Trump’s showy immigration enforcement leads to violent confrontations

Federal Protective Service (FPS) agents stand guard outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building during a protest against increased immigration enforcement, days after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Jan. 10, 2026. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 10 January 2026
Follow

Trump’s showy immigration enforcement leads to violent confrontations

  • A federal officer in Minneapolis dragged a woman through a snowy street last month
  • Noem alleged that Good tried to ram the officer with her vehicle in an act of “domestic terrorism”

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown increasingly is sparking violent confrontations with both migrants and US citizens, a development grimly underscored by an ICE officer’s fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman this week.
Under Trump’s orders to ramp up deportations, masked immigration officers have surged into Democratic-led cities, sprayed tear gas in residential streets, tackled people in parking lots and pointed guns at bystanders trying to film them.
A federal officer in Minneapolis dragged a woman through a snowy street in an incident last month that the city’s police chief called an “egregious disregard for human dignity.”
These contentious encounters, which have come amid a push to quickly recruit and train thousands of new officers, have stemmed from a dramatic shift in the approach to immigration enforcement, according to current and former immigration officials.
The White House demanded a steep increase in immigration arrests in late May, leading officers to change tactics, embracing showy sweeps over more targeted arrests of people with serious criminal records. Since then, officers have been met with more public backlash and resistance, at times creating tense standoffs.
“It’s this high-visibility, high-footprint, high-contact form of operation that invites danger,” said former ICE official Scott Shuchart, who served in Joe Biden’s administration.
Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have all defended the ICE officer who killed Renee Good, the 37-year-old mother of three, and portrayed her as an agitator trying to disrupt enforcement operations.
Within hours of the incident, Noem alleged that Good tried to ram the officer with her vehicle in an act of “domestic terrorism.”
In response to a Reuters ⁠request for comment, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson accused Democrats and news outlets of demonizing ICE officers and encouraging backlash.
“The Democrats’ lies have directly fueled their supporters to harass and impede law enforcement, which is the cause of any tensions and puts officers at risk,” Jackson said.
The ICE officer involved in the fatal shooting, Jonathan Ross, fired the first of three shots as Good’s vehicle moved past him, a Reuters analysis of the available visuals showed.
Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin defended the Trump administration’s approach and said the officer in Minneapolis feared for his life.
“ICE law enforcement officers are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve dangerous situations,” she said.
One former ICE official who spoke with Reuters blamed Democratic leaders for fueling the backlash by refusing to cooperate with ICE and publicly criticizing their work. Another said it was jarring to see protesters following officers with whistles, trying to disrupt their work. In Minnesota, they have been ⁠pelted with snowballs.

ICE POISED TO RAMP UP IN 2026
The administration is preparing to spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to hire more immigration officers and intensify its operations, raising concerns such violence could grow in the coming year. Several current and former ICE officers, speaking on the condition of anonymity to speak openly about sensitive matters, expressed concerns that ICE could bring on less-qualified candidates with its accelerated hiring push.
The US Department of Homeland Security said earlier this month that it had hired 12,000 new ICE officers on top of an existing force of 10,000, although some questioned whether that many were actually fully hired and working.
DHS’ internal watchdog is conducting a review of ICE’s hiring practices, with staff expected to visit the department’s Georgia training facility in coming weeks, one of the former ICE officials said. The new curriculum cuts involved halving training for firearms and tactics, the former ICE official said.
The training for new ICE officers had previously been five months but the Trump administration reduced it to two months as part of its effort to speed up hires, McLaughlin said, adding that it was done to “cut redundancy” and that candidates still meet the same standards.
Even as immigration enforcement becomes more contentious and ICE adds thousands more officers, the agency will have less oversight than in previous years after several DHS oversight bodies experienced mass staffing cuts last year.

SHOOTINGS FOLLOW IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN
Federal immigration officers have shot people in 16 incidents ⁠since Trump intensified his crackdown in June, according to The Trace, a non-profit news outlet that tracks gun violence.
In some of the cases, immigration officials said agents were under threat due to vehicles being used as weapons, though video evidence and judges later raised questions about those claims.
The incidents included the fatal shooting in Chicago of a Mexican father of two after dropping off his kids, the shooting of a TikTok streamer in Los Angeles and a US citizen in Chicago.
John Tsoukaris, a former top ICE official who retired in July, said the ICE officer who fired the fatal shots in Minneapolis may have been within the bounds of protocol and that an investigation would be needed to determine the facts.
“In these very stressful and challenging situations, officers have to make a split-second decision,” said Tsoukaris, who was a field office director for ICE’s office in Newark, New Jersey. “We should not rush to judgment of the officer’s actions without the full picture.”

‘KAVANAUGH STOPS’ OPEN DOOR TO BROAD SWEEPS
The Supreme Court in September said the Trump administration could stop people in US cities for reasonable suspicion of violating immigration laws based on factors such as having brown skin or speaking Spanish, a position defended by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a concurrence at the time.
Opponents of Trump’s aggressive enforcement say such “Kavanaugh stops” by ICE and Border Patrol have inflamed tensions.
Darius Reeves, a former ICE field office director who retired in 2025, said the Trump administration’s confrontational approach is putting officers at risk and increasing the likelihood of violent interactions.
Reeves, who spent more than two decades at the agency, said ICE historically tried to minimize its public presence and operate in a more targeted manner.
“We should not be flooding these neighborhoods and antagonizing people,” Reeves said. “This is not going to go well.”


Trump set to repeal scientific finding that serves as basis for US climate change policy

Updated 7 sec ago
Follow

Trump set to repeal scientific finding that serves as basis for US climate change policy

  • The endangerment finding is the legal underpinning of nearly all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet

WASHINGTON: The Trump administration on Thursday will revoke a scientific finding that long has been the central basis for US action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, the White House announced.
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final rule rescinding a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding. That Obama-era policy determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin will “formalize the rescission of the 2009 Obama-era endangerment finding” at a White House ceremony, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday.
The action “will be the largest deregulatory action in American history, and it will save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulations,” she said. The bulk of the savings will stem from reduced costs for new vehicles, with the EPA projecting average per vehicle savings of more than $2,400 for popular light-duty cars, SUVs and trucks. Leavitt said.
The endangerment finding is the legal underpinning of nearly all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. It is used to justify regulations, such as auto emissions standards, intended to protect against threats made increasingly severe by climate change — deadly floods, extreme heat waves, catastrophic wildfires and other natural disasters in the United States and around the world.
Legal challenges would be certain for any action that effectively would repeal those regulations, with environmental groups describing the shift as the single biggest attack in US history on federal efforts to address climate change.
EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch said the Obama-era rule was “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history” and said EPA “is actively working to deliver a historic action for the American people.”
Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax,” previously issued an executive order that directed EPA to submit a report on “the legality and continuing applicability” of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans have long sought to undo what they consider overly restrictive and economically damaging rules to limit greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
Zeldin, a former Republican congressman who was tapped by Trump to lead EPA last year, has criticized his predecessors in Democratic administrations, saying they were “willing to bankrupt the country” in an effort to combat climate change.
Democrats “created this endangerment finding and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence ... segments of our economy,″ Zeldin said in announcing the proposed rule last July. ”And it cost Americans a lot of money.”
Peter Zalzal, a lawyer and associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund, countered that the EPA will be encouraging more climate pollution, higher health insurance and fuel costs and thousands of avoidable premature deaths.
Zeldin’s push “is cynical and deeply damaging, given the mountain of scientific evidence supporting the finding, the devastating climate harms Americans are experiencing right now and EPA’s clear obligation to protect Americans’ health and welfare,” he said.
Zalzal and other critics noted that the Supreme Court ruled in a 2007 case that planet-warming greenhouse gases, caused by burning of oil and other fossil fuels, are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Since the high court’s decision, in a case known as Massachusetts v. EPA, courts have uniformly rejected legal challenges to the endangerment finding, including a 2023 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Following Zeldin’s proposal to repeal the rule, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reassessed the science underpinning the 2009 finding and concluded it was “accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence.”
Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 is now resolved, the NAS panel of scientists said in a September report. “The evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute,” the panel said.