Writing an article about ICE is impossible- it requires its own magazine at this point. ICE is part of a complex conversation about immigration policy. The Trump Administration’s weaponization of ICE brings up less complicated factors, like the fact that detaining citizens is wrong, and the human rights abuses in this era of ICE have been appalling [1]. In the last few days, however, I have been especially concerned about what ICE’s most recent actions tell us about the Trump administration’s abuse of power. The murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti and the handling of their cases contradict key American and constitutional values.
The Trump Administration’s response to the murder of Renee Good has raised major red flags in the sphere of government transparency. In this case, the federal government and state and county governments have the legal power to investigate these cases before possible prosecution [2]. JD Vance, however, has made a supremacy clause argument that gives the ICE agent “absolute immunity” for performing what he claims is a reasonable action while performing a federal duty [3]. This is an extremely bold claim to make before holding a full investigation. The FBI has refused to include local Minnesota officials in a joint investigation, withheld all evidence, and dismissed any plea for collaboration with state officials [4].
Members of the Trump Administration have staunchly stood by their claims that this murder was justified. One of the most notable was Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Karoline Leavitt directed the question at journalist Niall Stanage about why Good was killed. He answered, “Because an ICE agent acted recklessly and killed her unjustifiably.” Leavitt then said, “OK, so you’re a biased reporter… you’re a left-wing hack. You’re not a reporter, posing in this room as a journalist… you shouldn’t even be sitting in that seat [5].”
My question is this: if the story is so obviously what the Trump Administration claims it is, why do they not allow Minnesota officials to join the investigation? This administration takes this hardline stance: we did nothing wrong, and we have nothing to hide. Yet, this administration has excluded the state and withheld evidence. This can only be taken as an act of non-transparency. The most ironic part is that Trump ran on a platform of government transparency. He promised to tear down the curtains behind which corrupt politicians were hiding. His populist rhetoric has fueled his campaigns since 2016. The hypocrisy is potent and infuriating.
Along with transparency issues, the Trump Administration has also shown a weak commitment to constitutional principles following the recent two deaths in Minneapolis. While I find myself in different partisan camps depending on the issue, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Of course, I support sensible gun reform policies, but I truly believe that the founders intended that the government would not have a monopoly on weapons. The right to defend oneself, even against the government if necessary, is a core American principle. The Republican Party has long championed this issue.
Several prominent members of the Trump Administration have made claims about Pretti acting violently, with his concealed gun cited as justification for ICE agents shooting him. Trump himself said that Pretti “shouldn't have been carrying a gun [6].” Kash Patel suggested that carrying a concealed gun at a protest was illegal. Minnesota police have refuted this claim, pointing to the fact that Pretti had a permit to carry the gun, and it was legal to carry while protesting in a public place [7]. This murder comes only weeks after Renee Good was fatally shot by ICE agents. Unsurprisingly, Minnesotans feel unsafe, especially at an anti-ICE protest. Broader than that, however, is why carrying a gun is cited as a justification for shooting Pretti.
Alex Pretti was exercising his Second Amendment right. The NRA has publicly commented on Pretti’s case, saying, “The NRA unequivocally believes that all law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms anywhere they have a legal right to be [6].” This Administration, and certain ICE agents by extension, are power drunk. They have prioritized power over the preservation of constitutional rights. I believe the Second Amendment is important to defend against a potentially tyrannical government. Of course, Pretti wasn’t justified in using the gun for violence in a non-life-threatening scenario. His gun was stripped from him, however, and he was left defenseless against ICE agents. Exercising his Second Amendment right cannot be part of the justification for Pretti’s death.
Our system isn’t completely broken. There was a recent claim that ICE could forcibly enter homes without search or arrest warrants from a judge. This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, which limits and protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It was quickly objected by the courts, and ICE has retreated from this previously claimed power [2]. This proves that the judiciary still retains some power to preserve our constitution. Prominent politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have also pleaded for an independent investigation of Pretti’s death. Our own Senator John Curtis has publicly called for a “transparent, independent investigation [8].”
A constitutional crisis has been brewing (and arguably in effect) for a while. But I think that these current events point to a larger Republican reckoning. What’s interesting about these cases is the Republican values that they so blatantly violate. Republicans have been some of the strongest supporters of government transparency, the Second Amendment, and the Constitution more broadly. The actions and rhetoric of the Trump Administration have shaken these values to their core. I hope that Republican lawmakers and civilians will prioritize these values over political loyalty.
Videos have circulated of an altercation between ICE agents and Pretti days before his death [9]. I was eerily reminded of when events and claims from George Floyd’s past were used to justify his death [10]. But this principle always stands: everyone is entitled to constitutional rights, especially the right to life. The most egregious violation here is that life was stripped from citizens who were not imminent threats to ICE agents. Or if some claim that they were, an independent and transparent investigation must be part of that conclusion.
