Radio Atlantic: "Will ICE Get Away With This?"

Date: January 15, 2026
Host: Hanna Rosin
Guests: Brenna Gadar (Attorney, State Democracy Research Initiative), Nick Miroff (Atlantic Staff Writer, Immigration Reporter)

Episode Overview

This episode of Radio Atlantic tackles the escalating confrontation between federal authorities—specifically ICE—and local communities in Minneapolis, following the controversial shooting of Renee Goode, an unarmed protester, by an ICE agent. The episode probes whether federal agents have legal immunity for use of force against American citizens, the evolving and increasingly political nature of agencies like ICE and DHS, and the implications for American democracy and the balance of power between state and federal governments.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Incident and Its Fallout

• Backdrop: Protests erupted in Minneapolis after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Goode, a protester, in her car ([00:06]).

• Escalation: The Trump administration reflexively supported the agent, dismissed calls for accountability, and deployed more federal agents to the city.

• Narrative Shift: Videos of ICE officers forcibly confronting not only immigrants, but American citizens and public officials, have intensified public debate.

  "Have we reached the point where a federal agent can shoot an unarmed American citizen? That, and we just continue on with the program."
  — Hanna Rosin ([00:52])

2. Claims of Federal Immunity & Legal Accountability

• Administration’s Position: Stephen Miller, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff, publicly asserted that ICE officers have “federal immunity” in the conduct of their duties ([01:51]).

  "You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties ... no one ... can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties."
  — Stephen Miller ([01:51])

• Legal Reality (Expert Interview: Brenna Gadar):

  • There is no such thing as absolute immunity for federal officers.
  • States have historic and constitutional authority to prosecute federal officers for wrongdoing, though the process is complex and often protracted ([03:40]–[04:59]).

  "Federal officers do have some immunity, but it is not absolute immunity for things that they do on the job. They still have to comply with federal laws. They still have to act in a reasonable way in carrying out their duties and not violate people's rights."
  — Brenna Gadar ([03:40])

• Precedent & Challenges:

  • Legal battles over officer immunity can drag on for years (e.g., Ruby Ridge: 1992 incident, 2001 legal decision).
  • Federal courts often defer to federal duties, but have allowed trials when reasonableness is genuinely in question ([04:59]).

3. The State-Federal Power Struggle

• State Pushback: Minnesota prosecutors have resigned in protest of DOJ focusing on the protester’s widow rather than the shooter; states are signaling readiness to challenge federal actions ([02:58]).

• Checks & Balances: The power for states to hold federal officers accountable is fundamental to the U.S. system—rooted in the “dual sovereignty” doctrine ([07:15]).

  "If the federal government overstepped on people's rights, the states would be there to check the federal government and vice versa ... that's foundational to protecting people's rights and guarding against tyranny and abuse."
  — Brenna Gadar ([07:15])

4. The Administration’s Unprecedented Stance & Threats

• Federal Overreach: The administration is not only declining to investigate the shooting, but is actively investigating the widow and threatening to criminally charge state officials who act against ICE ([09:13]).

• Inversion of Roles: Recent years have seen the federal government pressuring states to act against local police (e.g., George Floyd case). Now, the power dynamic is inverted, with states seeking to hold federal law enforcement accountable ([10:18]).

  "There have been multiple statements from federal officials threatening to charge state and local officials who are considering charges against federal officers ... That's the check and balance that we have in this system."
  — Brenna Gadar ([09:13])

5. Inside ICE & DHS: Culture and Reactions

• Administration Messaging: DHS top officials defended the killing as an act of self-defense and labeled the protest an act of “domestic terrorism.”

  "...an eagerness to both send a kind of political signal to the President's base, but also a signal to the DHS workforce, which includes ICE, that this White House and this administration is basically going to defend you no matter what you do."
  — Nick Miroff ([16:24])

• ICE Morale & Understanding:

  • Within ICE, reactions to the shooting are divided; some officials privately view it as murder, others as possibly justified ([17:06]–[19:17]).
  • The majority of ICE staff seem emboldened by administration support.

  "I think it emboldens them. I think when they see other administration officials with this kind of unqualified defense ... that undoubtedly sends a signal to continue to do what they're doing."
  — Nick Miroff ([23:17])

• Behavior on the Ground:

  • Reports of ICE agents breaking car windows, shoving city officials, and using aggressive tactics in American cities highlight a shift—from targeting undocumented immigrants to confronting U.S. citizens and officials ([22:49]).

6. ICE’s Evolving Role & DHS as a Political Force

• Growing Politicization: ICE has become increasingly used as a tool for political confrontation, especially in cities governed by Democrats ([26:29]).

  "There is no precedent for what we're seeing right now where the Border Patrol and ICE officers are in the streets of American cities ... this is not what these agencies were created to do."
  — Nick Miroff ([26:29])

• Long-Term Implications:

  • The mass deployment and emboldening of ICE is seen as part of a deliberate strategy to provoke confrontation and frame political debates about immigration ([26:29]–[28:01]).
  • There are deep concerns that DHS’s new posture will have severe consequences once the current administration is no longer in office ([28:01]–[28:56]).

  "The Department of Homeland Security has gotten way off of its foundational mission. But at the core ... is this unresolved conflict in our politics in our country about immigration enforcement ... two completely divergent visions right now that are clashing in a way we've never seen." — Nick Miroff ([28:23])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "States can prosecute federal officers, although we’re not used to seeing that lately, and it sounds like it’s a long road."
  — Hanna Rosin ([13:47])

• "It's interesting because with law enforcement actions ... it's been the opposite. It's been federal government putting pressure on states ... And now we have this inversion."
  — Hanna Rosin ([10:18])

• "There is a diminishing patience with public pushback, with protest tactics."
  — Nick Miroff ([15:33])

• "Do you see ICE as evolving into a very different role than what it initially started as, or what one would think ICE is?"
  — Hanna Rosin ([25:48])

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:06 — Hanna Rosin introduces the Minneapolis shooting, rising tensions, and lack of federal accountability
• 01:51 — Stephen Miller claims ICE agents have “federal immunity”
• 02:58 — Brenna Gadar on federal prosecutors resigning in Minnesota
• 03:40–07:15 — Legal explainer: federal officer immunity, prosecution pathways, and historic precedent
• 09:13 — Federal threats against state officials explained
• 10:18 — Discussion of inversion of federal-state accountability roles
• 15:03 — Nick Miroff on the DHS/ICE response and internal morale after the shooting
• 17:06 — Ice and DHS officials’ mixed reactions to the shooting and its legitimacy
• 19:17–22:49 — Detailed reconstruction of shooting, Officer Ross’ background, and potential motivations
• 23:17 — Impact of administration’s support on ICE’s street behavior
• 26:29 — Miroff on ICE’s unprecedented domestic role and political strategy
• 28:23 — The looming legacy for DHS and the unresolved conflict at the heart of American immigration politics

Conclusion

This episode scrutinizes the collision between law, politics, and public safety in the wake of a high-profile ICE shooting. It clarifies widespread misconceptions about federal immunity, explains the legal means (and difficulties) for states to hold federal agents accountable, and paints a portrait of an American moment in which federal law enforcement is openly confrontational with citizens, backed by aggressive political leadership. Underneath it all is an open question: Will existing checks and balances hold, or will ICE and DHS become unaccountable—and openly political—arms of federal power?