Overview of Abolish ICE (Vox — Today Explained)
This episode examines recent deadly confrontations in Minneapolis between federal immigration agents (ICE/Border Patrol) and local observers/volunteers. It centers on the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Preddy, conflicting official narratives versus video evidence, the deteriorating relationship between federal and local law enforcement, and the immediate political fallout in Washington — including debates over DHS/ICE funding, legal challenges, and calls for accountability.
Key points and main takeaways
- Two high-profile deaths during encounters with federal agents in Minneapolis sparked outrage and competing narratives:
- Renee Good’s last reported words to agents: “that’s fine, dude, I’m not mad at you” (she was later killed).
- Alex Preddy appears in video trying to protect/assist a woman, is disarmed during a scuffle with federal agents, and is then shot; bystanders reported his last words as “you okay?”
- Federal officials initially characterized Preddy and others as violent actors or terrorists; video evidence contradicts many of those early claims, damaging the federal narrative and credibility.
- Local law enforcement (Minneapolis Police Department) and state officials have publicly criticized federal tactics and expressed distrust of federal accounts. MPD chief Brian O’Hara has been outspoken.
- Community response: neighbors and volunteers are organizing to alert and shield residents (honks/whistles, shift-based neighborhood watches, childcare protection), with many describing bravery amid fear and demoralization after repeated shootings.
- Legal and political fallout:
- A Minnesota court hearing is taking up a 10th Amendment/state sovereignty challenge to the federal deployment — considered a long shot legally, but symbolically significant.
- In Congress, Democrats are withholding or reconsidering support for DHS funding; some push to use appropriations leverage (threats of shutdown) to demand accountability for ICE/Border Patrol conduct.
- There are proposals short of abolishing ICE (most Democrats avoid the “abolish ICE” label), including oversight, restrictions, and even impeachment calls aimed at officials they see as responsible for the deployment and tactics.
- Even if Congress shuts down the government, ICE/Border Patrol funding may be unaffected because of separate appropriation mechanics — so a shutdown could be largely symbolic with respect to stopping the deployments.
Notable quotes and claims
- “That’s fine, dude, I’m not mad at you” — reported last words of Renee Good to ICE agents.
- “You okay?” — reported last words of Alex Preddy as he tried to shield a woman.
- Border Patrol statement (initial): “an individual approached U.S. Border Patrol agents with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun…agents attempted to disarm the individual, but he violently resisted.”
- Critics pointed to officials (including Stephen Miller in the transcript) who used extreme language (e.g., “assassin”) immediately after the shootings — problematic because investigations had not yet concluded.
- MPD Chief Brian O’Hara: emphasized community fear and the difference between local policing (which recovered many guns without shootings) and the federal tactics on display.
Note on factual accuracy in the recording: the episode transcript appears to conflate roles in at least one instance — it refers to “Kristi Noem” as a DHS official. Kristi Noem is the governor of South Dakota; the Secretary of Homeland Security (as of the latest administrations) is a different official. Listeners should be aware the episode includes this misstatement as presented in interviews.
Topics discussed (by segment)
- Eyewitness video vs. federal statements — how bodycam/phone footage contradicted initial federal narratives.
- The role and self-identification of protesters as “observers” — they claim a legal right to record and monitor immigration operations.
- Interagency conflict — local/state officials with warrants denied access by federal agents; a public rift between MPD and federal agencies.
- Legal avenues: 10th Amendment challenge, civil rights claims, and where courts might rule.
- Washington response:
- Congressional debates over DHS/ICE funding (Senate vote on DHS funding in a package with other appropriations).
- Political calculus for Democrats (use appropriations leverage vs. avoid all-or-nothing calls to abolish ICE).
- Republican reactions: some GOP officials uneasy, with a few calling for investigations or distancing from current tactics.
- Trump administration response: sending Tom Homan (border adviser) to Minneapolis and the optics of sidelining certain DHS figures.
- Business/community leaders: a neutral statement from ~60 CEOs criticized by some as insufficient; broader corporate silence earlier in the crisis noted.
- Organizing and community defense: parents, neighbors, volunteers coordinating nonviolent deterrence and observation.
Legal and political implications
- Accountability and investigations: video evidence will be central; conflicting jurisdictional claims mean multiple investigations and hearings are likely.
- Funding leverage: Democrats are considering using DHS appropriations to demand reforms or accountability; however, appropriations mechanics may limit the effectiveness of a shutdown in halting ICE operations.
- Oversight and impeachment: some House Democrats favor aggressive oversight or even impeachment of officials they view as responsible; most Democrats prefer reform/restriction strategies over outright abolition of ICE.
- Public opinion and political risk: the incidents have created vulnerabilities for Republicans who had broadly supported the administration’s immigration enforcement posture; some GOP members are starting to call for oversight or changes.
What to watch next (actionable items / timeline)
- Minnesota court hearings on state challenges to federal deployments (10th Amendment/civil sovereignty arguments).
- Ongoing local and federal investigations into the shootings; release of bodycam/phone footage and official forensic findings.
- Senate vote on the appropriations package that includes DHS funding — watch whether Democrats block funding or secure concessions.
- Congressional oversight hearings: requests for DHS/Border Patrol officials to testify (and any subpoenaed officials such as those named in public statements).
- Administration moves: Tom Homan’s role in Minneapolis and any directives from the White House regarding federal deployments.
- Local politics: Minneapolis and Minnesota state responses, and any new local protective or regulatory measures.
Short summary
The episode frames Minneapolis as the flashpoint of a broader national clash over immigration enforcement tactics. Video evidence undermined early federal claims about the shooters’ behavior, intensifying local anger and fracturing trust between federal agents and Minneapolis officials. The fallout has immediate legal, political, and budgetary consequences: court challenges, heightened congressional scrutiny of DHS/ICE funding, and growing pressure on both parties to explain how — and whether — to change federal immigration enforcement practices.