President Donald Trump faced immediate criticism after proposing the death penalty for protesters who assault Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. This intensifies his administration’s stringent immigration enforcement stance amidst increasing tensions nationwide.
Trump suggested that protesters who attack ICE officers should face capital punishment. This statement comes as his administration faces growing opposition to its immigration policies in cities throughout the U.S. This follows weeks of rising tension between federal agents and demonstrators protesting ICE operations.
These remarks from the president come after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that Renee Nicole Good attacked an officer and committed domestic terrorism during a fatal encounter in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Good, 37, was fatally shot by an ICE officer on January 7, 2026, after she was instructed to leave her vehicle.
A newly released video, recorded by the agent who shot Good and obtained by ABC News on Jan. 9, shows Good turning her car’s wheel to the right, away from the agent, just over a second before the first shot is fired.
When asked if he believed the ICE agent who shot and killed Good was justified, President Donald Trump suggested that showing “disrespect” to law enforcement could warrant a death sentence.
Trump stated that Renee Good and her wife, Becca, demonstrated clear disrespect towards law enforcement, describing their behavior as highly inappropriate.
“Law enforcement should not be subjected to such behavior,” he continued. “What that woman, her friend, and their other friends did to law enforcement, not just ICE, but law enforcement, is outrageous.”
The shooting has become a contentious point in the debate over federal immigration enforcement tactics. Good was killed near her home when ICE officers asked her to exit her car during what seemed to be a street operation. She refused and started to drive away before the shooting took place.
The Trump administration has sent thousands of military personnel to cities experiencing protests against ICE operations. In June, Trump dispatched National Guard to Los Angeles, California, with almost 4,000 National Guard troops and more than 700 Marines sent to the city. California Governor Gavin Newsom resisted the deployment, which led to a court battle over presidential authority.
A judge deemed the Los Angeles deployment unlawful. The ruling followed widespread protests and property damage in Los Angeles after workplace raids by ICE agents.
Trump also deployed 800 National Guard troops to Washington DC in August, temporarily seizing control of the city’s police department.
The administration also attempted to send 2,000 National Guard troops to Chicago, Illinois in September, which was met with resistance from local officials. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson opposed the deployment, with Johnson issuing an executive order directing Chicago police not to coordinate with National Guard troops or federal agents.
The Supreme Court blocked National Guard deployment to Chicago on December 23, dealing a significant setback to Trump’s efforts to use federal forces in cities opposing his immigration policies. Trump paused his deployments to Los Angeles and other cities following the Supreme Court ruling, although he indicated they would return.
ICE operations have resulted in the detention of 10,600 people, according to recent federal data. The aggressive enforcement strategy has faced stern opposition in Democratic-led cities, where local officials have refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has defended the administration’s stringent approach in several briefings, amidst criticism for what opponents view as excessive use of force and overstepping of federal authority.
Trump has also proposed the death penalty for all murder cases in Washington DC, even though the District does not endorse capital punishment.
The escalating rhetoric and military deployments have raised questions about civil liberties and the boundaries of presidential authority. Legal experts note that while law enforcement officers have the right to use force when necessary, they are not exempt from prosecution for unjustified use of force. Immigration law professors have emphasized that once ICE agents identify someone as a U.S. citizen, they have no jurisdiction over that person, although citizens should not interfere with law enforcement operations.
The administration’s rigorous approach has also spurred debate about individuals’ rights to record ICE operations. Every federal appeals court that has examined the issue has confirmed that the First Amendment generally protects people’s rights to film in public, and California law specifically prohibits charging people with obstruction for filming officers’ conduct in public spaces.
As tensions continue to rise, civil rights advocates caution that the combination of military deployments, severe rhetoric advocating for capital punishment, and aggressive on-the-ground enforcement signifies an unprecedented increase in federal immigration enforcement tactics, which threatens to further divide an already polarized nation.
