Renee Nicole Good Was a Domestic Terrorist. And If You're Not MAGA, You Probably Are Too

Renee Nicole Good

On January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good—a 37-year-old poet, writer, and mother—was shot and killed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis. Within two hours, before her identity was even confirmed, before any investigation had begun, the Department of Homeland Security declared her actions "an act of domestic terrorism."

Good's crime? She was in her car on a public street, blowing a whistle to alert her neighbors to ICE enforcement activity. She had stuffed animals in her glove compartment for her six-year-old child. Her wife stood outside the vehicle. When agents approached and ordered her out of the car, she attempted to drive away. Ross fired three shots, killing her.

Two hours later, Secretary Kristi Noem stood before cameras and called Good a domestic terrorist. Not a suspect. Not someone under investigation. A domestic terrorist. The label was applied faster than Good's family could be notified of her death.

This wasn't a mistake. This was the plan.

The Blueprint: December 4th DOJ Memo

On December 4, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a leaked memorandum to all federal law enforcement agencies that serves as an implementation guide for President Trump's National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). Together, these documents don't just redefine domestic terrorism—they weaponize the term to target anyone who opposes the Trump administration's agenda.

The memo directs the Department of Justice to compile lists of "groups or entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism." But what acts? According to the memo, the following characteristics now identify you as a potential domestic terrorist:

• Opposition to immigration enforcement

• Support for "mass migration and open borders"

• "Adherence to radical gender ideology"

• "Anti-Americanism"

• "Anti-capitalism"

• "Anti-Christianity"

• "Hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality"

Read that list again.

If you support immigrant rights, you're on the list. If you believe in trans rights, you're on the list. If you question whether unfettered capitalism serves the common good, you're on the list. If you're not Christian, or if you're the wrong kind of Christian, you're on the list. If you have a different vision of family than the one the Trump administration approves, you're on the list.

“I have told the clergy of the episcopal diocese of New Hampshire, that we may be entering into that same witness, and I’ve asked them to get their affairs in order. To make sure they have their wills written. Because it may be that now is no longer the time for statements, but for us, with our bodies, to stand between the powers of this world, and the most vulnerable.”

- Bishop Rob Hirschfeld, at a candle light vigil for Renee Nicole Good.

The memo instructs law enforcement to treat these ideological positions—not actions, but beliefs—as indicators of domestic terrorism. It directs Joint Terrorism Task Forces to use "all available investigative tools" to map entire networks of people who hold these views, including organizations that support them and individuals who fund them.

In a footnote—as if this absolves the entire enterprise—the memo notes that investigations cannot be based "solely" on First Amendment-protected activity. But when the memo defines your political beliefs as "common characteristics of domestic terrorists," that footnote is worthless. Your ideology becomes probable cause. Your associations become evidence. Your donations become material support for terrorism.

From Ideology to Execution: The Renee Good Case

Renee Nicole Good lived two blocks from where she was killed. She and her wife stopped their car to support their neighbors during an ICE operation. They had whistles. The agents had guns.

Good was blocking traffic—a minor obstruction, at most. She was yelling at the officers. According to every witness account and video evidence available, when agents approached her vehicle and one reached through her window, she attempted to drive away. The steering wheel was turned away from Ross. Her tires spun on ice. Ross fired three shots into her vehicle, killing her.

Within two hours, before crime scene processing was complete, DHS issued a statement: Good had "weaponized her vehicle" and attempted to "run over" agents "in an act of domestic terrorism."

Let's be clear about what DHS is claiming: A woman attempting to drive away from law enforcement is a domestic terrorist. Not someone fleeing. Not someone who panicked when armed men approached her vehicle. A terrorist.

Renee Nicole Good Was a Domestic Terrorist According to this Administration

Why? Because she was there opposing immigration enforcement. Because she was blocking ICE agents. Because she had "anti-immigration enforcement" views. Under the December 4th memo's framework, Good's opposition to ICE activity placed her in the category of domestic terrorist. Her action—blocking a street, yelling at agents—was read through that lens, and her attempt to flee became, in the government's telling, an attack.

This is not speculation. DHS Secretary Noem said explicitly: "When there is something that is weaponized to use against the public and law enforcement, that is an act of domestic terrorism." Note what's missing: any requirement that Good actually intended to harm anyone. Any investigation into her state of mind. Any presumption of innocence. She opposed immigration enforcement, she was in the way, she tried to leave—therefore, domestic terrorist.

The government had decided she was a terrorist before they knew her name. Before they knew she was a citizen. Before they knew she was a mother. Before they knew anything except that she was there, opposing their operation.

The Secret Framework: Authority Without Acknowledgment

Here's what makes this particularly insidious: the Trump administration is wielding the December 4th memo as authority to label people domestic terrorists, but they're not telling anyone that's what they're doing.

When Kristi Noem stood before cameras and declared Good a domestic terrorist, she didn't cite the memo. She didn't reference NSPM-7. She didn't explain that the federal government has quietly redefined domestic terrorism to include ideological opposition to Trump administration policies. She simply stated, with the full authority of the Department of Homeland Security, that Good was a terrorist. Period.

The memo itself was leaked by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein and published on his Substack on December 7, 2025—three days after it was issued, and one month before Good was killed. Most major news outlets didn't cover it. Those that did treated it as a concerning policy document, not as the operational blueprint it actually is.

The mainstream media silence is deafening. A quick search reveals that Democracy Docket, Lawfare, and a few civil liberties organizations covered the memo. Ken Klippenstein's independent reporting broke the story. But the New York Times? The Washington Post? The major networks? Minimal coverage, buried deep, treated as one more concerning Trump administration document in a sea of concerning Trump administration documents.

This is not how you cover the government secretly redefining half the country as potential domestic terrorists.

Compare this to how the media covered the "Twitter Files" or Hunter Biden's laptop—stories that dominated news cycles for weeks. Now we have a leaked government memo that literally creates lists of "domestic terrorist organizations" based on political ideology, and it barely registers. Why?

Perhaps because taking it seriously would require acknowledging that we've crossed a line that's difficult to uncross. It would require admitting that the guardrails have failed. It would require calling this what it is: an authoritarian regime using terrorism statutes to target political opposition.

That's an uncomfortable story to tell. It's easier to cover individual incidents—a shooting here, a controversial statement there—without connecting them to the systematic policy framework that makes them inevitable.

This is deliberate. The administration doesn't want public debate about whether opposing immigration enforcement should be considered domestic terrorism. They don't want congressional oversight of lists being compiled based on political ideology. They don't want Americans to know that the government is mapping networks of people based on their views on gender, capitalism, and Christianity.

So they simply apply the framework without citing it. Noem calls Good a terrorist and acts as though this is an obvious, uncontroversial determination that any reasonable person would make. She references the statutory definition of domestic terrorism—acts dangerous to human life intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy—but she doesn't explain how the December 4th memo has been used to reinterpret that definition to include ideological characteristics.

The effect is that each individual case appears isolated. Good was a terrorist because she weaponized her vehicle. Martinez was a terrorist because she rammed agents. The next person will be a terrorist because of whatever they did in that moment. The public doesn't see the pattern because the underlying framework remains hidden, and the media isn't helping them see it.

This is governance by secret memo. The rules have changed, but you're not supposed to know how or why. You're just supposed to accept that when DHS calls someone a domestic terrorist, they must have good reason. After all, they're the experts. They have intelligence you don't see. Trust them.

Except we now know we cannot trust them. Not because they're wrong about individual facts—though they often are—but because the entire framework they're operating under redefines political opposition as terrorism, and they're not telling you that's what they're doing.

When the FBI targeted civil rights activists in the 1960s under COINTELPRO, it was secret. When the program was exposed, the public was outraged. The Church Committee investigated. Reforms were implemented. Guardrails were put in place.

This is COINTELPRO 2.0, but worse. At least COINTELPRO agents weren't shooting people in the street and calling it counter-terrorism. The December 4th memo and NSPM-7 are creating a permission structure for lethal force against political opponents, and most Americans don't even know these documents exist.

The lack of reporting on this is staggering and, frankly, inexcusable. Good's shooting was covered extensively—as it should be. But how many mainstream news outlets connected her death to NSPM-7? How many explained that the "domestic terrorist" label wasn't just inflammatory rhetoric but the application of a formal policy directive? How many investigated whether the December 4th memo's ideological criteria were used to justify the shooting?

Almost none. And the few that did mention NSPM-7 in passing didn't make it the centerpiece of their coverage. The story has been covered as: ICE agent shoots woman, administration says self-defense, locals say murder, video shows unclear situation, investigation ongoing.

The actual story is: Administration implements secret policy redefining domestic terrorism based on ideology, then kills someone who fits the new definition and labels them a terrorist to justify it.

That's not the same story. And the fact that most Americans are reading the first version instead of the second version is exactly what this administration is counting on.

They're counting on you not knowing that the December 4th memo exists. They're counting on journalists treating each incident as isolated rather than as part of a systematic policy. They're counting on the public accepting the "domestic terrorist" label at face value because it comes from official government sources.

And so far, it's working. When was the last time you heard someone at a dinner party or in a workplace conversation mention NSPM-7 or the December 4th memo? When was the last time you saw it trending on social media? Most Americans have never heard of these documents, even though they fundamentally change how the government defines and responds to political dissent.

This is how authoritarianism takes root. Not with dramatic announcements and public spectacles, but with secret memos that change the rules while everyone's looking elsewhere. By the time people realize what's happened, the new framework is already being applied, people are already being killed, and questioning it makes you look like a conspiracy theorist because "nobody else is talking about this."

We're talking about it now. The question is whether anyone is listening before the next Renee Good is shot and labeled a terrorist while the actual policy framework that justified it remains hidden in plain sight.

The Pattern: Ideology First, Facts Never

This isn't the first time. In October, DHS labeled two people—Marimar Martinez and Anthony Ruiz—as "domestic terrorists" after an immigration enforcement incident. DHS claimed Martinez was armed and had rammed a Border Patrol vehicle. The Justice Department eventually dropped all charges. Martinez's attorney said video showed DHS agents rammed her car. Martinez, a permitted firearm owner, never removed her gun from her purse.

The DHS official who made the initial false claims about Martinez? Tricia McLaughlin—the same official who called Good a domestic terrorist before her identity was public.

In November 2025, investigative outlet Zeteo documented seven instances of McLaughlin making false claims. A federal judge in Illinois found Border Patrol Chief Greg Bovino "not credible," noting he "admitted in his deposition that he lied multiple times" and that "Defendants' widespread misrepresentations call into question everything that Defendants say they are doing."

This administration's law enforcement officials lie. They lie consistently, they lie boldly, and they lie to justify violence. And now, with the December 4th memo, they have a framework that encourages them to label anyone who opposes them as terrorists first, and worry about the facts never.

Who Is a Domestic Terrorist? Anyone They Say.

Legal experts are alarmed. Stanford Law Professor Shirin Sinnar told PolitiFact that while ramming a vehicle for political purposes could constitute terrorism in some contexts, "the videos of the Minneapolis incident appear to show a woman attempting to drive away from ICE officers, not hit them." She added: "So a government official calling her a domestic terrorist isn't supported in the law, and is entirely pejorative and prejudicial."

This is the point. The law doesn't matter. Due process doesn't matter. Investigation doesn't matter. Under this framework, if you hold the wrong political views and you encounter federal law enforcement, you can be labeled a domestic terrorist on the spot. And once that label is applied, anything done to you becomes justified.

The December 4th memo creates a permission structure for this. It tells law enforcement that people with these ideological characteristics are threats. It tells them to create lists. It tells them to map networks. It tells them to investigate funders and organizers. It tells them these people are terrorists.

And when an agent encounters someone on the street who fits this profile—someone opposing immigration enforcement, someone supporting immigrants, someone with "anti-American" views—the memo has already told that agent what they're dealing with: a domestic terrorist.

"Absolute Immunity": License to Kill Without Consequence

The day after Good's killing, Vice President JD Vance held a press conference where he didn't just defend Jonathan Ross—he declared Ross untouchable.

"The precedent here is very simple," Vance told reporters. "You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action. That's a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job. The idea that Tim Walz and a bunch of radicals are going to go after and make this guy's life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous."

Absolute immunity. Not qualified immunity, which requires officers to prove they didn't violate clearly established constitutional rights. Absolute immunity—the kind typically reserved for judges, prosecutors, and legislators acting within their official duties. The kind that means zero accountability, zero consequences, zero possibility of prosecution.

Vance didn't stop there. He called Ross a hero who "deserves a debt of gratitude" from Americans. He described Good's death as "a tragedy of her own making." He shared Ross's cellphone footage on social media, claiming it proved Ross was being attacked. He demanded that Americans thank Ross for his service.

There's just one problem: Vance's claim about absolute immunity is legally false.

Multiple legal experts immediately called out the vice president's statement as "absolutely ridiculous" and "patently untrue." Michael JZ Mannheimer, a constitutional law expert at Northern Kentucky University, told CNN: "The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous."

Timothy Sini, a former federal prosecutor, stated plainly: "Officers are not entitled to absolute immunity as a matter of law."

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison was even more direct: "That is a misstatement of the law. It simply is untrue. It is wrong. And I don't know what law school he went to, but he sure didn't go to—he sure wasn't paying attention if he was there."

Ellison explained that while there are immunity protections for federal officials under the Supremacy Clause, they're not absolute. State authorities can investigate and charge federal agents for criminal acts if they meet certain legal requirements. There's extensive case law on this. It's established precedent. Vance either doesn't know the law, or he's lying about it.

Given that Vance is a Yale Law School graduate and former prosecutor, it's hard to believe he doesn't know the law. Which means he's lying—deliberately—to create the impression that ICE agents can kill with impunity. He has stated on record he is willing “to create stories”.

And that's exactly the point.

The Message: We Can Kill You and Nothing Will Happen

Vance's "absolute immunity" claim isn't just legally wrong—it's a threat. It's a message to anyone who might consider opposing ICE operations: federal agents can shoot you, and they will face no consequences. Not federal charges. Not state charges. Nothing.

The administration wants you to believe this because they want you afraid. They want protesters to stay home. They want legal observers to stop documenting. They want community members to stop blowing whistles when ICE arrives. They want opposition to cease.

If you believe ICE agents have "absolute immunity," why would you risk being the next Renee Good?

Gun control advocate David Hogg called Vance's statement "insanely dangerous," noting: "Just so you all understand what our vice tyrant is saying here: this means ICE is allowed to shoot and kill Americans with ZERO consequences. It's important to note that absolute immunity is something that basically no cop gets. It goes even beyond qualified immunity."

Representatives Dan Goldman and Eric Swalwell announced they would introduce legislation to strip ICE officers of even qualified immunity in response to Vance's comments and Good's killing. But with Republican control of Congress, such legislation stands little chance of passage.

In the meantime, Vance's false claim stands unchallenged by most mainstream media outlets. CNN and a few other outlets fact-checked it, but how many Americans saw those fact-checks compared to the number who saw Vance's original statement? The vice president of the United States declared that ICE agents have absolute immunity, and most people who heard it probably believe it's true.

This is how you create a climate of impunity. You don't need the law to actually grant absolute immunity. You just need people to believe it does. Federal agents who believe they have immunity will act more boldly, more violently. Citizens who believe agents have immunity will be less likely to oppose them, less likely to document them, less likely to demand accountability.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey called Vance's comments "pretty bizarre," saying: "He also asserted that, because you work at the federal government, that you somehow have absolute immunity from committing crimes. That's not true in any law school in America, whether it's Yale or Villanova or anywhere else."

But Frey's fact-check, like Ellison's, like the legal experts'—it all gets drowned out by the vice president's megaphone. The lie travels around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

And Ross? He's at home (possibly moved by taxpayer dollars), spending time with his family, according to Noem. No charges filed. No arrest made. The FBI is "investigating," but with Trump, Vance, and Noem all declaring Ross a hero and Good a terrorist, with the vice president falsely claiming Ross has "absolute immunity," what exactly do we expect that investigation to conclude?

The Historical Echo: McCarthyism With Bullets

During the McCarthy era, having communist sympathies or attending the wrong meetings could get you blacklisted, fired, and destroyed professionally. But the government didn't shoot you in the street and call it counter-terrorism.

This is different. This administration isn't just ruining careers and reputations. It's using the "domestic terrorist" label to justify lethal force in the moment, on the street, with no due process, no investigation, no trial. Ross shot Good and, according to audio from the scene, called her a "fucking bitch" in the same breath. Noem called her a terrorist two hours later.

The memo specifically directs attention to "Antifa-aligned extremists"—a term so elastic it can be stretched over anyone. The memo defines these extremists by their views on immigration, gender, capitalism, Christianity, and "traditional values." In practice, this means: if you're not MAGA, you're suspect. If you actively oppose MAGA policies, you're a threat. If you physically interfere with MAGA enforcement priorities—even by just being in the way—you're a terrorist.

Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, who first published the leaked memo, noted: "At first, I looked at it and thought, 'Oh, this is targeting the left.' But then you see these so-called indicators of terrorism, things like anti-Christian sentiment, anti-American sentiment, and I realized that's not just the left. That's anyone who isn't a Trump supporter."

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called Noem's designation of Good as a terrorist "an abuse of the term." But that misses the point. The term isn't being abused. It's being used exactly as intended. The December 4th memo created a new definition of domestic terrorism—one based on ideology, not action. Noem simply applied it.

What This Means for Everyone Else

If you've attended a protest against Trump's policies, you're in the crosshairs. If you've donated to organizations that support immigrant rights, you're on a list. If you belong to a church that doesn't preach MAGA Christianity, you're suspect. If you've posted on social media about "radical gender ideology"—meaning you think trans people deserve rights—you're a potential domestic terrorist.

The memo directs federal agencies to review all files from the last five years for "Antifa and

Antifa-related intelligence." It orders the creation of dedicated tip lines for reporting suspected "Antifa-aligned" activity. It instructs prosecutors to charge "the most serious, readily provable offenses" and encourages the use of conspiracy statutes, RICO charges, and terrorism sentencing enhancements.

This isn't theoretical. Good is dead. She opposed immigration enforcement, she was in the way, and now she's dead, and the government calls her a terrorist.

If you think this stops with people who physically interfere with ICE operations, you're not paying attention. The memo explicitly targets funders and organizers—people who never set foot at an enforcement action but who support the networks that oppose Trump's agenda. It targets journalists who cover these movements. It targets legal observers who document enforcement actions. It targets anyone in the "network."

Lawfare's Thomas Brzozowski warns: "The memo quietly turns domestic terrorism authorities into a standing program for targeting one broad ideological camp." He notes that while the memo includes the standard First Amendment disclaimers, "by defining the 'Common Characteristics of Domestic Terrorists and Organizations' in this manner, individuals and organizations that disagree with the Trump administration undoubtedly will be concerned about federal scrutiny."

Concerned. That's one word for it. Terrified is another. Dead, in Good's case.

The Chilling Effect: Mission Accomplished

Even if most people are never charged, never investigated, never shot—the damage is done. The point of creating lists of domestic terrorist organizations based on ideology isn't necessarily to prosecute everyone on them. The point is to make people afraid to be on them.

If organizing against deportations makes you a potential domestic terrorist, people will stop organizing. If donating to immigrant rights groups puts you on a government list, people will stop donating. If showing up to observe ICE operations can get you killed and labeled a terrorist, people will stop showing up.

This is the goal. The December 4th memo and NSPM-7 aren't just about prosecuting terrorists. They're about redefining opposition to the Trump administration as terrorism, so that opposition itself becomes too risky to engage in.

And it's working. Since Good's killing, witnesses report that the streets of Minneapolis are quieter during ICE operations. Fewer whistles. Fewer observers. Fewer people willing to risk being the next Renee Good.

Renee Nicole Good: Poet, Mother, Terrorist

Renee Good wrote poetry. She had a degree in English from Old Dominion University. She had been married twice and had three children. She and her wife had recently moved to Minneapolis from Canada, where they'd fled after Trump's 2024 election. They came back. She was home.

On January 7, 2026, she dropped her six-year-old at school. She and her wife drove two blocks to support their neighbors during an ICE operation. She had a whistle. Toys for her child were strewn about the car—stuffed animals hanging above the glove box, a dinosaur book and drawing pad on the passenger seat floor.

Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who shot her, is a self-described "hardcore conservative Christian and MAGA supporter." He flies Trump flags at his home. Six months earlier, he'd been injured during an arrest when he was dragged by a vehicle. On January 7, when he encountered Good blocking the street, yelling at officers, opposing immigration enforcement—all things the December 4th memo identifies as indicators of domestic terrorism—he approached her vehicle with his phone recording. When she tried to drive away, he shot her three times.

The government calls her a terrorist. Her wife calls her a victim. Her six-year-old will call her gone.

The Question We Must Answer

The question facing America now is simple: Are we going to accept this?

Are we going to accept that opposing immigration policy is terrorism? That supporting trans rights is terrorism? That questioning capitalism is terrorism? That being "anti-American"—whatever that means to the person with the gun—is terrorism?

Are we going to accept that federal agents can shoot people in the street for trying to drive away, and the government will call it counter-terrorism?

Are we going to accept that lists of "domestic terrorist organizations" can be compiled based on political ideology, with no due process, no recourse, no public accountability?

The December 4th memo and NSPM-7 represent a fundamental transformation of how the U.S. government defines and responds to domestic threats. They move the locus of terrorism from actions to beliefs. They replace investigation with ideology. They turn political opposition into evidence of terrorism.

Under this framework, Renee Nicole Good was a domestic terrorist. And if you oppose Trump's immigration policies, or his views on gender, or his vision of Christian nationalism, or his definition of American values—if you're not MAGA—then according to the memo's logic, you're probably a domestic terrorist too.

The only question is whether you'll be the next one they label before or after you're shot.

Epilogue: The Words Matter

After Ross shot Good, someone at the scene—possibly Ross himself, according to audio analysis—can be heard calling her a "fucking bitch." The word reduces a woman to an animal. It strips her of humanity. It makes what happened to her explicable, even deserved.

Just like "witch" did. Just like "Bitch" did.

And just like "domestic terrorist" does now.

The labels come first. The violence follows. History has shown us this pattern repeatedly. We're watching it happen again, in real time, in Minneapolis, in the streets where Renee Good dropped off her child at school and never came home.

The government has told us who they think the terrorists are: people like Renee Good.

People like you, if you oppose them.

Believe them. And act accordingly—while you still can.