Are people doxxing the children and family of Renae Good who was murdered by ice earlier this month?

1. The allegation: supporters have published the child’s details

Two outlets in the sample assert that “Trump supporters” or “ICE fans” circulated personally identifying information about Good’s six-year-old son after her death, and they tie that circulation to material they say first appeared in the New York Post that identified the child’s school (The Canary; Abolish Capital) ^{[1] [2]}. Those reports frame the act as an escalation — doxxing a grieving child — and use strong language to condemn the behavior ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the mainstream reporting documents instead

Major outlets represented here concentrate on the killing itself, the investigation and the family’s public response: The Guardian and BBC covered the shooting, the FBI takeover of parts of the probe and public reaction, while People and The Guardian published the family’s request for empathy and calls not to inflame the situation ^{[3] [6] [4] [5]}. None of those mainstream pieces in the provided set include an explicit, independently verified account of doxxing the child by name in their reporting excerpts ^{[3] [6] [4] [5]}.

3. Corroboration and competing evidence

Beyond the Canary and Abolish Capital items, the dataset includes fact-checking and investigative pieces related to surrounding narratives — for example, Snopes debunked a circulated screenshot purporting to be Good’s criminal “rap sheet,” illustrating how quickly false or misleading personal information has circulated in the case ^[7]. The presence of that fact-check suggests a high volume of social-media claims about Good’s identity and history, but it does not by itself confirm the specific allegation that the child and family were doxxed as described in the activist pieces ^[7].

4. Who’s being accused and what motive is implied

The activist outlets explicitly attribute the alleged doxxing to pro-Trump or “ICE fans” who, they say, mobilized after the New York Post’s disclosure ^{[1] [2]}. That framing carries an implicit political motive — retribution or intimidation tied to outrage over the killing — but within this document set there is no independent chain of custody showing the social posts, screenshots, or platform removals that would incontrovertibly trace the doxxing back to named individuals or accounts ^{[1] [2] [7]}.

5. The family’s public stance and the broader context

Good’s family publicly urged empathy and asked for care for the family directly affected, a plea journalists cited amid national debate about the shooting and political responses; that request suggests the family sought to limit additional harm and attention to private details ^{[5] [4]}. Simultaneously, reporting chronicles polarized online dynamics around the case — fundraising for the ICE agent, federal probes, and competing narratives about Good’s background — all of which create an environment where doxxing and misinformation can flourish ^{[8] [3] [7]}.

6. Verdict and limits of the record

Based on the materials supplied, there are explicit claims by The Canary and a like-minded site that supporters doxxed Renée Good’s six-year-old son and that those claims trace back to reporting in the New York Post ^{[1] [2]}. However, the set lacks independent corroboration from mainstream outlets, primary screenshots archived by neutral fact-checkers, platform moderation notices or law-enforcement statements verifying that the child’s personal information was broadly circulated and used to threaten the family; absence of such confirmation in the provided reporting is a meaningful limitation ^{[3] [7] [5]}. The available evidence therefore supports that activist outlets reported doxxing allegations, but the question of scale, origin and documented harm beyond those reports remains unresolved in the supplied sources ^{[1] [2] [7]}.