The Criminalization of Free Speech After an ICE Killing

Last week, an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother, while she sat in her car in Minneapolis. Video evidence and eyewitness accounts have raised serious questions about the use of deadly force. In a functioning democracy, this would trigger restraint, accountability, and an independent investigation. Instead, the Trump regime chose intimidation. Rather than focusing on the killing of an American citizen by federal officers, senior officials immediately pivoted to attacking critics, smearing the victim, and threatening investigations into journalists and citizens who spoke out. This represents a dangerous escalation: the criminalization of constitutionally protected speech. Vice President JD Vance publicly announced an investigation into what he described as a “broad left-wing network,” explicitly naming media organizations and private citizens whom he accused of “supporting,” “cheerleading,” or amplifying criticism of the administration’s immigration enforcement. Those words matter. He did not say “inciting violence.” He did not allege specific crimes. He described speech, journalism, protest, and online expression — activity protected by the First Amendment. That alone should alarm every member of Congress. Equally disturbing is the Vice President’s apparent involvement in announcing or shaping an investigation tied to a politically explosive incident. Prosecutors investigate crimes, not people or viewpoints. Political officials do not publicly threaten investigations into critics of the government. When they do, it signals abuse of power and an erosion of the separation between law enforcement and political retaliation. Meanwhile, state and local officials in Minnesota have raised concerns that federal authorities are blocking independent investigations into the shooting itself. The family of Ms. Good has retained civil rights counsel and called for transparency, while even some ICE personnel have publicly questioned the operation and its aftermath. These facts underscore the need for accountability — not distraction. Yet the regime's response has been to invert justice: treating public outrage and press scrutiny as suspect, while the killing of a citizen fades into the background. This inversion is how democratic norms collapse. When criticism becomes “conspiracy,” journalism becomes “incitement,” and solidarity becomes “cheerleading,” the law is no longer applied neutrally. Congress has both the authority and the obligation to act. You must demand independent investigations into the killing of Renee Nicole Good. You must hold hearings on executive intimidation of journalists and citizens. And you must make clear, unequivocally, that the First Amendment is not conditional on political loyalty. If this precedent is allowed to stand, the chilling effect will be immediate and lasting. A government that investigates speech today will prosecute it tomorrow. This is not a partisan issue. It is a constitutional one. History will judge whether Congress defended the freedoms it was sworn to protect.