Ocasio-Cortez Accuses ICE of ‘Assassinating Young Mother’ in Minneapolis
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents of “assassinating a young mother in the street” during a heated exchange with reporters. The comments followed the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Mediaite reported.
An ICE agent identified as Jonathan Ross shot and killed Good on Wednesday during a disputed incident that was captured on video.
Trump and senior administration officials have publicly criticized Good since the shooting while defending the actions of the agent involved.
Ocasio-Cortez was asked Friday on Capitol Hill to respond to Republican claims that the shooting occurred because Good interfered with ICE operations.
“What would you say to your Republican colleagues, just the fact that they say that if these people would follow the law and not get involved with ICE and try and disrupt them collecting people who are here illegally?” a reporter asked.
After asking for the question to be repeated, Ocasio-Cortez responded sharply.
“I would not say that assassinating a young mother of three in the street is part of ICE’s mandate,” she said.
Advertisement“ICE specifically has a mandate that has nothing to do with going after U.S. citizens,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez urged the public to review the video footage of the incident.
“Watch that video for yourself and you will see a woman trying to back up her vehicle and leave a volatile scene,” she said. “And she was met with three bullets to the face.”
Advertisement“You tell me, and any law enforcement officer in the country worth their salt can tell you, that that is not how you handle that situation,” she claimed, though several police officers and police leaders have already publicly disagreed with her, including Chicago’s top cop.
Ocasio-Cortez also criticized ICE training standards and linked the agency’s practices to post-9/11 policies.
“This started with Patriot Act, post 9-11 violation of American civil liberties, and it continues in that stream,” she said.
Cellphone video footage released Friday shows the moments leading up to the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman by a federal immigration agent during a confrontation that has intensified political tensions over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.
The video was released two days after an agent with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, 37, after authorities say she drove a vehicle toward officers during an encounter on a residential street, Fox News reported.
The footage, taken from an agent’s body camera, shows Good’s Honda Pilot stopped in the middle of the roadway, appearing to block traffic. In the video, Good is heard speaking calmly to one of the agents.
“That’s fine, dude,” she says. “I’m not mad.”
An agent then walks around the vehicle to check the license plate. Moments later, another agent approaches the driver’s side and orders Good to exit the vehicle.
“Get out of the car. Get out of the f—— car,” the agent is heard saying.
Seconds later, Good backs the vehicle up and then drives forward toward the agent wearing the body camera. The agent says “whoa” before multiple gunshots are fired. Good’s vehicle then crashes into a parked car.
Federal officials have said the agent acted in self-defense, asserting that Good used her vehicle as a weapon. The Trump administration has described the incident as an act of domestic terrorism, a characterization rejected by Democratic officials.
Authorities said Good had been following and harassing federal officers earlier in the day. Federal sources told Fox News that she was involved with “ICE Watch,” an immigration activist group that seeks to monitor and interfere with federal enforcement operations. Homeland Security officials said similar groups operate in multiple sanctuary cities nationwide.
The agent who fired the shots was identified by Minnesota-based outlet Alpha News as Jonathan Ross. The outlet published the 47-second clip on Jan. 9 and said it showed Ross’s perspective during the encounter.
IT ALL CAME OUT' – GAVIN NEWSOM BLOWS UP AFTER BEING EXPOSED LIVE ON AIR
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As the 2028 presidential election cycle rapidly approaches, life is getting increasingly complicated for California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The ambitious Democrat, widely expected to declare his candidacy for his party's highest nomination, is currently drowning in a massive, rapidly expanding ethics scandal centered on hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable corporate donations. As federal investigators continue to circle both the governor and his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the sheer scale of his fundraising tactics is raising serious alarm bells across the political spectrum.
At the absolute center of this controversy is Newsom’s unprecedented and unapologetic use of "behested payments"—a controversial practice in California law that allows elected officials to personally solicit massive, unlimited donations from deep-pocketed corporations, wealthy individuals, and labor unions to fund specific charities or government initiatives.
While technically legal under the state's highly permissive rules, government watchdogs and ethics experts are fiercely arguing that these payments represent a glaring, dangerous loophole. It essentially allows special interests—many of whom have active, highly lucrative business before the state of California—to gain massive political influence and curry favor with the governor, entirely outside the strict boundaries of traditional campaign finance laws.
The $347 Million Man
According to official California disclosure records, the scale at which Newsom utilizes this loophole is utterly staggering. Since 2011, Newsom has reported soliciting more than $347 million in behested payments.
To put that massive figure into perspective, data from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) reveals that all elected officials statewide combined directed roughly $556 million in behested payments between 2011 and 2026. Newsom alone accounted for nearly two-thirds—a whopping 62%—of that total.
By stark contrast, his predecessor, former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, reportedly solicited a relatively modest $35 million in behested payments during his entire tenure.
"Behested payments are ripe for abuse," warned Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, pointing out the obvious ethical minefield created when powerful elected officials lean on organizations that have direct business before the government.
The Optics of Influence Peddling
The ethical concerns are not just hypothetical; they are rooted in a pattern of massive corporate donations followed by highly favorable state actions.
Public reports have raised serious questions about several major donors who opened their checkbooks at Newsom's behest and later benefited immensely from state contracts or policy decisions. For example, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare giant Blue Shield donated a staggering $20 million to initiatives heavily supported by Newsom. Shortly thereafter, the corporation was miraculously awarded a highly lucrative, no-bid state contract related to vaccine distribution.
Similarly, the Kaiser Foundation contributed nearly $10 million before securing a significantly expanded role in California’s massive Medi-Cal program. In another instance, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria donated millions to organizations associated with the governor and his wife’s initiatives. Later, they benefited significantly from favorable state decisions involving tribal gaming matters, including efforts to block a rival casino from opening nearby.
While proving an explicit, legal quid pro quo is notoriously difficult, critics argue that the actual transaction is irrelevant. The concern is that the system inherently encourages and rewards a "pay-to-play" culture. Assemblyman David Tangipa slammed the practice, describing behested payments as a blatant form of "political influence peddling," boldly arguing that just because the system is legal does not mean it isn't deeply corrupt.
The Family Business and Federal Heat
The issue has drawn even fiercer scrutiny because millions of these corporate dollars have been funneled directly into organizations tightly linked to the governor’s inner circle. Approximately $4.8 million in behested donations were routed to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom. For many critics, corporate money flowing into a charity run by the governor's wife creates, at the very least, a glaring appearance of a massive conflict of interest.
The intense debate over this influence-peddling loophole comes at a highly precarious time for the governor. Newsom recently acknowledged that both he and his wife are currently the subjects of multiple, ongoing federal investigations. While neither has been charged with any wrongdoing, and the Department of Justice has remained completely tight-lipped about the exact nature of the inquiries, the specter of a federal probe casts a dark cloud over his 2028 presidential ambitions.
A "Laughable Slap on the Wrist"
Adding insult to injury for government transparency advocates, Newsom recently agreed to pay a $31,500 ethics fine handed down by the state's campaign finance watchdog, the FPPC. The fine was levied after the commission found that Newsom flagrantly failed to legally report 36 separate behested payments—totaling more than $5.6 million—within the required 30-day timeframe.
The late disclosures involved massive corporate donations solicited during the 2024 and 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, pulling in vast sums from corporate titans like BlackRock, Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Anthem Blue Cross. While Newsom's office brushed off the violation as a mere paperwork oversight during an emergency, critics blasted the $31,500 penalty as a "laughable slap on the wrist" for a wealthy politician manipulating a quarter-billion-dollar shadow fundraising system. This marks the second time Newsom has been fined for late reporting of these payments, having previously paid a $13,000 fine in 2024.
Supporters of the governor are quick to point out that these behested donations have funded critical public initiatives, including wildfire relief and charitable causes. However, the public benefit of those projects does absolutely nothing to eliminate the massive concerns surrounding transparency, corporate influence, and the ability of powerful special interests to funnel unlimited cash into causes promoted by the state's most powerful executive.
As Newsom attempts to position himself as the future of the Democratic Party, the growing scandal surrounding his $347 million loophole is forcing a national reckoning. The American people are left to wonder: if this is how Gavin Newsom runs California, how exactly would he run the country?
