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
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.