← Justice & Rule of Law · The Record
TIER B Jan 7, 2026
Verified false or misleading claim

“The woman driving the car [Renée Nicole Good] was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer.”

Scores: V 30, C 52, scored on September 27, 2026
Venue
Truth Social post following the shooting of Renée Nicole Good by federal agents
What the evidence shows

Video does not support the claim that Good ran over the officer. Cellphone video recorded by the officer who shot her, Jonathan Ross, shows Good speaking calmly to him ("That's fine, dude, I'm not mad at you") and turning her steering wheel to the right, away from him, as she began to drive (NBC News). The Minnesota Star Tribune's review of two bystander videos found they do not support Trump's claim that she ran over the officer: "He draws his gun as Good drives forward, her front wheels turned away from the officer. Three shots ring out. It looks as though the ICE agent steps back as the car advances." Contact is not ruled out: one bystander angle "appears to show the SUV pushing the agent who was standing near the front of it," but "he does not fall over," and two U.S. officials later said Ross suffered internal bleeding to the torso (CBS News).

The administration's own account collapsed under scrutiny. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said the footage did not support DHS claims that Good weaponized her SUV, and The New York Times reported that FBI Director Kash Patel halted the federal investigation over concerns its conclusions would contradict Trump's public claims. The fallout drove waves of resignations by DOJ Civil Rights Division prosecutors and Minnesota federal prosecutors. "That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you." — Renée Nicole Good, on video, to the ICE agent who shot her minutes later

Sources

Sources verified: July 4, 2026

Back to the archive

One entry from Trexit's documented record. Tier A = contradicted by unambiguous documentary evidence; Tier B = has a true element or is genuinely contested, but materially misleading as stated. How we verify →