FBI’s Inquiry Into Minneapolis ICE Shooting Faces Doubts After White House’s Remarks

Ex-law enforcement officials said the administration’s declarations that the killing was justified elicited questions about the F.B.I.’s willingness to scrutinize the agent who fatally shot an unarmed activist.

The Trump administration blocked Minnesota officials from investigating the death of the woman shot on Wednesday by a federal agent, then quietly offered this explanation: Local investigators simply could not be trusted to conduct a fair inquiry.

The investigation into the killing of Renee Nicole Good, 37, federal officials said, would be the exclusive province of the F.B.I., which is overseen by a director, Kash Patel, who has described President Trump as an unerring boss, and even a king.

Mr. Trump had already declared the shooting justified. Vice President JD Vance has asserted that federal agents had “absolute immunity” from prosecution. The homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, has spoken about the incident as if it were a closed case: Ms. Good had “weaponized” her S.U.V. to kill agents, she said, even though video analysis by The New York Times suggested it was more likely that she was turning her car away from officers.

The extraordinary volley of public statements stood in striking contrast to the far more restrained approach to high-profile incidents taken by other presidents, who have typically called for calm pending the results of investigations. The all-hands effort to define Ms. Good as the only person who did anything wrong has cast serious doubt on the F.B.I.’s willingness to scrutinize the actions of the agent who killed the unarmed activist, according to former law enforcement officials who were once responsible for investigating comparable tragedies.

“It’s hard to have any trust in the federal investigation given the White House’s immediate public effort to drive an outcome,” said Vanita Gupta, a former top Justice Department official in the Biden administration who oversaw the department’s response to incidents of police violence, including the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

“Are the feds conducting any real investigation of the agent’s actions, or instead focused on trying to justify what happened by tarring the victim as a domestic terrorist?” Ms. Gupta added.

The details and direction of the F.B.I.’s investigation remain unclear. A spokesman for Mr. Patel did not respond to requests for comment.

Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who oversees the bureau, said in a statement on Thursday that the F.B.I. would follow “standard protocols” to “ensure that evidence is collected and preserved.” His remarks also defended the right of officers to use deadly force when they believed their lives were in danger.

Tom Homan, Mr. Trump’s border czar, struck a more circumspect and conventional tone, telling CBS News he would not draw any conclusions by watching video on social media.

“Let the investigation play out,” Mr. Homan said, “and hold people accountable based on the investigation.”

It was against this backdrop that the White House, Justice Department and F.B.I. excluded the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, an investigative division that often collaborates with federal law enforcement, from sharing evidence.

On Thursday, the U.S. attorney’s office in Minneapolis abruptly “reversed course” by informing state investigators that initial plans to coordinate efforts had been scrapped, according to Drew Evans, the state bureau’s superintendent.

A senior federal law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said that the remarks of the Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Frey, blaming the shooting on immigration operations the White House had ordered in his city, prompted the move.

The administration likened Mr. Frey’s finger-pointing to ordaining a predetermined outcome, even though his statements were comparable in tone to, if opposite in substance from, the Trump administration’s torrent of talk.

Mr. Trump and the team he installed at the Justice Department have repurposed the statement that Biden-era officials have used to justify the prosecutions of Mr. Trump — “no one is above the law” — to defend prosecutions of his perceived foes.

In a broader sense, they have also used the phrase to redefine justice according to his personal judgment of guilt and innocence. Over the past year, the president has granted clemency to hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters and other political allies. He has scuttled prosecutions of those he favored, like Eric Adams, the former mayor of New York.

During his first term, Mr. Trump’s demands were subject to internal pushback or slow-walked by department officials who were still able to maintain a measure of autonomy.

But over the past year, Mr. Trump’s commands have been dutifully executed by loyalists he views less as appointees than employees. When he talks, they listen.

Ms. Good “was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self-defense,” Mr. Trump wrote on social media hours after the killing.

“We need to stand by and protect our Law Enforcement Officers from this Radical Left Movement of Violence and Hate!” he added.

Leaders in Minnesota suggested on Friday that any investigation by the F.B.I. without their involvement would be tilted toward reinforcing Mr. Trump’s conclusions.

“Our ask is to embrace the truth,” Mr. Frey, a Democrat, said at a news conference at the end of the week. “We in Minneapolis want a fair investigation.”

Mr. Frey’s tone in the immediate aftermath of the shooting was more emotional. He called Mr. Trump’s claims that the agent acted in self-defense “bullshit,” and slammed the administration for what he argued was a decision to descend on Minneapolis to provoke a violent confrontation.

“This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying, getting killed,” he said.

The White House and Justice Department seized on that statement to justify the decision to cut off cooperation, saying that Mr. Frey’s remarks had made it clear that local officials had no intention of conducting an investigation in good faith, according to people familiar with the situation.

“That’s bullshit,” Mr. Frey replied through his spokeswoman.

State and city officials have said they would collect evidence independently, and have urged witnesses to come forward with information. The state could, potentially, file charges against ICE officials. But in the past, federal prosecutors have successfully petitioned to have such cases transferred to federal courts, citing the supremacy clause of the Constitution, with the purpose of dismissing them.

Jurisdictional conflicts between the F.B.I. and local enforcement agencies are hardly unusual, especially those involving high-stakes investigations into the conduct of federal law enforcement officials.

The Trump administration’s decision to cut off cooperation with local law enforcement in Minnesota does not necessarily mean the investigation, run out of the F.B.I.’s Minneapolis field office, will be tainted by political interference, former agents said.

It is less certain what action will be taken by federal prosecutors. They could file a range of charges against the agent who killed Ms. Good, if they determine he acted with reckless disregard for her safety or violated her civil rights as defined under federal law.

But Ms. Gupta and other former officials said they believed the administration’s public statements suggested that the F.B.I.’s investigation was just as likely to focus on Ms. Good’s actions than on the response by the agent who fired at close range.

It was not clear if any bureau officials were present during the confrontation in Minneapolis. But over the last year, the administration has had law enforcement agencies focus on immigration, and Mr. Patel has diverted thousands of F.B.I. employees from other duties to support ICE officials.

Michael Feinberg, a veteran F.B.I. agent who was forced to retire last year, said that many of his most experienced colleagues had warned against participating, given the possibility that the bureau could be called upon to investigate incidents like the killing of Ms. Good.

“One of the major concerns many of us had when the F.B.I. was ordered to join in on these immigration operations was that it would create an implicit conflict of interest if we ever had to conduct a use-of-force or civil rights investigation of the other involved agencies,” said Mr. Feinberg, who now writes for Lawfare, a nonpartisan news site that covers legal and national security issues.

“It’s difficult to see how the F.B.I. can be a neutral arbiter,” he added.

Related Content