Is the officer who shot Renee good IDF agent?
Executive summary
The officer who shot Renée Good is not an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) agent; he has been identified in U.S. reporting as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer named Jonathan Ross [1] [2]. Available reporting presents a contested portrait of Ross’s conduct and training: allies in the federal government have described him as an experienced agent who believed he was defending himself [3], while multiple news outlets, independent medical review, and local officials have produced evidence and statements that raise serious questions about whether his actions comported with ICE policy and basic policing standards [4] [5] [6].
1. Who the shooter actually is — correcting the “IDF” framing
Public records and national reporting identify the shooter as Jonathan Ross, an ICE officer involved in a January 7 operation in Minneapolis, not a member of the Israeli military; multiple outlets state Ross fired three shots that killed Renée Good [2] [5] [1], so any assessment must begin by correcting the premise that he is an IDF agent.
2. Training, role, and the official account of the shooting
Reporting indicates Ross was an experienced federal law‑enforcement officer and, according to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, believed he acted in self‑defense after the vehicle moved toward him and other agents; Noem said he was taken to hospital and recovered from injuries sustained in the incident [3] [7]. The Department of Homeland Security and conservative outlets have published video and argued the movement of the SUV justified the shooting [7].
3. Countervailing evidence and expert scrutiny
Independent and journalistic inquiries paint a different picture: an independent autopsy commissioned by Good’s family found multiple shot paths and was described by lawyers as supporting a willful killing theory [4], while forensic and video analysis cited by outlets like Wired and the New York Times raise questions about whether Ross followed training and whether shooting at a moving vehicle complied with agency guidelines that advise against firing at vehicles unless occupants use deadly force other than the vehicle itself [8] [5].
4. Institutional tensions and the handling of the probe
The case has exposed internal conflicts: an FBI supervisor in Minneapolis, Tracee Mergen, reportedly sought to pursue an inquiry into the officer and later resigned amid pressure, while senior Justice Department officials signaled they would not follow the typical investigative path into the officer’s conduct — developments that critics say suggest institutional reluctance to hold ICE agents accountable [9] [10] [11]. At the same time, the DOJ has pursued subpoenas and investigations into local officials and others connected to protests and responses to the operation, a move some see as politically charged [4].
5. Civic response, legal action, and political context
Good’s killing has intensified national debate over immigration enforcement during an administration pursuing a tougher deportation agenda, prompted state and municipal efforts to limit ICE cooperation, spurred protests, and led to civil litigation by Good’s family represented by Romanucci & Blandin [1] [4]. Local leaders, including Minneapolis’s mayor, publicly called the agent’s actions reckless even as federal officials defended the shooting [6] [3].
6. Bottom line: is he a “good” agent?
If “good” means legally justified, procedurally correct, and ethically sound, current public evidence does not support a confident affirmative: significant, credible reporting and an independent autopsy challenge the self‑defense narrative and point to potential departures from ICE guidance on shooting at vehicles [4] [8] [5]. If “good” means experienced and trained, officials and reporting acknowledge Ross’s law‑enforcement background [3] [5]. Definitive judgment, however, requires transparent criminal and civil investigatory outcomes that have not yet been completed or made public; reporting documents institutional resistance to the sort of inquiry that would settle that question [10] [9].