π₯ Breaking Developments: New Footage Emerges in Minnesota ICE Shooting
On January 7, 2026, during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot a 37βyearβold woman identified as Renee Nicole Good. The incident rapidly sparked national attention, deepening political tensions, and prompting widespread public outrage, protests, and legal scrutiny.
π₯ What the New Footage Shows
In early January, a 47βsecond video was published online by Minnesota news outlet Alpha News and subsequently shared by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) β a rare release of visual material from someone directly involved in a deadly useβofβforce encounter.
According to reports:
The video appears to be recorded from the point of view of the ICE agent who eventually fired shots that killed Good, identified in some public reporting as Jonathan Ross, though federal officials have been cautious about officially confirming identities.
It begins with the agent stepping out of his vehicle and approaching Goodβs parked SUV in a residential Minneapolis neighborhood.
Good and another person β believed to be her wife β are seen filming and talking with the federal agents. Good is heard telling the approaching officer, βThatβs fine, dude. Iβm not mad at you.β
Shortly afterward, scenes suggest the SUV begins moving, and the agent appears to step toward or in front of it. Audio captures the agent reacting and gunshots firing in rapid succession, though the precise mechanics β whether the vehicle hit the agent or just appeared to β are still contested.
After the shots, a voice can be heard using profanity. The remainder of the clip shows the SUV continuing down the street before crashing.
π Official Narratives and Conflicting Statements
π‘οΈ Federal Government and DHS Position
Federal authorities, including DHS and highβlevel officials like Vice President J.D. Vance, have defended the validity and release of this footage, asserting that it demonstrates:
The agentβs claim of being in danger as the vehicle moved toward him;
That he acted within the scope of his training and in reasonable fear for his safety;
That releasing the footage provides transparency in response to public criticism.
Continue reading…