiguity was being invented by the media.
What reporting shows:
• Multiple news outlets note that the facts are not settled.
• Videos show nuance, and “it remains unclear exactly what took place beforehand.”
• State and local officials dispute that the shooting was self‑defense.
• Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension was removed from the investigation, raising concerns about transparency.
Verdict: Unsubstantiated. The investigation is ongoing, and available evidence does not support Vance’s certainty.
2. Claim: Renee Good “tried to run over” the ICE officer.
What Vance said:
He repeatedly claimed Good attempted to run over the officer with her car.
What reporting shows:
• This claim is disputed by witnesses and local officials.
• Her ex‑husband vehemently denied that she attempted to run anyone over.
• Videos circulating online do not conclusively show an attempt to run over the agent.
Verdict: Disputed and unverified.
3. Claim: Good was “brainwashed” and part of a “left‑wing network.”
What Vance said:
He framed Good as “a victim of left‑wing ideology” and suggested she was influenced by a “network” of political groups.
What reporting shows:
• Multiple outlets note Vance provided no evidence for these assertions.
• Reporting highlights that these claims were made without substantiation.
Verdict: No evidence. This is a political characterization, not a factual claim supported by reporting.
4. Claim: Media coverage is “an absolute disgrace” and endangers law enforcement.
What Vance said:
He accused journalists of “gaslighting,” “propaganda,” and misrepresenting the shooting.
What reporting shows:
• This is an opinion, not a factual claim.
• However, outlets note that Vance’s narrative contradicts emerging evidence and undercuts his own administration’s earlier maximalist claims.
Verdict: Opinion, not fact. But his criticism conflicts with independent reporting.
5. Claim: The shooting was “a tragedy of her own making.”
What Vance said:
He argued that Good caused her own death by interfering with law enforcement.
What reporting shows:
• This framing is not supported by confirmed facts.
• The investigation is incomplete, and key evidence has not been publicly released.
• Minnesota’s governor expressed doubt that the federal probe will yield a “fair outcome.”
Verdict: Unproven and premature.
Overall Assessment
Across multiple claims, VP Vance presents certainty where the facts remain unsettled.
Independent reporting consistently shows:
• The investigation is incomplete.
• Key claims by Vance are disputed by witnesses, local officials, and video evidence.
• Assertions about ideology or networks lack evidence.
In short, Vance’s statements go well beyond what verified facts currently support.
As scrutiny intensifies, the Minneapolis shooting has become a flashpoint in the broader national debate over immigration enforcement, police accountability, and the role of political rhetoric in shaping public perception of high‑stakes incidents.
The Trump administration may prefer a narrative of clarity, but the facts tell a different story — one defined by gaps, contradictions, and unanswered questions. In a moment this volatile, certainty is not leadership. It is spin. And spin is the last thing the country needs when a woman has been killed, and the truth is still unfolding.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.