Kristi Noem’s Lie: Caught Red-Handed on CNN

Noem Caught in Her Own Words

One of the most revealing moments of the interview with Jake Tapper came when Noem was confronted with her own contradictory statements. In her initial statement, she had described a scene in which the officers were “trying to push their vehicle”—which was stuck in the snow—when Good allegedly “attacked” them. This version suggested that the officers were actively helping someone at the time of the incident, creating an image of Good Samaritans caught off guard by a sudden attack. But when confronted by Tapper, Noem subtly altered her account, saying, “They were there, pushing a vehicle earlier…” This change in verb tense is crucial. It transforms a simultaneous action into a past action, temporally distancing the alleged assistance from the incident itself.

Tapper didn’t let this inconsistency slide. “But that’s not what you said,” he insisted, forcing Noem to acknowledge that she was altering her account of events on live television. Instead of admitting the error or clarifying her position, Noem doubled down, asserting that everything she had said was “factual” and “truthful.” This obstinacy in the face of contrary evidence is not conviction. It is outright denial. Or worse, it is a deliberate manipulation of reality to serve a political agenda. When Tapper asked her if she wasn’t doing the officer a disservice by jumping to conclusions before an investigation had been conducted, Noem sidestepped the question, accusing Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of prejudging the case.

The Administration’s Double Standard

The hypocrisy of Noem’s position is glaringly obvious. She accuses Democratic officials and the media of “presuming” Officer Ross’s guilt before a full investigation has been conducted, yet she herself declared Good guilty of “domestic terrorism” within hours of his death. She claimed that Ross had “followed his training” and “defended” his colleagues, portraying the agent as a hero even before investigators had a chance to examine the evidence. When Tapper pointed out this contradiction, asking why it was acceptable for the administration to jump to conclusions but not for its critics, Noem dodged the question. “I haven’t heard you say once what a disservice Mayor Frey did by standing up and saying, ‘ICE, get out of my city,’” she retorted.

This deflection tactic has become the Trump administration’s trademark. Rather than answering legitimate questions about its own actions, Noem attacks the messengers, accuses the media of bias, and diverts attention to the reactions of political opponents. When Tapper tried to refocus the conversation on the central issue—what Good was actually doing when she moved her car—Noem responded with another question: “The question is, why are we arguing with a president who is working to keep people safe?” That’s not an answer. It’s an attempt to turn a factual question into a matter of political loyalty. Either you support the president, or you’re against public safety. There’s no room for doubt, for questions, or for the truth itself.

What strikes me about this strategy is its cynical effectiveness. By refusing to play by the normal rules of public debate—where facts matter, where contradictions must be explained, where truth has intrinsic value—Noem and the Trump administration have created a new paradigm. A paradigm where political loyalty takes precedence over objective reality. Where questioning those in power is tantamount to betraying the nation. It’s dangerous. It’s authoritarian. And it should alarm us all.

When the Government Denies What You See

The term “gaslighting” is often overused in contemporary political discourse, but in the case of Kristi Noem and the Trump administration regarding the death of Renee Nicole Good, it fits perfectly. Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which someone makes you doubt your own perception of reality. That is exactly what Noem is doing when she claims, in the face of clear video evidence, that Good was “attacking” the officers and that Ross fired in “self-defense.” She isn’t merely presenting a different interpretation of the events. She is outright denying what millions of people can see with their own eyes. And she does so with such confidence, such apparent conviction, that she sows doubt even among those who have seen the footage.

This tactic is not new. Authoritarian regimes have used it throughout history to maintain their grip on power. But what is new is the speed and scale at which it can be deployed in the age of social media and instant information. Within hours, the Trump administration flooded the media landscape with its version of events, creating an alternative narrative before independent journalists could even begin their investigative work. The official DHS account, Trump’s account on Truth Social, and statements from Noem and Vance—all hammered home the same message: Good was a terrorist, Ross a hero. And it doesn’t matter what the videos show. It doesn’t matter what experts on the use of force say. It doesn’t matter what local officials who know their community think.

Experts Contradict the Official Version

Dozens of law enforcement and civil liberties experts have reviewed the videos of the incident and reached a conclusion radically different from that of the administration. They point out that Ross’s behavior violates the basic principles of police training on how to handle a traffic stop or defuse a situation involving a motor vehicle on a public road. Rather than getting to safety and calling for backup, Ross deliberately positioned himself in front of Good’s vehicle, drew his weapon, and fired even as the car was already turning away from him. This is the opposite of what a trained officer is supposed to do in such a situation. As one analyst noted, Ross could have simply stepped aside—which he did anyway after firing—without ever drawing his weapon.

But for Noem, these expert analyses don’t matter. During her interview with Tapper, she insisted that Good had “turned his vehicle into a weapon” and that his behavior fit the “literal definition of domestic terrorism.” This characterization is not only false, it is dangerous. It sets a terrifying precedent: if driving your car down a street where federal agents are present can be classified as terrorism, then virtually anyone can be labeled a terrorist at any time. This is a radical expansion of the definition of terrorism—an expansion that gives federal agents virtually unlimited power to use lethal force against ordinary citizens. And that is exactly what the Trump administration wants—a population that is intimidated, too afraid to question authority, too terrified to protest.

I’m thinking of Renee Nicole Good. Poet. Mother of three. 37 years old. She was smiling in that video. She said, “It’s okay, man. I’m not mad at you.” And a few seconds later, she was dead. Shot by a federal agent. And now, her government—our government—is calling her a terrorist. They’re sullying her memory to protect an agent who took a life unnecessarily. It’s outrageous. It’s inhumane. And it should make us all angry.

Thousands Take to the Streets

The death of Renee Nicole Good sparked a wave of protests across the United States on a scale not seen since the summer of 2020 and the killing of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis. On the weekend of January 10–11, 2026, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets in dozens of cities—Minneapolis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles, and many others—to demand justice for Good and denounce the increasingly aggressive tactics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Protesters carried signs bearing Good’s face, chanted “ICE Out for Good” (a play on his last name), and demanded the arrest of Jonathan Ross. In Minneapolis, the epicenter of the outrage, the protests were particularly intense, with clashes between demonstrators and federal agents.

What makes these protests particularly significant is that they transcend traditional partisan lines. Of course, progressives and immigrant rights advocates are on the front lines, but we’re also seeing moderate conservatives, libertarians, and even some Republicans expressing their unease with how the administration has handled this case. A poll conducted by Axios and published just before the shooting already showed that ICE’s reputation was plummeting, with support for the outright abolition of the agency closing in dangerously on the percentage of Americans who oppose it. Since Good’s death, those numbers have likely worsened for the agency. People are seeing the videos. They’re hearing the administration’s lies. And they’re drawing their own conclusions.

Local Officials Are Speaking Out

Local and state officials in Minneapolis and Minnesota have openly challenged the federal administration’s version of events, calling DHS statements “propaganda” and asserting that the videos show an agent “recklessly using power that resulted in someone’s death.” Mayor Jacob Frey, whom Noem criticized during her CNN interview, was particularly vocal, publicly declaring that ICE must “get out” of his city. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’s former running mate in the 2024 presidential election, also expressed his support for local authorities and his concern over how the federal government has taken control of the investigation, effectively sidelining state investigators.

This defiance by local authorities is significant. It represents a direct challenge to federal authority and the Trump administration’s narrative. Noem, during her interview, stated that she “would like to have the partnership” of Walz, Frey, and the Minneapolis police chief, but local officials say they have been systematically excluded from the investigation into Ross’s deadly use of force. Noem had previously stated that state officials had no jurisdiction in this matter, a position that has been strongly contested. Some lawmakers have even called for Ross’s arrest, even though the FBI has taken over the investigation, raising fears of a potential cover-up. Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, called Noem a “cold-blooded liar with no credibility” and demanded that the killing be “criminally investigated to the fullest extent of the law.”

This rift between federal and local authorities is indicative of a deeper crisis of legitimacy. When locally elected officials—those who know their communities and live with the consequences of these policies—categorically reject the federal version of events, it should give us pause. Either everyone is lying except the Trump administration, or the administration is lying. And frankly, the evidence points overwhelmingly toward the second option.

The Escalation of Repression

Renee Nicole Good’s death did not occur in a vacuum. It is part of a broader context of a dramatic escalation of immigration crackdowns under the second Trump administration. Since returning to power, the president has made immigration his top priority, promising “mass deportations” and granting ICE expanded powers to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior advisor and the architect of his harshest immigration policies, has been accused by some members of his own family of creating an environment in which ICE agents feel empowered to use excessive force without fear of consequences. Democrats have strongly condemned the shooting and accused the administration of filling ICE’s ranks with untrained novices as part of the White House’s drive to meet the president’s mass deportation targets.

This criticism is not without merit. Internal DHS reports, revealed by CNN, show that department officials privately expressed shock at the department’s immediate and aggressive response to the Minneapolis shooting. Some career agents, who have served under multiple administrations, told reporters anonymously that they had never seen such a rush to defend an agent before an investigation had been conducted. They fear that this approach sets a dangerous precedent, encouraging agents to use lethal force knowing they will automatically be backed by their superiors, regardless of the circumstances. This is exactly the kind of environment that leads to abuses of power and tragedies like that of Renee Nicole Good.

Deportation Targets and Their Consequences

The Trump administration has set extremely ambitious—some would say unrealistic—deportation targets that put enormous pressure on ICE to produce results quickly. This pressure translates into more aggressive operations, less time for proper training of new agents, and a culture where results matter more than methods. Tom Homan, Trump’s “border czar,” has been clear: the administration will not tolerate any interference with ICE operations. The official DHS account even posted a threatening warning on social media, stating that anyone who “lays a finger” on a federal law enforcement officer will be dealt with severely. This belligerent language creates an atmosphere of confrontation rather than cooperation with local communities.

The consequences of this approach extend far beyond the tragic death of Renee Nicole Good. They include the deterioration of relations between federal agencies and local authorities, the erosion of public trust in government institutions, and the creation of a climate of fear in immigrant communities across the country. People who would normally have cooperated with law enforcement—by reporting crimes, testifying in court, and participating in civic life—are now hiding, terrified of being caught in ICE’s ever-widening net. This situation does not make anyone safer. On the contrary, it creates communities that are more isolated, more vulnerable, and less able to protect themselves against real criminal threats.

There is a cruel irony in all of this. The administration claims that these harsh policies make America safer. But how can a nation be safer when its citizens are afraid of their own government? When a mother of three can be shot dead in her car and her government labels her a terrorist? When elected officials lie openly in the face of video evidence? That is not safety. It is tyranny disguised as public order.

Echoes of an Authoritarian Past

The Trump administration’s response to the death of Renee Nicole Good is reminiscent of troubling historical precedents. In authoritarian regimes throughout history, one of the first steps toward consolidating power has always been controlling the narrative—the ability to tell the public what is true and what is not, regardless of observable facts. When a government can shoot a citizen in broad daylight, in front of cameras, and then convince a significant portion of the population that the victim was in fact the aggressor, it has crossed a dangerous threshold. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic, the administration’s “blatant lies” serve several purposes: they perpetuate the false narrative that federal agents are in constant danger and therefore justified in using lethal force at the slightest suspicion of danger; they assure federal agents that they can harm or even kill American citizens with impunity; and they convey to the public that if you are killed by a federal agent, your government will bear false witness to the entire world by labeling you a terrorist.

This last consequence is perhaps the most sinister. It means that not only can you be killed by your own government, but your reputation, your memory, and your legacy will also be destroyed. Renee Nicole Good was a poet, a mother, and a member of her community. But to the Trump administration, she became a “domestic terrorist” within a matter of hours. Her children will have to grow up hearing their mother described in this way by their country’s highest officials. This is a cruelty that goes beyond death itself. It is an attempt to strip the victim of her humanity, to turn her into a symbol of everything the administration claims to be fighting against. And it is a tactic that has been used by all authoritarian regimes to justify their excesses.

The Normalization of Impunity

What makes the current situation particularly dangerous is the speed with which impunity for federal agents is being normalized. Even before an investigation has been conducted, even before the facts have been established, the administration has declared that Ross “followed his training” and acted appropriately. This preemptive defense sends a clear message to all ICE agents and other federal agency officers: you can use lethal force and you will be protected, regardless of the circumstances. You don’t have to fear the consequences. You don’t have to worry about the truth. Your government will cover for you. This is exactly the kind of environment that leads to systematic abuses and an escalation of violence. When agents know they won’t be held accountable, they become more reckless, more aggressive, and more inclined to use force as a first option rather than a last resort.

Experts in police reform have long emphasized the importance of accountability in preventing abuse. When officers know they will be held accountable for their actions, that they will be judged by objective standards, and that they will not automatically be given the benefit of the doubt, they are more cautious, more thoughtful, and more inclined to seek alternatives to lethal force. But the Trump administration is doing exactly the opposite. It is creating a system where political loyalty takes precedence over professional accountability, where defending the officer is more important than uncovering the truth, where protecting the agency’s image matters more than delivering justice to the victim. This is a recipe for disaster, and we are already seeing the consequences on the streets of Minneapolis and other cities across the country.

I sometimes wonder if we truly realize what is happening. Not just this specific case, horrible as it is, but the broader shift in the nature of our government and our society. We are witnessing the erosion of basic democratic norms—truth, accountability, respect for human life. And it’s happening so quickly, so openly, that it’s almost surreal. It’s as if we’re watching a horror movie, knowing how it’s going to end, but unable to look away or change the course of events.

CNN Against Misinformation

Jake Tapper’s interview with Kristi Noem represents a pivotal moment in the media’s role in the face of creeping authoritarianism. Tapper didn’t simply give Noem a platform to repeat the administration’s talking points. He confronted her, time and again, with her own contradictions and lies. He refused to let her get away with evasion, changing the subject, or attacking the messengers. This is exactly what journalism is supposed to do in a functioning democracy: hold those in power accountable, ask the tough questions, and not accept evasive answers. But this has become increasingly rare in a media landscape where many outlets have capitulated to Trump, skewing their coverage to avoid drawing his ire or falling in line to line his pockets.

Tapper’s performance stands in stark contrast to that of many other media outlets, which simply relayed the administration’s statements without challenging them in any meaningful way. Some conservative outlets have even amplified the narrative that Good was a terrorist, completely ignoring video evidence that contradicts this claim. This media complacency is dangerous. It allows lies to spread unchecked, creating an alternative reality where facts no longer matter. And it undermines public trust in the media in general, making it harder for honest journalists to do their jobs. As one observer noted, we now live in an environment where “you’re only in trouble if you don’t lie”—a complete reversal of traditional democratic norms.

The Attack on Investigative Journalism

The Trump administration and its allies have launched a coordinated attack against media outlets that dare to question their version of events. Noem herself, during her interview with Tapper, accused the media of “lying” and “not telling the truth” about the Minneapolis shooting. JD Vance has been even more aggressive, using his platform on X (formerly Twitter) to specifically target journalists and news outlets that have covered the story critically. This strategy aims to intimidate journalists, make them hesitate before publishing stories that might displease the administration, and sow doubt in the public’s mind about the reliability of any information that does not come directly from the government. This is a classic tactic of authoritarian regimes, and unfortunately, it works quite well in a fragmented media landscape where people can easily retreat into information bubbles that confirm their existing biases.

The danger of this attack on journalism cannot be underestimated. In a democracy, the media plays a crucial watchdog role, holding those in power accountable and informing the public. When this role is compromised—whether through intimidation, co-optation, or simple capitulation—democracy itself is at risk. We need journalists like Jake Tapper who are willing to ask the tough questions, to confront government officials with their own contradictions, and to refuse to accept lies even when they are stated with confidence. But we also need a public that values this kind of journalism, supports it financially and morally, and refuses to be swayed by the simplistic narratives and conspiracy theories circulating on social media.

I watch Tapper do his job and feel a mix of admiration and sadness. Admiration because he’s doing exactly what a journalist should do. Sadness because this should be the norm, not the exception. The fact that we have to applaud a journalist for simply doing his job—asking questions, fact-checking, holding those in power accountable—shows just how far we’ve fallen. And that scares me for the future.

The Use of Force and the Law

From a strictly legal perspective, Jonathan Ross’s use of force raises serious questions about compliance with constitutional standards and law enforcement protocols. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, which includes the excessive use of force by law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court has established in several decisions, notably Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989), that the use of deadly force is justified only when an officer has an objective reason to believe that a suspect poses an immediate threat of death or serious injury to the officer or to others. In the case of Renee Nicole Good, the videos clearly show that her vehicle was turning away from Ross at the moment he fired, raising the question of whether there was in fact an immediate threat justifying the use of deadly force.

Several legal and law enforcement experts have reviewed the videos and concluded that Ross’s use of force was likely excessive and unjustified under established legal standards. They note that Ross had several alternatives available to him—backing away, calling for backup, using de-escalation tactics—which he did not explore before resorting to lethal force. Furthermore, the fact that he deliberately positioned himself in front of Good’s vehicle could be interpreted as an attempt to create a justification for the use of force—a tactic that courts have generally disapproved of. However, the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects law enforcement officers from civil lawsuits in many circumstances, could make it difficult for Good’s family to seek justice through the civil court system. And if the FBI, which has taken over the criminal investigation, decides not to prosecute Ross, he could escape legal liability entirely.

The Dangerous Precedent

Beyond the specific legal implications of this case, the way the Trump administration has handled the matter sets an extremely dangerous precedent for the future. By declaring Good a “domestic terrorist” simply because she was driving her car down a street where federal agents were present, the administration has significantly broadened the definition of terrorism in a way that could be used to justify the use of lethal force against virtually anyone. If driving your car can be classified as terrorism, what about walking toward an agent? Yelling at an agent? Filming an agent? Where do we draw the line? And who decides where that line is drawn? These questions are not theoretical. They have concrete implications for the constitutional rights of all Americans.

Furthermore, the administration’s preemptive defense of Ross—even before an investigation has been conducted—sets a precedent where federal agents know they will automatically be backed by their superiors, regardless of the circumstances surrounding their use of force. This fundamentally undermines the principle of accountability that is supposed to be at the heart of law enforcement in a democratic society. If officers can kill citizens and be immediately declared innocent by their own agency, even before the facts have been established, then we no longer have a system of justice. We have a system of impunity. And history shows us that systems of impunity inevitably lead to increasingly serious abuses, because there are no consequences to curb the behavior of officers who cross the line.

What terrifies me most about all this is how easily we are sliding toward authoritarianism. Not through a dramatic coup or a declaration of martial law, but through small erosions of standards, accumulating precedents, and lies that become acceptable. Today, it’s Renee Nicole Good. Tomorrow, it could be any one of us. Because once the government can kill its citizens with impunity and lie about it without shame, we have all lost our safety, our freedom, and our dignity as human beings.

Democratic Officials Take Action

In response to the administration’s lies and the tragic death of Renee Nicole Good, several high-ranking Democratic lawmakers have taken a firm and unequivocal stance. Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader in the House, called Kristi Noem a “cold-blooded liar with no credibility” and demanded that the murder be “criminally investigated to the fullest extent of the law.” Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, appearing on the same CNN program as Noem, went even further, stating that Noem “must resign or be impeached.” These statements are not mere political posturing. They represent an acknowledgment that what happened in Minneapolis is not simply an isolated tragedy, but a symptom of a much broader problem with the Trump administration’s approach to law enforcement and civil rights.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom Noem criticized during her interview for calling Ross a “murderer” before an investigation had been conducted, defended her position by pointing out that the videos speak for themselves. “We’ve all seen what happened,” she said on social media. “A federal agent shot and killed an unarmed woman whose car was driving away from him. Calling this what it is—a murder—is not prejudging. It’s describing what we all see with our own eyes.” Other members of Congress have called for hearings on the incident, an independent investigation, and even federal charges against Ross. Some have also called for a broader investigation into ICE’s practices under the Trump administration, citing reports of abuse and excessive use of force in other operations across the country.

Civil Society Mobilizes

Beyond elected officials, American civil society has mobilized in an impressive way in response to Good’s death. Civil rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have announced that they are considering legal action against DHS and ICE over their practices. Immigrant advocacy groups have organized protests and awareness campaigns to highlight the dangers of the administration’s aggressive immigration policies. Religious organizations, labor unions, and student groups—all joined the chorus of voices demanding justice for Good and accountability for Ross. A GoFundMe campaign for Good’s family raised more than $1.5 million in just a few days, reflecting the American public’s empathy and solidarity in the face of this tragedy.

Artists, writers, and musicians have also used their platforms to draw attention to the case. Poems in honor of Good—herself a poet—have circulated widely on social media. Murals depicting her face have appeared in several cities. Songs have been written about her life and death. This cultural response is significant because it humanizes Good in a way that the administration’s official statements attempt to deny. It reminds the public that Good was not a “terrorist” or a statistic, but a real person with dreams, talents, and a family that loved her. And it creates a powerful counter-narrative to government propaganda—a narrative based on empathy, truth, and justice rather than fear, lies, and power.

There is something deeply moving about this mobilization. In a country so divided, so polarized, seeing so many people come together around truth and justice offers a glimmer of hope. Not a naive hope that everything will be easily resolved, but a hope that we haven’t completely lost our moral compass, that we are still capable of recognizing injustice when we see it and standing up against it. This hope is fragile. But it’s all we have.

A Possible Turning Point

The death of Renee Nicole Good could mark a turning point in the public debate over Immigration and Customs Enforcement and immigration policies more broadly. Even before this incident, public support for ICE was plummeting, with a growing number of Americans in favor of outright abolishing the agency. An Axios poll released just before the shooting showed that support for abolishing ICE was closing in dangerously on the percentage of Americans who oppose it. Since Good’s death, those numbers have likely worsened for the agency. Last weekend’s massive protests, the intense media coverage, and bipartisan criticism of the administration’s handling of the case—all of this creates a moment when real change might be possible.

However, it is important not to be overly optimistic. The Trump administration has shown time and again that it is impervious to public criticism and determined to pursue its hardline immigration policies regardless of the consequences. The president himself has doubled down on his anti-immigration rhetoric since the incident, using Good’s death as a pretext to call for even harsher measures against those who “interfere” with ICE operations. Stephen Miller has suggested that the administration might seek to prosecute protesters and local officials who have criticized ICE for “obstruction of justice.” And DHS has issued internal guidelines encouraging agents to be even more aggressive in their operations, despite concerns about excessive use of force.

The Necessary Reforms

If we want to prevent further tragedies like that of Renee Nicole Good from occurring, profound reforms of ICE and our immigration policies are necessary. First, there must be real accountability for agents who use excessive force. This means independent investigations, conducted by entities outside the agency itself, with the authority to prosecute agents who violate people’s constitutional rights. Second, there must be much more rigorous training for all ICE agents, particularly on de-escalation techniques and the appropriate use of force. Third, there must be complete transparency in ICE’s operations, with public access to data on arrests, deportations, and the use of force. Fourth, there must be meaningful congressional oversight of the agency, with regular hearings and the power to sanction abuses.

But beyond these ICE-specific reforms, we must fundamentally rethink our approach to immigration. Current policies, based on criminalization and mass deportation, are not working. They do not make America safer. They do not solve the underlying problems that drive people to immigrate. They simply create more suffering, more fear, and more division. We need a more humane, more pragmatic approach that recognizes the dignity of all human beings and seeks solutions that benefit both immigrants and host communities. That means legal pathways to citizenship for those who are already here, investments in countries of origin to address the root causes of migration, and law enforcement that respects the constitutional rights of everyone, regardless of their immigration status.

I know these reforms seem idealistic, perhaps even naive, in the current political climate. But what are we supposed to do? Accept that our government can kill its citizens with impunity? Accept that lies have become the norm? Accept that cruelty is a policy? No. We must continue to demand better, to fight for a country that respects human dignity, that values the truth, and that holds its government officials accountable. Even if it seems impossible. Especially if it seems impossible.

What We Have Lost

Kristi Noem’s interview with Jake Tapper on January 11, 2026, will be remembered as a defining moment of the second Trump administration. Not because she revealed anything new—we already knew the administration was lying about the death of Renee Nicole Good—but because she showed with brutal clarity just how far we have fallen. A Secretary of Homeland Security, one of the highest-ranking officials in the U.S. government, lied repeatedly and blatantly on live national television, in the face of video evidence that contradicted every one of her claims. And she did so without hesitation, without shame, without even a hint of discomfort. It’s terrifying. Not just because she lied, but because lying has become so normal, so commonplace, that she no longer even feels the need to hide it.

We have lost something fundamental in the process. We have lost the shared understanding that there is such a thing as objective truth, verifiable facts, and a common reality that we can all observe and agree upon—even if we draw different conclusions from it. We have lost trust in our institutions—not because the media lies, as Noem claims, but because our government officials lie so openly and so frequently that we no longer know whom to believe. We have lost the sense that our lives, our rights, and our dignity as human beings matter in the face of state power. Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed, and her government immediately labeled her a terrorist. If this can happen to her, it can happen to any one of us. And that is exactly the message the administration wants to send.

The Road Ahead

So where do we go from here? How do we rebuild what has been destroyed? How do we restore truth, accountability, and decency to our public life? There are no easy answers to these questions. The road ahead will be long, difficult, and fraught with obstacles. But we have to start somewhere. We must start by refusing to accept lies, even when they are spoken with authority by the country’s highest officials. We must support journalists like Jake Tapper who do the difficult work of holding those in power accountable. We must speak out in the streets, at the ballot box, and in our communities to demand justice for Renee Nicole Good and for all those who have been victims of the abuse of government power. We must remember that democracy is not something that is granted to us once and for all. It is something we must actively defend, every day, against those who would seek to destroy it.

I think of Renee Nicole Good. Of her three children who have lost their mother. Of her family, who must now fight not only against grief but also against a government that is sullying her memory. And I feel… angry. Sad. Determined. We owe her the truth. We owe her justice. We owe it to her to ensure that her death will not be in vain, that it will mark a turning point where we said “enough.” Enough lies. Enough impunity. Enough cruelty disguised as politics. Renee Nicole Good deserved better. We all deserve better. And we must fight to get it.