Thank you for watching! In the face of unrelenting disinformation and authoritarian actions, clear truth-telling and independent media are a necessity. If you value pro-democracy journalism, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to my newsletter. Paid subscribers empower this work and gain access to exclusive benefits. Your support makes a difference.
In our latest Two Brothers Talking conversation, Don Lemon and I broke down the ICE killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis and why it’s an inflection point.
People can see what happened with their own eyes, and they can also see what happened next: the lying, the gaslighting, and the scramble to control the narrative before the facts fully set in.
This was an atrocity committed by a federal officer against a 37-year-old mother. And now, the Trump Administration appears to be in cover-up mode.
You can watch our full conversation above and read insights from our talk below.
A flashpoint that could spread
Don opened by asking the core question: Does what happened in Minnesota stay in Minnesota, or does it spread nationally?
I said plainly that it could. We are already seeing protests begin to proliferate, and the moral outrage is not only about the shooting itself, but about what the administration did after the fact. In moments like this, the cover-up becomes part of the crime.
The location matters too. Minneapolis carries symbolic weight because it’s tied to the last major national inflection point on state violence after George Floyd was killed. This is a community familiar with protests.
The video made the administration’s story collapse
We talked through what makes this case different from the start. The administration’s initial characterization was not just biased; it was fabricated.
Before most Americans even saw the video, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem moved to falsely frame Renee Good as a threat and made up a story about a car being stuck in the snow. But the footage doesn’t support that narrative. In our conversation, we referenced how major outlets and video analysts have already pointed out that the officer was not in the path in a way that could justify lethal force, and that the car was turning away.
When the public can compare official statements to the evidence, trust collapses fast.
Untrained, under-vetted, and emboldened
Don made a key point from his on-the-ground reporting: the culture around these operations has shifted. People with power in these settings increasingly act as if the rules do not apply to them.
I argued that this is not accidental. It is downstream of leadership choices: reduced training, reduced vetting, and an environment that rewards aggression rather than restraint.
When you create a system that recruits aggressively, accelerates timelines, and treats accountability as optional, eventually you get a catastrophe that breaks through the noise. That is what this looks like.
A cover-up in progress
One of the most alarming threads we discussed was the early evidence of obstruction.
We talked about reporting, suggesting local investigators have struggled to access evidence, and that federal agencies may not be cooperating in a way that allows full accountability. We also discussed the immediate on-scene behavior in the aftermath, including attempts to control who could provide medical assistance and how quickly.
Even for people who try to be generous in interpreting chaos after a shooting, the broader pattern is unmistakable: close ranks, shape the story, deflect blame, and smear the victim.
That is what authoritarian systems do. They don’t just commit abuses. They work to make the truth unknowable.
What Democrats should do with the power they actually have
A major focus of our conversation was what meaningful leverage looks like.
I argued that Democrats should stop funding DHS without concrete accountability demands, and that appropriations is one of the few pressure points available right now.
Not strongly worded letters. Not symbolic outrage. Actual conditions tied to funding, including basic guardrails that should not be controversial in a democracy: clear identification, limits on masked operations, meaningful training standards, bans on warrantless arrests, and transparent accountability processes when lethal force is used.
Don made an important strategic observation, too: shutting down parts of government is painful by definition, but that pain is often the mechanism that forces change. If Democrats believe we are in an emergency, they need to act like it.
The broader question Americans are already asking
Underneath all of this is a simple question: are we going to accept a system where armed federal agents can operate like a roaming secret police force with minimal transparency, weak oversight, and an administration willing to lie reflexively to protect them?
That is why this outrage is spreading.
It’s a moment where the evidence is clear, the Trump Admin response is cynical, and the stakes are undeniable.
Watch the full conversation, and if you haven’t already, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to support this independent journalism.
