The Philip DeFranco Show - ICE Agent Who Killed Renee Good Identified as Jonathan Ross

Episode Date: January 8, 2026

Go to http://brain.fm/defranco to get 30 days of free access to science-backed music that really works. New https://BeautifulBastard.com Signature Collection restock & use code 2026 for 26% OFF! Happy New Year! LISTEN TO THE SHOW iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-philip-defranco-show/id1278424954 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ESemquRbz6f8XLVywdZ2VWATCH CRASHING OUT w/ PHILIP & ALEX Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCergKLoy-Yv9zlPk3XQYK7Q?sub_confirmation=1 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2DkU87umhGH9mH1z24Bi9w?si=6sSdjhVNQjyVeBQDLiXcyg Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crashing-out-with-philip-defranco-and-alex-pearlman/id1843429519 WATCH/LISTEN TO MY NEW PODCAST w/ MAXINOMICS Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2CePXwDrvdQTes844wflKp?si=55a6b6049c4841ed Youtube: https://youtube.com/acw?sub_confirmation=1 iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/in-good-faith-with-philip-defranco/id1827016835 JOIN OUR COMMUNITY 📸Instagram: https://instagram.com/PhillyDeFranco  🐦Twitter: https://twitter.com/phillyd  🎵TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@philipdefranco  TODAY’S STORIES 00:00 - Victim & Agent in Minnesota ICE Shooting Identified  09:08 - AOC Accuses Jesse Watters of Sexually Harassment13:00 - Sponsored by Brain.fm 13:58 - Prediction Markets Move on More Foreign Escalation After Venezuela 18:25 - Senate Advances Resolution to Limit Trump in Venezuela  THE TEAM Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks, Matthew Henry Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Chris Tolve, Star Pralle, Jared Paolino   ———————————— #DeFranco #ReneeGood #AOC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Her name was Renee Nicole Macklin Good. She is, or rather, was the 37-year-old woman, the 37-year-old American citizen who ICE killed yesterday in Minneapolis. She described herself as a poet, a writer, a wife, a mom, and she's being remembered by members of her community as a kind, compassionate, and giving person. But also, since her death, she's been called a professional agitator, a deranged leftist, and a domestic terrorist.

And now there's a talk of war between Minnesota and the federal government. So among other things, we've got to talk about what actually happened, the fallout and the patterns that we can find and the violence has been taking place and the claims being made to justify it. Where it's starting with what actually went down, we've seen multiple videos from different angles, but the main one is this one. You see an agent approach Renee's SUV, he tries to open the door, she backs away, another officer moves in front of the vehicle, she pulls forward to the right, and then that officer fires three rounds that are, including at least twice when many say

that it looks like he is clearly outside of the path of the vehicle. The SUV then continues a short way down the street, bearing to the left, and crashes into a park car. And it was about 10 seconds from the moment that the agents exited the truck to shots being fired. The agent who fired the shots appears to be seen in video is walking around afterwards with no apparent injuries. And this is you had people starting to scream things like, You are fucking criminals! You're fucking criminals!

And you had one woman with blood covering her face, reportedly being heard shouting, You guys just killed my wife. Also, you saw things like when authorities eventually left the scene, you had people yelling and throwing snowballs, agents hitting back with pepper. spray and pepper balls. Also last night, thousands gathered at a vigil for the victim and to protest ice. Right, and that is there have also been protests in other U.S. cities, including New York and Los Angeles.

And actually in Minneapolis today, there have been more clashes between protesters and federal agents, with school even being canceled in the city for the rest of the week. And Governor Tim Walls announced that he was issuing a warning order to prepare the Minnesota National Guard. Warning protesters to stay peaceful and did not take debate, arguing that the Trump administration was just looking for an excuse to deploy the military. Right, he also seemed to compare the current mood and the potential of what's going to happen to what happened after George Floyd was murdered. Because he was actually killed about a mile from where Renee was killed yesterday.

We saw it after the murder of George Floyd. There's folks that want to cause chaos. There's the disruptors in him where the vast majority of those protests were peaceful expressions, their First Amendment rights. There were those that destroyed property and put people at risk. The National Guard is there to make sure that peaceful protests are able to be done and that those that want to do the destruction are stopped from doing that. Right. And then, notably in his address, he spoke out

against federal interference, saying these National Guard troops are our National Guard troops and also repeating a point that he made the day before. Well, I said this yesterday, we've never been at war with our federal government. And of course, he had the White House jumping on that to claim that Walls declared Minnesota is at war against the federal government, calling him sick and a dangerous lunatic, possibly insinuating that he intended to pit those troops against federal immigration agents. I mean, you have at least one Republican lawmaker even calling on Trump to arrest Walls over the National Guard announcement.

And well, for many, they see this as Walsh is talking about using their National Guard to keep a handle on potential protests, I will say it is true that he and other officials are pushing back hard against the Trump administration's version of events. Or with Walls urging the public not to believe what he called a propaganda machine and saying that the shooting was both totally predictable and totally avoidable. You also had the Minneapolis Police Chief noting that there was nothing to indicate that this woman was the target of any law enforcement investigation. And you had Mayor Jacob Frey calling the government's account of René's death,

bullshit, garbage, and saying to ICE. Get the fuck out of Minneapolis. But then with all that, we've got to unpack exactly what the Trump administration has As far as Trump himself, you had him sharing a different clip online where very little can be seen and saying that Renee was obviously a professional agitator and that she violently, willfully and viciously ran over the ICE officer. Also saying in an interview with the New York Times, she didn't try to run him over, she ran him over. With him even reportedly having an aide pulled the video up on a laptop and an effort to prove his point. You then also had Vice President J.D. Vans presenting it as just a matter of fact that Renee at least tried to run the agent over, which is also not clear from the video. Reading, do you think this officer was wrong in defending his life against a deranged leftists who tried to run him over. Then also had Homeland Security Secretary Ice Barbie Christy Noem, describing the incident as an act of domestic terrorism. With that saying that she'll ask the Justice Department

to prosecute the use of vehicles to block immigration enforcement operations as domestic terrorism. She also claimed Renee had been stalking officers saying she attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle. And with that, painting the agent as a hero who killed her and he used his training to save his life

and those of his colleagues. And finally, you had known claiming that the officer had been assaulted before and right. With that, you have outlets now identifying him as Jonathan Ross. With Ross, actually, reportedly being the same officer who was injured by another fleeing driver in a different incident last year.

Of course, you know, this is a different situation. And even if you take what the administration is saying at face value, it's worth noting that the DOJ's own use of force policy says that agents may not fire at a moving car that is threatening them unless no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. And while ICE and the Homeland Security Department's

policy on the use of force also says that officers are authorized to use deadly force only if the officer, quote, has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, the policy further clarifies that officers should avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to use deadly force.

And so that's why you have people like an expert on police use the force at the University of South Carolina saying, the way you evaluate this is you look to see what's the imminent threat to life, and there is none, she's leaving, and saying this is what we call officer created jeopardy. And also explaining that the first agent to approach the car had escalated the situation, whereas local police officers are generally trained to de-escalate tense confrontation.

So you also have people like another expert seeing it as less conclusive, but also arguing it the fact that the agent fired more than once is very significant. Saying if you're able to keep aiming at something that is moving by you, then you have some innate knowledge that it is moving by you and not running over you. But then also with all this, something that's really big is that, you know, this claim that a driver aimed to use their vehicle as a weapon, it's often been used as a justification for fatal law enforcement shootings of otherwise unarmed drivers. With, for example, a 2021 New York Times investigation finding that in many cases, the driver was just trying to get away and that some officers, they put themselves in danger, and others, they appear to face no danger at all.

And now, in this second Trump administration, it's possible that we're seeing that with ICE. But just in the past four months alone, immigration officers are reportedly fired on at least nine people in five states in Washington, D.C. And very notably, every single one of them were fired on while in their vehicles. And in each case, officials have claimed that agents fired in self-defense, fearing that they'd be struck by the vehicle. And at least one other person besides Renee died as a result. Or with that being with a Mexican immigrant back in September, who was shot and killed less than a minute after being pulled over. And you had DHS officials claiming that he had hit and dragged one of the officers with his car

and the officer who shot him was acting in self-defense. Though notably, analysis of the video, it has called into question the government's narrative. And when it comes to the government's narrative, it's about more than just these incidents that have or have almost turned deadly. Right after Renee's shooting, you had Nome arguing that the incident goes to show that assaults that are ICE, law enforcement officers, are under every single day. And in his post afterwards, Trump claimed

the reason these incidents are happening is because the radical left is threatening, assaulting, and targeting our law enforcement officers and ICE agents on a daily basis. With that, tying into DHS's truly shocking claims that assaults against ICE agents have been up by as much as 1,150% year over year. But very notably there, there's no public evidence

that assaults have actually gone up as dramatically as the government has claimed. And the administration, they've reportedly turned down repeated requests for data backing it up, even as the stat has been used to justify agents using masks and hiding their identities to operate with impunity. Right, an analysis of court records by Colorado Public Radio show only about a 25% rise in charges for assaults against federal officers through mid-September compared to the same time a year ago.

And you know, if we look deeper, just like with shootings involving vehicles, there's a pattern that goes back further. During Trump's first term, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol reported a 20% increase in assaults on officers from 2015 to 2016 and then a 73% increase from 2016 to 2017. And those stats were quickly brought up when two Border Patrol agents were found injured and unconscious with one later dying from his injuries.

With many jumping to the conclusion that undocumented immigrants were behind it, even though the FBI ultimately found no evidence of that. And what's more, those stats that may have helped shift public opinion, they were probably bullshit. The uptick and alleged assault seemed to be at least partly driven by a decision to start counting them in the most absurd way possible.

I mean, you had a CPP official explaining to The Intercept in 2018 that one incident the year before involved seven agents who were assaulted by six subject, utilizing three different types of projectiles, rocks, bottles, and tree branches. So those numbers, seven, six, three, they were multiplied together so it counted as 126 total assaults. Well, we don't know for sure if the same bogus methodology is being used with ICE today, it is connected to where we are right now, including the conversation around Renee's death. And you've got folks like AOC being among the most outspoken in pointing to what happened and what we're hearing to argue that ICE needs to be reined in saying,

ICE has less accountability than virtually any law enforcement agency in the United States. And yet, they are some of the most well-funded, they are operating with impunity, and we just saw the murder an American citizen in cold blood in the street. And despite whatever lies that the president wants to say about what was happening in this, there is, you can see what happened for yourselves. Right, and actually as AOC was answering these questions about the Minneapolis shooting, she was approached by a Fox News producer for the Jesse Waters Primetime Show, asking her to make an appearance. Her response has since racked up millions of views.

He has sexualized me on his show. He has sexually harassed me on his show. He has engaged in horrific, sexually exploitative rhetoric. That's not true Congresswoman. It is true because he accused me of wanting to quote unquote sleep with Stephen Miller. So why don't you tell me what you think is acceptable to tell a woman? Thank you. With AOC then later sharing that clip and saying on X, you can either be a pervert or ask me to go on your little show. Not both. Good luck. For the people out there that don't consume the poison that is Fox News, that she is specifically referring to a moment from Fox News as the Five from back in October.

Where the hosts are responding to a live that AOC did on Instagram, where she was encouraging Democrats to make fun of Maga Men and their insecure masculinity, saying that Stephen Miller, he looked like a clown in adding. I've never seen that guy in real life, but he looks like he's like 410. And he looks like he is angry about the fact that he's 410. And he looks like he is so mad that he is 410, that he's taking that anger out at any other population possible. Like, laugh at them.

Laugh at them. And with that, you had the vibe responding. Do you think that Maga men are insulted by AOC? No, I think AOC wants to sleep with Miller. It is so obvious. And I'm sorry, you can't have them. Miller is the best. I know him well socially, and the man is not overcompetating.

Dana, I know when people are overcompensating. And also, I should probably know that this is far from the only time that Jesse Waters has made unsavory comments on air is specifically about women. With the sometimes taking the shape of him going after single women for Zoran Mamdani's win in New York City. Going on a rant about women with the wrong degree living in the most expensive city in the world

who haven't gotten married and had kids, quote, like everybody else. Or you have times like, when he said that Paris would be paralyzed by generals who would have their way with her in the White House's Situation Room. But there, he refused to apologize saying he was just speaking figuratively, not sexually. But maybe the most recent example aside from AOC

are his comments about Renee Good, right? The victim in the Minneapolis Ice Shooting. The woman who lost her life was a self-proclaimed poet from Colorado with pronouns in her bio. A 37-year-old white woman named Renee Good. The Daily Mail says she leaves behind a lesbian partner and a child from a previous marriage. She was a disruptor, though she considered herself

a legal observer, but there's no evidence she had a law degree. Right, and that earned him a hefty dose of backlash with people calling him heartless, cruel, shameless, bigoted. California state senator is saying in the pantheon of psychopath, Jesse Waters is an apex predator. But with all that said, you know,

with all the updates that we've seen, all the fallout, the reactions, and wherever the hell this thing is going, I've gotta ask you, you know, what are your thoughts, opinions, and reactions everything we're seeing right now. For me personally, I think the lightest way I can say it is I agree with Ken Jennings, who looks like he posted the prosecute the former regime at every level candidate has my vote in 2028. Well, I personally disagree with people that are calling this a justified

shooting. I'm just extra disturbed and disgusted and things I won't say in this video about assholes like Asman Gold's response to this was Rip Bozo and you have the vice president saying that, you know, that everyone's being gaslighting. That is to say I'm going after the media for not just regurgitating the administration's propaganda. And you know, in addition to the anger that I feel, I'm feeling more concerned than ever about the ghouls being transparently, ghouls in public. But again, hey, this is the Philip DeFranco show. Yes, it is a new show, but it's also meant to be a conversation. So whether you agree or disagree with me or you have some other take, let me hear from you in those comments. And then there's more we got to dive into in just a minute,

but first let me say, you know, turning a motivation and productivity, it's not always easy, but that's why I use today's sponsor, brain.fm. You know, it's not just music. It's It's audio designed to get your brain into focus mode fast. Instead of playlists that hype you up or distract you, Brain.fm uses science-back sound patterns that literally help your brain quiet the noise and lock in. But when I put it on, it feels like someone turned the background chaos down to manageable. Suddenly, I actually finish things. It's not just focus, right?

There are tracks for deep work, creativity, relaxation, even sleep, all tuned differently to guide your brain where you want it to go. Short bursts, marathon sessions, it adjusts to whatever you're doing. An actual neuroscientist worked on this, not trust me, bro, wellness vibe. Plus, the app's just stupid simple. Open it, pick what you need, and boom, brain cooperating. Right, I use it when I'm writing, prepping the show, or just trying not to wander onto social media like a feral toddler. It keeps me moving forward instead of drifting. And if any of this, it resonates with you, just go to brain.fm slash defranco or scan that QR code to try it free for 30 days.

That's brain.fm slash defranco for 30 days free. But then getting back into the news, right, more news you need to know, people are trying to make big money on Trump's rogue international strategy. Right, because after the United States bombed Venezuela and captured Maduro, prediction markets show increasing odds that Trump will take other drastic actions abroad. Right on Calci, bets that Trump will buy or take control as some part of Greenland are up compared to a week ago. As are bets that Trump will take back the Panama Canal. And while those predictions still only hover in the 30% range, when you consider that they were just at 16% a week ago, that's pretty significant.

Right, and all of this, it comes as at least one person made big money on the U.S.'s actions in Venezuela. Right, a relatively new anonymous polymarket account started by placing its first small, bets on US intervention there on December 27. And over the course of the following week, that trader increased its bets on Maduro not being in power by the end of the month, something that seemed very much against the odds. And then their last wager was placed at 10 p.m. Eastern on Friday just before the operation was announced. And by that time, the trader had put $34,000 in wagers on this, most of which were shortly before the operation, which ended up landing them over $400,000 in profit. So you've got a lot of people looking at that

and going, okay, no one's timing is that perfect. Right, is this person inside of the administration? Did they know something? And you've got an executive of a financial reform advocacy group saying this particular bet has all the hallmarks of a trade based on inside information. And you know, while insider trading is a big legal no-no in the stock market, prediction markets are less regulated. I mean, they're technically not even legally considered gambling. And while these platforms, they have policies to prevent insider trading, this is far from the only controversy of this nature. Last year, a polymarket user made almost a million dollars after correctly winning 22 out of the 23 bets on what Google's most searched topics of the year would be.

And you know, all of this, it's a massive can of worms in general, but there are also a lot of specific concerns when it comes to placing bets on politics. You can put money basically on anything like who's most likely to leave the Trump administration in the next two years if Americans will get tariff stimulus checks, who will be the Democratic candidate in 2028 and how long Caroline Levitt will speak during press briefings. And I bring up that last one because that is something that has gained a lot of attention on Twitter lately. But some of what people bet on here is pretty complicated, right? Especially when you look at the foreign affairs bets that are booming right now. And there you have Bloomberg explaining prediction markets thrive on binary outcomes while geopolitical reality

rarely fits cleanly into yes or no. And adding traders can bet on overlapping questions. Did the the U.S. invade, did troops enter, was a leader removed, that all tracked the same event, but resolved differently. And a lot of this, it brings us to the question of, well, will the United States be working swiftly to regulate this industry? And no. Or I guess to hedge my bets, let's say, don't hold your breath. Right, there is a House Democrat introducing legislation addressing insider trading among government officials on prediction markets, and Kalshi has said that it would support this. But the Trump administration is probably not eager to regulate this space. Right, because just before Trump took office last year, his son, Trump Jr., lands at a role as Kalshi's

strategic advisor. And that as his venture capital firm previously invested in polymarket. And Trump himself actually announced that truth social would be launching truth predicts, which will allow people to place crypto bets on events in sports, politics, and more. And so, you know, there are a lot of people that see some or all of that as a major roadblock to regulation with one professor saying, it would be helpful if prediction market platforms themselves do not have political ownership. We need them to be invested in weeding out bad activity like insider trading without any distracting influences. So instead of things maybe getting reeled in, you have,

some reports suggesting that this kind of betting, it's set to boom with the midterms. And with that, you have places like NPR saying, critics of the apps worry that turning election results into casino-like wagers could encourage wealthy donors to make bets that could artificially inflate one candidate's odds on the apps. And saying that, in turn, could fuel the candidate's momentum, lead to a bump in news coverage, and even influence voter behavior. And then there are also concerns about how foreign actors could use these markets to execute their agendas. But again, these markets are very likely not going to be going anywhere.

They're just becoming more and more universal. I mean, Kalshi is even partnering with major news outlets like CNN and CNBC to offer its betting wagers in their news coverage. Right. And so lately, if you tune in to CNN talking about Greenland, you'll see them discussing how people are betting on Kalshi on that subject. And as the CEO of Kalshi previously said, the long-term vision is to financialize everything and create a tradable asset out of any difference in opinion. And while with all this, of course, I'd love to know your thoughts, opinions and reactions, just to share here. Well, I am someone that likes to gamble myself from time to time, though I also don't take any gambling sponsorships anymore. even fantasy football stuff. I think these sites, I think the idea of turning everything into gambling, it's not just a moral rot on our country. I think it is going to ruin generations to come.

For some of the reasons others have mentioned in the coverage today, as well as numerous others I've ranted on in my other podcasts. And then, I mean, this is unrelated, so I really have no transition, but this is a news show. We've got to talk about news. Trump is taking Venezuela's oil and has no plans to give up control of the country, right? That is according to President Trump and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who both touched on that yesterday. Right, and it's unclear what the actual current plan for Venezuela's oil is. Rubio said that America would be seizing up to 50 million barrels of it, and that would give Trump tremendous leverage to stabilize the place

after the vacuum left by Maduro's capture. You also had Rubio adding, We're going to sell it in the marketplace, at market rates, not at the discounts Venezuela was getting. That money will then be handled in such a way that we will control how it is dispersed in a way that benefits to Venezuelan people, not corruption, not the regime. Rubio then also gave the most details to date about what the U.S. plans do with Venezuela, you know, stabilization, recovery, and transition.

It's saying selling to oil and giving them a cut is supposed to help with stabilization. In an interview with the New York Times, Trump said, we will rebuild it in a very profitable way, saying we're going to be using oil and we're going to be taking oil or getting oil prices down and we're going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. Also, one of the big questions left unanswered is how long is this going to take, with the question weeks, months, a year, to which Trump said, I would say much longer. It's also unclear how the U.S. means to control Venezuela, right? Trump's words. Right now, it doesn't seem like they're interested in directly taking over the government.

We seeming to be fine with letting it be a de facto tributary state that pays off America by letting American companies take over the oil industry. And if the new interim president, Delsi Rodriguez, who of course was Medoro's VP very closely tied to him, part of the same regime, decides against America's interests, and there's always a massive fleet just sitting off the coast to change things up. Also, speaking of Delcy Rodriguez, Trump declined to answer why he chose her over opposition leader Maria, Karina Machado. When asked if he's spoken to Rodriguez, who has taken a conciliatory tone with the United States, Trump said no, but adding Marco speaks to her all the time and saying, I will tell you that we are in constant communication with her and the administration. Though I'll say, while Trump hasn't spoken to Rodriguez, he has spoken to the president of neighboring Columbia. Right, ever since

capturing Maduro, Trump just hasn't been subtle about his threats to various Latin American leaders, including Colombia's president. But after a phone call, Trump said that they talked about the drug situation in Colombia and, quote, I appreciated his call and tone and look forward to meeting with him in the near future. Arrangements are being made between Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and the Foreign Minister of Columbia. You know, considering that Trump had just called him a sick man, that seems to be a massive improvement. But then to circle back to Venezuela, you know, there's a big question about how much this is going to cost taxpayers. So according to Rubio, despite some reporting, it's not going to cost us anything. Saying that's because the U.S. expects to make

money out of the deal as American companies improve Venezuela's oil infrastructure. Though I'll say to, like, put it lightly, whether that's true or not, that's yet to be seen, especially since, you know, they're not moving until guarantees are made. Though I will say if it truly doesn't cause taxpayers anything. This could be a win for Trump as far as polling. Because already you have a CBS news poll saying that 48% of American adults already approve what's going on in Venezuela. As you get deeper into the stats, you see just how much of that is being driven by Republicans who just immediately kind of got in line and shifted to the president's opinion. However, I'll say at the same time, that could be offset by just the outrage over reports that

the U.S. might offer Greenlanders $10,000 to $100,000 each to support secession. Right, and all of this, it's playing out as you have five Senate Republicans joining the Democrats in passing a war powers resolution that blocks the president from using the military in Venezuela. With Trump, then not happy about that and instantly going to truth social to write, Republicans should be ashamed of the senators that just voted with Democrats in attempting to take away our powers to fight and defend the United States of America. This vote greatly hampers American self-defense and national security, impeding the president's authority as commander-in-chief.

With him then going on to say that the resolutions are unconstitutional and that a more important vote is next week. What he means there is that there's technically another vote on this same thing, essentially, but it'll require a simple majority and is expected to pass. And as for the constitutionality of Trump's actions, that will likely be a Supreme Court decision. Because yes, the president is commander-in-chief, and that implies he has control over the military, but you have Congress saying that, you know,

the Constitution is pretty explicit that Congress controls when war happened. Though, of course, with this, you have the administration claiming this is not war, this was a law enforcement action. And so without a doubt, this is gonna kind of follow the same playbook we've seen. Trump does a thing, it's gonna take time and probably eventually make its way to the Supreme Court. But that right there, my friends, you beautiful bastards

is where your Thursday, Philip DeFranco show is going to end. And with that, let me just say, thank you for watching. I love yo faces, and I'll see you right back here on Monday.