Anger over Minneapolis shooting probe fuels protests

People gather in front of the Minnesota State Capitol during a demonstration over the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Saint Paul, Minnesota, on January 9, 2026. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 10 January 2026
Follow

Anger over Minneapolis shooting probe fuels protests

  • Federal immigration officers armed with pepperball guns and tear gas clashed with the noisy crowd
  • After he passes in front of the car, another agent can be heard ordering Good to exit the vehicle before she tries to drive off and shots ring out

MINNEAPOLIS: Local officials in Minneapolis slammed federal agencies Friday for excluding them from the probe into an immigration officer’s fatal shooting of a woman, as public outrage grew ahead of planned weekend protests.
Officials in the midwestern state of Minnesota said their law enforcement agencies have been excluded from the investigation into the killing of motorist Renee Good by a federal immigration officer on Wednesday.
A local prosecutor said Friday that federal investigators had taken Good’s car and the shell casings from the scene.
The Trump administration has sought to paint the victim as a “domestic terrorist,” insisting that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent who fatally shot her was acting in self-defense.
Cell phone footage apparently taken by the officer who fired the fatal shots shows him interacting with Good as he approaches and circles her car, and her saying, “I’m not mad at you.”
After he passes in front of the car, another agent can be heard ordering Good to exit the vehicle before she tries to drive off and shots ring out.
The White House insisted the video gave weight to the officer’s claim of self-defense — even though the clip does not show the moment the car moved away, or him opening fire.
“This is not the time to bend the rules. This is a time to follow the law... The fact that Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice and this presidential administration has already come to a conclusion about those facts is deeply concerning,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat, told a briefing on Friday.
“We know that they’ve already determined much of the investigation,” he said, adding that the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, within its department of public safety, has consistently run such investigations.
“Why not include them in the process?” Frey said.
On Thursday, US Vice President JD Vance said that the ICE officer, named in US media as Jonathan Ross, had “absolute immunity” — a claim disputed by local prosecutors.
Court filings seen by AFP showed that in June 2025, Ross was dragged 100 yards along a road by a car driven by a man who was the subject of immigration enforcement activity.
“When the FBI, when the federal agencies, say they won’t share evidence with the local authorities, the public can’t trust that it’s going to be a true, transparent investigation,” said local Patrick O’Shaughnessy, 43.

- ‘Get out’ -

Minnesota officials have said that local investigators were initially invited by the FBI to participate in the inquiry into the shooting of Good, but were subsequently blocked from taking part.
Good, 37, was shot in the head as she apparently tried to drive away from ICE in the Midwestern US city as officers approached her car, which they said blocked their way.
Good was one of four people who have been killed by ICE since Trump launched his immigration crackdown.
Good’s wife Becca Good told local media that they had gone to the scene of immigration enforcement activity to “support our neighbors.”
“We had whistles. They had guns,” she said.
Local prosecutor Mary Moriarty, the Hennepin County attorney, said “our goal must be that a thorough investigation is completed at the local level.”
“The FBI currently has, for example, Ms Good’s car, the shell casings and witness interviews.”
Moriarty unveiled an online evidence portal, calling for submissions so that all available leads could be compiled.
She added that she hoped federal authorities would reconsider and “at least” give local detectives access to evidence.
Protest action continued Friday with hundreds gathering at a federal facility that has become a focal point of anti-ICE demonstrations with at least one detention seen.
Federal immigration officers armed with pepperball guns and tear gas clashed with the noisy crowd.
There were some 1,000 weekend protest gatherings planned across the United States, according to organizers.
“You can’t trust anything that (the Trump administration) say, they have their own agenda, and I think they’re drunk on power quite clearly,” said master gardener Kate Netwal, 66.
 

 


US House of Representatives passes war powers resolution backing Trump’s attacks on Iran

Updated 2 min 30 sec ago
Follow

US House of Representatives passes war powers resolution backing Trump’s attacks on Iran

  • It’s the second vote in as many days, after the Senate defeated a similar measure
  • Republicans largely back Trump, and most Democrats oppose the war
WASHINGTON: The House narrowly rejected a war powers resolution Thursday to halt President Donald Trump’s attacks on Iran, an early sign of unease in Congress over the rapidly widening conflict that is reordering US priorities at home and abroad.
It’s the second vote in as many days, after the Senate defeated a similar measure. Lawmakers are confronting the sudden reality of representing wary Americans in wartime and all that entails — with lives lost, dollars spent and alliances tested by a president’s unilateral decision to go to war with Iran.
While the tally in the House, 212-219, was expected to be tight, the outcome provided a clarifying snapshot of political support for, and opposition to, the US-Israel military operation and Trump’s rationale for bypassing Congress, which alone has the power to declare war. At the Capitol, the conflict has quickly carried echoes of the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many Sept. 11-era veterans now serve in Congress.
“Donald Trump is not a king, and if he believes the war with Iran is in our national interest, then he must come to Congress and make the case,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
House Speaker Mike Johnson warned that it would be “dangerous” to limit the president’s authority while the US military is already in conflict.
“We are not at war,” said Johnson, R-Louisiana, a close ally of Trump, contradicting others. He said the operation is limited in scope and duration, and the “mission is nearly accomplished.”
Republicans largely back Trump, and most Democrats oppose the war
Trump’s Republican Party, which narrowly controls the House and Senate, largely sees the conflict with Iran not as the start of a new war, but the end of a government that has long menaced the West. The operation has killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which some view as an opportunity for regime change, though others warn of a chaotic power vacuum.
Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, publicly thanked Trump for taking action against Iran, saying the president is using his own constitutional authority to defend the US against the “imminent threat” the country posed.
Mast, an Army veteran who worked as a bomb disposal expert in Afghanistan, said the war powers resolution was effectively asking “that the president do nothing.”
For Democrats, Trump’s attack on Iran, influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is a war of choice that is testing the balance of powers in the Constitution.
“The framers weren’t fooling around,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., arguing that the Constitution is clear that only Congress can decide matters of war. “It’s up to us.”
Crossover coalitions emerged among those in Congress. Two Republicans joined most Democrats in voting for the war powers resolution, while four Democrats joined Republicans to reject it.
The war powers resolution, if signed into law, would have immediately halted Trump’s ability to conduct the war unless Congress approved the military action. The president would likely veto it.
Trump officials provide shifting rationale for war
Trump has scrambled to win support for the nearly week-old conflict as Americans of all political persuasions take stock. Administration officials spent hours behind closed doors on Capitol Hill this week trying to reassure lawmakers that they have the situation under control.
Six US military members were killed over the weekend in a drone strike in Kuwait, and Trump has said more Americans could die. Thousands of Americans abroad have scrambled for flights, many lighting up phone lines at congressional offices as they sought help trying to flee the Middle East.
Trump said Thursday he must be involved in choosing Iran’s new leader. Yet Johnson, R-Louisiana, said this week that America has enough problems at home and is not about to be in the “nation-building business.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the war could extend eight weeks, twice as long as the president first estimated. Trump has left open the possibility of sending US troops into what has largely been a bombing campaign. More than 1,230 people in Iran have died.
The administration said the goal is to destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles that it believes are shielding its nuclear program. It has also said Israel was ready to act, and American bases would face retaliation if the US did not strike Iran first. The US said Wednesday it torpedoed an Iranian warship near Sri Lanka.
“This administration can’t even give us a straight answer of as to why we launched this preemptive war,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, the Republican from Kentucky, an outlier in his party.
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who had teamed up to force the release the Jeffrey Epstein files, also pushed the war powers resolution to the floor, past objections from Johnson’s GOP leadership. Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, a former Army Ranger, also voted for it. Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Greg Landsman of Ohio and Juan Vargas of California voted against.
“Congress must stand with the president to finally close, once and for all, this dark chapter of history,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.
Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Arizona, said that as the daughter of Iranian immigrants who fled their homeland, she opposes the regime but is concerned that a democratic transition for the people of Iran never seems to a priority for Trump or the officials who briefed Congress.
“War carries profound and deadly consequences for our troops, for the American people and for the entire world,” she said. “It’s the most serious decision that a nation can make.”
Other Democrats have proposed an alternative resolution that would allow the president to continue the war for 30 days before he must seek congressional approval. The House also approved a separate measure affirming that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
Senators sit in their desks for solemn vote
In the Senate, Republican leaders have successfully, though narrowly, defeated a series of war powers resolutions pertaining to several other conflicts during Trump’s second term. This one, however, was different.
Underscoring the gravity Wednesday, Democratic senators sat at their desks as the voting got underway.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that every senator will pick a side. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East?” he asked. Or with Trump and Hegseth “as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”
Sen. John Barrasso, second in Senate Republican leadership, said, “Democrats would rather obstruct Donald Trump than obliterate Iran’s national nuclear program.”
The legislation failed on a 47-53 tally mostly along party lines, with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in favor and Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pennsylvania, against.