On Thursday, January 8, 2026, at 2:18 p.m., Portland Police Officers responded to the 10200 block of Southeast Main Street on a report of a shooting. Officers confirmed that federal agents had been involved in a shooting. Portland Police were not involved in the incident.
At 2:24 p.m., officers received information that a man who had been shot was calling and requesting help in the area of Northeast 146th Avenue and East Burnside. Officers responded and found a male and female with apparent gunshot wounds. Officers applied a tourniquet and summoned emergency medical personnel. The patients were transported to the hospital. Their conditions are unknown. Officers have determined the two people were injured in the shooting involving federal agents.
…
“We are still in the early stages of this incident,” said Chief Bob Day. “We understand the heightened emotion and tension many are feeling in the wake of the shooting in Minneapolis, but I am asking the community to remain calm as we work to learn more.”
A reminder to the community that PPB does not engage in immigration enforcement as outlined in PPB Directive 810.10, but is still responsible for maintaining public safety and enforcing state laws.
Mutual distrust between federal and state authorities derailed plans for a joint FBI and state criminal investigation into Wednesday’s shooting of a Minneapolis woman by an ICE officer, leading to the highly unusual move by the Justice Department to block state investigators from participating in the probe.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said Thursday that after an initial agreement for the FBI to work with the state agency, as well as prosecutors from the US Attorney’s office in Minneapolis and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, to investigate the shooting, federal authorities reversed course and the FBI blocked the BCA from participating in the investigation.
Behind the move to sever ties were concerns in the Trump administration that state officials couldn’t be trusted with information that emerges from the probe, and that ICE agents’ safety would be put at risk, including with potential doxxing of agents involved, two people familiar with the matter told CNN.
Blah blah blah. The Trump administration concerns are that the state is not in thrall to Trump.
The mistrust goes both ways, as state officials attacked the conduct of ICE agents and raised concerns that federal authorities can’t be trusted to fairly investigate given public statements from President Donald Trump and other administration officials accusing the woman killed of being a domestic terrorist.
Yes, because Trump is visibly, historically, documentedly, unmistakably not trustworthy. He lies every time he opens his foul mouth, he’s a sadist and a bully, he likes to see people he considers his enemies killed.
Minnesota officials have lambasted ICE as “reckless,” calling comments defending the officers who fired the shot as “bullshit,” and calling the deployment of ICE in Minnesota a threat to the “endurance of our republic.”Comments like these, the sources said, have fueled the distrust.
Nice little racket you’ve got there. Do bad things; get told you do bad things; refuse to work with people who tell you you do the bad things you do.
Minnesota Department of Public Safety commissioner Bob Jacobson said during a press conference Thursday that state investigators work with the FBI “all the time” as the bureau has “the evidence in the original investigative notes and reports.”
“We have none of that,” he said. “They have shared none of that with us.”
Jacobson added that bringing a case against the officer would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible, without cooperation from the federal government.”
So in other words the Ice agent will be protected and there will be no consequences for that murder.
On and on it goes, the obstinate refusal to obey the law because it’s only women who are harmed.
Bridget Phillipson is delaying the release of guidance which would bar transgender women from single-sex spaces by demanding the equalities regulator calculates how much it will cost businesses.
Is that a rule for all such guidance? No.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) submitted the guidance, which sets out how organisations should interpret a Supreme Court ruling from April on the definition of a woman, to Phillipson four months ago but she has yet to approve it.
The equalities minister has told the EHRC it must assess the financial impact of its guidance before it can be approved, despite the regulator arguing that such costs arise from the law itself rather than its interpretation of it.
That “must” is a fiction. She made it up.
Councils, NHS trusts and businesses are still allowing trans women, who are biologically male, to use single-sex spaces. They say that they are waiting for the new guidance before taking action, despite warnings they may be breaking the law after the Supreme Court ruling that sex is defined by biology in terms of the Equality Act.
Never mind that. When it comes to bulldozing women’s rights, it’s worth breaking the law.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who fatally shot a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis on Jan. 7 is Jonathan Ross, the same officer who was dragged and injured by a fleeing driver in a separate incident last year, according to a person with knowledge of the case and verified by court documents.
…
“He acted according to his training,” Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, told the Minnesota Star Tribune in an email, noting that this specific agent was selected for ICE’s Special Response Team, is an expert marksman and “has been serving his country his entire life.”
His training told him that trying to leave is the same thing as trying to run over an Ice agent?
We don’t know for sure what she was doing, but I think it’s fair to say that what she was doing could have been simply trying to leave, as opposed to trying to hit a agent with her car. I think it’s also fair to say that’s what it looked like.
She had positioned her car so that it blocked the street, so the ICE agent had good reason to see her as obstructing ICE’s work, but that’s not the same as good reason to think she would try to kill him with her car.
Five use-of-force experts interviewed by the Star Tribune questioned the agent’s decision to shoot at a moving vehicle, with some outright calling it a “bad shooting.” Others said the agent who fired may have legitimately feared for his life, but they noted that most police departments discourage shooting at a moving vehicle because deadly force is unlikely to stop the car and could jeopardize bystanders.
Maybe protesters need to draw up some rules themselves. I suggest a rule to park your vehicle (if any) at least a 15 minute walk away from the protest area. Do not, repeat DO NOT use it as an instrument of protest. A car is a deadly weapon.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem said the woman had committed an act of “domestic terrorism,” first disobeying officers’ commands and then weaponizing her SUV by attempting to “run a law enforcement officer over.” President Donald Trump said the woman “violently, willfully and viciously ran over the ICE officer.”
A frame-by-frame analysis of video footage, however, raises questions about those accounts. The SUV did move toward the ICE agent as he stood in front of it. But the agent was able to move out of the way and fire at least two of three shots from the side of the vehicle as it veered past him, according to the analysis.
The agent was able to move out of the way, but he did have to be nippy about it. There is that tiny shred of truth in the torrent of lies. She did start to pull away while he was in front of her left bumper.
The agent who was first seen behind Good’s SUV reemerges in front of the vehicle, still appearing to hold up a phone. The SUV quickly pulls forward, and then veers to the right, in the correct direction of traffic on the one-way street.
As the vehicle moves forward, video shows, the agent moves out of the way and at nearly the same time fires his first shot. The footage shows that his other two shots were fired from the side of the vehicle.
Videos examined by The Post, including one shared on Truth Social by Trump, do not clearly show whether the agent is struck or how close the front of the vehicle comes to striking him. Referring to the officer, Trump wrote in his post that it was “hard to believe he is alive.” Video shows the agent walking around the scene for more than a minute after the shooting.
No, it isn’t a bit hard to believe he’s still alive.
Trump and his goons want us to think that she deliberately forced him to step out of her way. I doubt that. There were feds screaming at her to do incompatible things – back up, get out, stop, go – that kind of thing.
This morning in reading bits of reporting on the Minneapolis events I thought at first there was a second video, taken from in front of the car instead of behind it, but the one being cited turned out to be the same one we all ran a billion times yesterday.
The trouble is, of course, that it’s from behind, so we can’t tell if there’s another cop in front of the car and that’s the cop she was (according to team Trump) trying to hit – or as Trump cautiously put it, actually ran over.
I still don’t know. I see talk of a second video, but if it exists it’s hiding itself with great cunning.
Just hours after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Mr. Trump told a group of New York Times reporters that the woman was at fault because she had tried to “run over” the officer.
We were in the Oval Office for an interview with the president, and the unfolding situation in Minneapolis was high on our list of questions. As soon as we started asking him about the incident, he said: “I want to see nobody get shot. I want to see nobody screaming and trying to run over policemen either.”
Screaming? What screaming? What’s he talking about? Then I figured it out – he means the woman who took that video. She was indeed screaming – screaming “What the fuck?!” over and over, which is indeed irritating and distracting, but also highly understandable, and not a good reason for Trump to lie that the victim ran over a cop.
When we pressed Mr. Trump on his conclusion that the victim, Renee Nicole Good, tried to run over the agent, he asked an aide to pull up the video on a laptop in an effort to prove his point.
But it was that same video, which does not show the victim running over a cop.
It does show the victim pulling away and turning far enough to go straight on the street, but it does not show a person or persons she could have hit. We can’t tell. The car blocks our view of what’s directly in front of it as it turns.
As far as I’ve seen (yet) there is no video that shows what was in front of her car after the turn. It’s a black box. We don’t know. The video Trump’s goon showed is the same one we’ve all seen, the Zapuruder film de nos jours.
SNP ministers are seeking a legal ruling declaring that implementing the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on sex would unlawfully trample on the human rights of transgender criminals.
While not implementing the court’s ruling on sex would merely trample on the human rights of women, and that obviously doesn’t matter at all. Women are garbage, while transgender criminals are infinitely sacred and precious and valuable.
Despite repeatedly insisting in public that they accept the judgment of Britain’s top court in April, ministers have privately requested that Scotland’s top civil court issues a “declaration of incompatibility” which would severely undermine it, if its other legal arguments fail.
Privately, as in secretly and mendaciously.
A declaration, if granted, would state that removing biologically male prisoners who say they identify as female from women’s jails would amount to an unlawful breach of their human rights and throw UK-wide equalities laws into chaos.
While not removing biologically male prisoners would amount to unlawful harming of women, which doesn’t matter at all.
The stance has led FWS to launch a fresh legal case, seeking to have the Scottish prison service’s controversial policy, previously rewritten after the Isla Bryson scandal, ruled unlawful.
Honestly what’s all this fuss about being locked up with violent misogynist male criminals? Women are such weaklings.
Today, in an act of domestic terrorism, an anti-ICE rioter weaponized her vehicle against law enforcement. Our officer relied on his training and saved his own life, as well as the lives of his fellow officers. Sanctuary politicians have created an environment that encourages rampant assaults on law enforcement.
@POTUS Trump and @Sec_Noem will always have the backs of law enforcement.
Trump said on Wednesday that the United States would withdraw from dozens of international and U.N. entities, including a key climate treaty and a U.N. body that promotes gender equality and women’s empowerment, because they “operate contrary to U.S. national interests.”
Among the 35 non-U.N. groups and 31 U.N. entities Trump listed in a memo to senior administration officials is the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change – described by many as the “bedrock” climate treaty which is parent agreement to the 2015 Paris climate deal.
The United States skipped the annual U.N. international climate summit last year for the first time in three decades.
“The United States would be the first country to walk away from the UNFCCC,” said Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“Every other nation is a member, in part because they recognize that even beyond the moral imperative of addressing climate change, having a seat at the table in those negotiations represents an ability to shape massive economic policy and opportunity,” said Bapna.
The U.S. will also quit UN Women, which works for gender equality and the empowerment of women, and the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), the international body’s agency focused on family planning as well as maternal and child health in more than 150 countries. The U.S. cut its funding for the UNFPA last year.
“For United Nations entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law,” reads the memo. Trump has already largely slashed voluntary funding to most U.N. agencies.
He’s very penny wise pound foolish, isn’t he.
Since beginning his second term a year ago, Trump has sought to slash U.S. funding for the United Nations, stopped U.S. engagement with the U.N. Human Rights Council, extended a halt to funding for the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA and quit the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO. He has also announced plans to quit the World Health Organization and the Paris climate agreement.
The hell with human rights, the hell with culture, the hell with world health, the hell with climate.
SNP ministers are seeking a legal ruling declaring that implementing the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on sex would unlawfully trample on the human rights of transgender criminals.
Um, excuse me, what about the rights of women? There are a lot more women than there are transgender criminals. Maybe it’s worth paying attention to our rights too.
Despite repeatedly insisting in public that they accept the judgment of Britain’s top court in April, ministers have privately requested that Scotland’s top civil court issues a “declaration of incompatibility” which would severely undermine it, if its other legal arguments fail.
A declaration, if granted, would state that removing biologically male prisoners who say they identify as female from women’s jails would amount to an unlawful breach of their human rights and throw UK-wide equalities laws into chaos.
Jesus christ. What about the human rights of women in women’s jails? Why don’t they matter? Why are the fictional “rights” of men who claim to be trans worth so much more than the real and desperately needed rights of women?
Although the Scottish government has rewritten school guidelines around bathroom access and girls’ sports in an effort to comply with the judgment, it has refused to change its prison policy, which still allows trans women to serve sentences in the women’s estate.
Why??? Why so desperate to force women to have men in prison with them?
Trina Budge, an FWS director, said: “Male murderers are still being held in the female prison estate and we simply wouldn’t have to take the Scottish ministers back to court about this if they genuinely accepted the decision of the Supreme Court.”
Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, said in a news conference that she will ask the Justice Department to prosecute the use of vehicles to block immigration enforcement operations as domestic terrorism.
Which is typical trumpian idiocy, because blocking people is the opposite of terrorism. Non-violent resistance is not terrorism.
Kristi Noem defended the use of deadly force by the federal agent and said that agency policy permitted an agent to fire on someone threatening officers with a deadly weapon, including a vehicle.
But she wasn’t threatening officers with her car, she was driving away. Maybe she had threatened them with her car earlier, I don’t know, but in those seconds before the Ice agent killed her she was driving away from the Feds.
Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, said at a news conference that the agent who fired his weapon has been treated at a hospital and released. He can be seen in videos of the shooting walking around the scene after firing his weapon, with no apparent injuries.
Which is not surprising since nobody and nothing touched him.
After a federal immigration agent fatally shot a woman in her vehicle in Minneapolis, homeland security officials described the driver as a violent rioter who had “weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them.”
That explanation — which state and local officials have disputed — is not an unusual one from authorities after such incidents. It’s a claim that often has been used as justification for fatal police shootings of otherwise unarmed motorists, a 2021 New York Times investigation found. Often, the motorist was simply trying to get away, trying to edge around officers rather than mow them down.
And in fact the guy who shot her is the one who approached her; she didn’t approach or aim her car at him.
It’s the old “she hurt my hand with her face” ploy. But lethal.
NPR has reviewed multiple videos of the shooting taken from different vantage points and posted to social media. The footage shows multiple officers near an SUV stopped in the middle of the road. One officer demands the driver exit the vehicle and grabs the car [door] handle. The SUV reverses, then begins to drive forward, which is when a different officer near the front of the car pulls his weapon and fires into the vehicle. Three gunshots are heard, as the firing officer backs away from the SUV. Moments [seconds] later, the vehicle crashes.
…
In a statement, DHS spokesperson McLaughlin asserted that the motorist “weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them.” She added that the ICE officer who pulled the trigger was “fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public.”
That’s a lie, right?
Upon reviewing a video of the incident, President Trump said he also believes the shooting was an act of self-defense.
“The woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
She ran over an ICE officer? Really?
At a press conference, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said local police arrived at the scene to find a woman with a gunshot wound to the head. They performed life-saving measures at the scene, including CPR. The woman was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead, he added.
Preliminary information, according to O’Hara, indicated that the woman was in her vehicle and blocking the road on Portland Avenue between 33rd and 34th St.
“At some point, a federal law enforcement approached her on foot, and the vehicle began to drive off. At least two shots were fired,” he said, adding that the car then crashed on the side of the roadway.
No mention of her running over the ICE officer? Is that because it didn’t happen? Trump just made it up?
O’Hara said he was “very concerned” with the tactics used by federal immigration agents. He noted that the use of deadly force is justified at times, but that most law enforcement agencies in the U.S. are trained to minimize the risks and the need for deadly force.
And it’s not as if it’s something cops want to do – they know full well it’s a world of questions and investigations and interviews if they do use deadly force.
Cop 1 told her to get out of the fucking car, she drove slowly away a few feet, cop 2 pulled his gun and shot her in the face.
I don’t think they’re supposed to do that, even when provoked. Yes you’re supposed to do what the police ICE tell you, but no they’re not supposed to shoot you for little or no reason. Some of the police ICE agents were saying get out of here, and she appears to have been doing that.
An ICE officer fatally shot a woman Wednesday morning in south Minneapolis, according to Tricia McLaughlin, the Department of Homeland Security’s assistant secretary for public affairs.
…
McLaughlin claims the victim was “one of these violent rioters” who “weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them — an act of domestic terrorism.”
In a social media post, Democratic Minnesota U.S. Sen. Tina Smith said the victim was “a U.S. citizen.”
Clearly McLaughlin has learned her rhetorical style from Trump.
Witnesses tell WCCO whistles sounded to alert neighbors of ICE’s presence at about 9:30 a.m. Witnesses say they saw a Honda Pilot blocked by multiple federal agents, who soon tried to open her door. The motorist then put her vehicle into reverse, then into drive. Witnesses said they then heard two to three shots fired. The Honda traveled another 20-30 feet before crashing into another vehicle.
A video posted to social media of the deadly encounter corroborates witness accounts.
The woman was removed from the Honda and paramedics were seen giving her CPR, according to witnesses. She was eventually carried away from the scene.
And was eventually dead.
So the question becomes why did they shoot at her? Why had they zoomed in on her in the first place? Did they just pick her at random, to intimidate les autres, or did they see her as a special danger in some way?
Their version:
Tricia McLaughlin, the Department of Homeland Security’s assistant secretary for public affairs, released this statement late Wednesday morning:
“ICE officers in Minneapolis were conducting targeted operations when rioters began blocking ICE officers and one of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism.
“An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots. He used his training and saved his own life and that of his fellow officers. The alleged perpetrator was hit and is deceased. The ICE officers who were hurt are expected to make full recoveries.”
So the question becomes is that true? Did she really try to run over law enforcement officers?
I don’t know, but I have my doubts.
So does the mayor. [Expletives de-sanitized]
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said federal officials’ narrative that the ICE agent who killed a woman did so in self-defense is “bullshit.”
“This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying. Getting killed,” Frey said.
Frey also told ICE to “get the fuck out of Minneapolis.”
“They are not here to cause safety in this city. What they are doing is not to provide safety in America. What they are doing is causing chaos and distrust,” he said.
It was an attack that stripped away the chintzy veil of victimhood that has long shielded the transgender movement, revealing well organised thuggery. Yesterday, Bash Back, the self-described “direct action project”, hacked the Free Speech Union (FSU) website and published the names of donors, alongside the sums they gave and the campaigns they supported.
The intention was unmistakable: to intimidate and punish private citizens after the FSU’s founder, Lord Young of Acton, commissioned a security report into the threat posed by the group. On Bash Back’s website, the activists make clear that more such actions are planned, welcoming visitors to “a new era of trans rage”.
Not new. The rage has been out front all along. Trans “activism” is male aggression on steroids.
Since its launch in the summer of 2025, the group has pursued a steady escalation of criminal activity. In July, Bash Back targeted the constituency office of Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, smashing windows and spraying graffiti branding him a “child killer”, after the Government restricted the prescription of puberty blocking drugs.
By autumn, vandalism had become routine. Masked activists attacked the FiLiA feminist conference, explicitly targeting a venue where women and girls were meeting to discuss male violence. The group then vandalised the headquarters of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, dubbing the statutory equalities watchdog a “hate group”.
Like that. Testosterone on a rampage.
Bash Back claims to target “organisations that promote transphobic rhetoric”, a category elastic enough to include opposition to puberty blockers for children, the defence of single-sex spaces, or a refusal to pretend that sex is a fiction. In guidance produced by the group, supporters are urged to “ensure your target can be hit repeatedly until they desist from their activities”, adding: “All of our targets have blood on their hands. We refuse to let them wash it off in peace.”
Except of course they don’t. That purported “blood” is 100% metaphorical. Saying “men are not women” does not cause bleeding.
Yet ministers continue to insist that those who adopt a transgender identity are uniquely vulnerable, even as activists operating in their name engage in criminal behaviour. Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, has warned that trans people must not be used as a “political punchbag”, cautioning against abuse or targeting on the basis of identity. This rhetoric does not merely mislead; it helps to shape the response of institutions charged with maintaining public order.
In the eyes of politicians, and those at the helm of the institutions they direct, a change of pronouns and a switch of wardrobe possess a remarkable power: they can transmute criminal behaviour into vulnerability, aggression into fragility, and organised intimidation into something approaching a cry for help. This moral alchemy sits uneasily alongside the visible reality of coordinated campaigns of criminal damage, threats and doxxing. As JK Rowling has observed, contemporary trans activism increasingly involves intimidation directed at women, yet it continues to be treated as a civil rights movement.
Trans activism puts hatred of women front and center. It has all along.
Donald Trump and his team are considering “a range of options” in order to acquire Greenland — including “utilizing the U.S. Military,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNBC on Tuesday.
That’s not “acquiring”; it’s violently stealing. There’s no such thing as casually and cheerfully “acquiring” other countries, there is only invasion and imperialism.
Trump said Sunday that the U.S. needs Greenland for national security purposes, pointing to Russian and Chinese activities in the region near the Arctic island.
What the US needs or doesn’t need is irrelevant to whether or not Trump gets to annex Greenland by force.
There are situations where need is relevant. If a person using a cane or carrying a toddler gets on a full bus, someone has to give up a seat because the person using a cane needs it. That kind of need does have a moral claim on us. It’s easy to think of other examples.
Violently annexing Greenland is not that kind of situation.
Supporters of some Jan. 6 riot defendants have championed the idea of a reparations fund to reimburse the criminal defendants — most of whom were pardoned by President Trump shortly after he returned to office last year — for the cost of their prosecutions and expenses.
Mark McCloskey, an attorney whose social media page says he is “championing the cause of J6 compensation,” posted on his X feed in August: “To all the J6 political prisoners out there- I’m doing everything I can to [expedite] the establishment of a claims resolution procedure so we can get you back on your feet and get you some real justice.”
Sure, let’s do everything the other way around. Compensate the perpetrators and punish the victims: that’s justice Trump-style.
The Trump administration has already approved at least one civil settlement in connection with the mob that overran the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021. The Justice Department approved an approximately $5 million settlement to the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer while she breached a smashed window into the House Speaker’s Lobby.
It’s not clear if the administration is considering other financial settlements with Jan. 6 rioters. CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment on the new legislation.
When asked about the prospect of Jan. 6 reparation payments, former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn told CBS News: “This reeks of audacity. Not only did they get a pardon, they are saying they deserve a payday for the crimes they committed.”
…
In a statement, Whitehouse said: “No matter how Trump’s MAGA goons now try to twist it, the January 6 attack on our Capitol was an assault on our democracy. Trump’s blanket day-one pardons for members of the January 6 mob were a slap in the face to the brave law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line to protect the country.”
