'You don’t want this smoke'

'If you don't like it, get your colleagues, change the law, bring it up in the Senate'

'He spoke the truth when others wouldn't'

A great deal of media coverage of the events in Minneapolis is marred by a bad-faith framing of the events that ultimately seek to blame the ICE agent and ICE policy for the unfortunate death of Renee Nicole Good. Case in point, Jake Tapper’s interview of Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) on an extended State of the Union. The interview opens with Tapper offering contrasting quotes of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), setting up a question about the prudence of speaking out on a matter before an investigation is complete. Mullin rightfully pushes back (click “expand” to view transcript) WATCH: @SenMullin takes Jake Tapper's bad-faith frame on Minneapolis, crumples it into a little ball and rams it back down his throat pic.twitter.com/Ro9WskYQ5q — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 11, 2026 JAKE TAPPER: Senator, thanks so much for joining us. You have said that Kristi Noem, the Secretary of DHS, was, quote, “absolutely, 100% correct”, unquote, in her near-immediate characterization of the incident and her description of what Renee Good did as, quote, “domestic terrorism”. Your colleague, senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, notes that, quote, “it was very unusual to have a senior law enforcement official to draw a conclusion about an event where the scene was still being processed…generally speaking, law enforcement would recognize that a life was lost, that families are changed forever. The shooter's life will change forever. We're collecting video. We're trying to assess the situation”, unquote. Why is deviating from what Senator Tillis enunciated there- why is that appropriate? Why not wait for an investigation before asserting what happened?  MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Well, Jake, I think you could go two ways, too. I mean, you played with all the Republicans said, but you didn't play with any of the Democrat lawmakers said about the ICE agents. I mean, it's true that both sides went out there quickly defending their side. The fact is that Renee Good was interfering with police activity. There's no question about that right now. There was no question at this point that she accelerated after she was given verbal commands to get out of her vehicle, and the body cam footage clearly shows different angles from different people's phones- clearly show that she accelerated straight towards the ICE agent. They had the right to defend themselves. Once she blocked the ICE agents from doing their job, they exited the vehicle, gave a verbal command. She wasn't listening, and then she purposely tries to accelerate and run over- I don't know if she purposely tried to run over the ICE agent, but there was an ICE agent position in front of her vehicle. She accelerated to them. At that point, that vehicle becomes a lethal weapon, and the agents had the right to defend themselves, and they did so. TAPPER: I will be playing some of the comments that Democratic officials have made to Democrats later in the show. But it is also true that the Republicans, the president, the vice president, the DHS secretary are actually in charge of the ICE agent.  This exchange was followed by more of Tapper questioning whether anyone could establish with certainty that Good hit the ICE agent with her vehicle before being shot. Never mind the volumes of evidence before us, published online, that established a precise timeline of events. It could be reasonably said that the truth went around the world before the lies had a chance to put their pants on. This explains, in part, both the administration’s aggressive stance and Tapper’s effort to continue to sow uncertainty in the name of asking questions.  Tapper then engages in some vehicle trutherism by suggesting that the ICE agent somehow not hit. This is a fancy roundabout way of asking whether Good deserved to be shot for “fleeing”. Here again, Mullin shuts that nonsense down: WATCH: Jake Tapper tries to suggest that the ICE agent was not actually hit (or hit "horribly) by a 4,000 pound vehicle before opening fire on its driver, which Sen. Mullin promptly shuts down. Notice the attempted bolstering of Tapper's gaslighting with still images as opposed… pic.twitter.com/pIxF2Erx1m — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 11, 2026 TAPPER: You said that she clearly hit him. I don't know that that's true. It may be true. It may not be true. It does seem that he stepped to the side and was able to avoid getting hit in a horrible way, and he was seen walking fine afterwards. Again, I'm not defending what she did, I'm just saying she didn't- she didn’t run… MULLIN: Well, what’s the difference in a horrible way… TAPPER: Well she didn't… MULLIN: What's the difference in a horrible way or not? It's like saying, “well, I didn't really shoot you completely. I just shot you in the arm. But I shot at you.” That's -it doesn't matter. The vehicle was being used in a lethal manner, and he has a right to use lethal force at that time. TAPPER: It may be.  MULLIN: And I mean, I've heard reports saying that. “Well, why didn't you just shoot the tires out?” Okay, give me a break. Like that's going to stop a vehicle.  TAPPER: Yeah, I didn’t say that. MULLIN: That’s the same thing that these people are saying…I know, but I'm just saying these reports out there, there is obviously, I mean, there's video, Jake, you can see the video. It's- it's widely spread across the internet, from- from different angles that you can clearly see him being struck by the vehicle, in front of the vehicle. It doesn't make any difference if he was struck or not. When he was standing in front of the vehicle and she was given verbal commands to leave the vehicle and she accelerated at that point, he doesn't have five seconds, 10 seconds- he has a split decision on what he can do to protect his life and those around his life. So remember, there's a crowd around there too. What if she accelerated out of control at that point, too? But he did- she did hit him and he did use lethal force. And unfortunately, his life has changed. Her family's life has changed. This should have never taken place. But what we do know is that law enforcement had the right to be there to enforce the laws. She was interfering with law enforcement from doing their job, and that is a federal offense. TAPPER: So it may be that she hit, I don't know. I'm waiting for the results of the investigation, but let's- let's take a look more closely at some of the images of the shooting, as you just referenced. From the view I'm showing right now is the- this is the first video that we all saw. Officer Ross is obstructed when he appears to fire the first shot. You can't see because the other two ICE agents are there. But when he fires the second and third shots, he appears to be at the side of the vehicle, not in front of the vehicle, firing through her window to her left. Were the second and third shots warranted, if by then he was shooting from the side and out of harm's way? MULLIN: Well, that's very selective imaging that you guys are using there, because you can use a lot of different images in just that. You could also use the one where he's actually hit by the car. TAPPER: I'm granting you your first- I'm granting the first shot! I'm just saying what about the second and third? To recap this sequence: Tapper tried to suggest the agent was not actually hit, got shut down for it, and then tried to further gaslight by having Mullin react to cherrypicked still images as opposed to video. Throughout the interview, Mullin reinforces the notion of the agent defending himself from a vehicular assault, which is entirely within bounds pursuant to Minnesota statute. After getting schooled on tactical training, Tapper attempts a January 6th “whatabout” that gets flipped into accountability for George Soros due to his funding of all manner of leftwing protests. It is then that Tapper tries this Jedi mind trick: TAPPER: These are not the George Soros-funded anti-ICE protests you are looking for pic.twitter.com/uUeeXsb9zo — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 11, 2026 MULLIN: George Soros, who is obviously paying these agitators and paying for these professional protests to go on, he should start being held accountable because he's costing people's lives. And there's no question that he is obviously behind this. We know this, and that's not even disputable at this point. But that's a big difference between the First Amendment and purposely disrupting and purposely getting in the way of law enforcement people- of law enforcement from doing their job. TAPPER: I'm just saying, we don't know that George Soros is directly involved in this specific incident… The interview briefly shifted to Iran before ending. There was not a substantive conversation bere, but a bad-faith attempt at smearing the ICE agent and shifting blame away from the ICE Watch activist. It should be noted that Mullin was never shown a piece of video to react to. In fact, this the sole portion of video aired for any Republican during the whole two hours: It is telling that the one and only piece of Minneapolis video for Republicans to react to on CNN's State of the Union was the agent's phone cam of the shooting and subsequent utterance of "fucking bitch". Telling, but not unexpected. pic.twitter.com/ZxGjbHc41G — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 11, 2026 Res Ipsa Loquitur. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on CNN State of the Union on Sunday, January 11th, 2026: JAKE TAPPER: Joining us right now is a close ally of President Trump, Republican senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma. Senator, thanks so much for joining us. You have said that Kristi Noem, the Secretary of DHS, was, quote, “absolutely, 100% correct”, unquote, in her near-immediate characterization of the incident and her description of what Renee Good did as, quote, “domestic terrorism”. Your colleague, senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, notes that, quote, “it was very unusual to have a senior law enforcement official to draw a conclusion about an event where the scene was still being processed…generally speaking, law enforcement would recognize that a life was lost, that families are changed forever. The shooter's life will change forever. We're collecting video. We're trying to assess the situation”, unquote. Why is deviating from what Senator Tillis enunciated there- why is that appropriate? Why not wait for an investigation before asserting what happened?  MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Well, Jake, I think you could go two ways, too. I mean, you played with all the Republicans said, but you didn't play with any of the Democrat lawmakers said about the ICE agents. I mean, it's true that both sides went out there quickly defending their side. The fact is that Renee Good was interfering with police activity. There's no question about that right now. There was no question at this point that she accelerated after she was given verbal commands to get out of her vehicle, and the body cam footage clearly shows different angles from different people's phones- clearly show that she accelerated straight towards the ICE agent. They had the right to defend themselves. Once she blocked the ICE agents from doing their job, they exited the vehicle, gave a verbal command. She wasn't listening, and then she purposely tries to accelerate and run over- I don't know if she purposely tried to run over the ICE agent, but there was an ICE agent position in front of her vehicle. She accelerated to them. At that point, that vehicle becomes a lethal weapon, and the agents had the right to defend themselves, and they did so. TAPPER: I will be playing some of the comments that Democratic officials have made to Democrats later in the show. But it is also true that the Republicans, the president, the vice president, the DHS secretary are actually in charge of the ICE agent. You yourself just now…  MULLIN: But, Jake… TAPPER: I'm just- I'm just I'm just saying, like, that will come up later in the show, but I'm not asking you about it. The ICE agent, you just asserted that the woman clearly tried to run over the guy, and then you said, at the very least, she was going forward while he was in front. I think that does illustrate the fact that this is, at the very least, a widely disputed incident full of ambiguities and interpretations. How can anyone be confident that she was trying to attack the officer instead, if she was trying to flee the scene? MULLIN: It- fleeing the scene…it doesn't make any difference. If you accidentally run over a police officer, you still are being charged with involuntary manslaughter. If you are accelerating at a fast rate of speed, driving your vehicle down the road and you cause a death of a civilian, you are charged with involuntary manslaughter because you're driving your vehicle in a reckless manner. In this particular case, she purposely blocked the ICE agents. Is that disputed? No. We know she purposely blocked the ICE agents. Is it disputed that she accelerated after the ICE agents gave her a verbal command to get out of the vehicle? No.  Now, did she know the ICE agent was in front of her? We don't know, but she- but we do know that she accelerated and she hit the ICE agent. At that point, that vehicle is a lethal weapon. And that police officer has the right to defend themselves. It is-it's- it is mind blowing to me why we are defending someone that was acting this- in this manner when she- it was clearly that she hit an ICE agent and that's law enforcement that's enforcing our nation's laws. We don't get a choice on which laws we enforce and which laws we don't enforce. The police officers are doing their job. And she was interfering in their job. If you don't want to be in harm's way, don't get in the way of police officers from doing their job. TAPPER: I'm not making the case that Renee Good’s protest tactics were wise or safe. The question is, did her actions warrant being killed?  MULLIN: It would. Did- was a vehicle being used in a lethal manner? Was she accelerating towards a police officer? The answers to those are yes. And in that case, the officer has to make a split decision to protect his life. And that's exactly what he did here. It is no different than you having a gun in your hand. Or having a knife in your hand. That is considered a lethal weapon. And the officer has to make a split decision to protect his life and those around them's lives. And that's what this ICE officer did. TAPPER: You said that she clearly hit him. I don't know that that's true. It may be true. It may not be true. It does seem that he stepped to the side and was able to avoid getting hit in a horrible way, and he was seen walking fine afterwards. Again, I'm not defending what she did, I'm just saying she didn't- she didn’t run… MULLIN: Well, what’s the difference in a horrible way… TAPPER: Well she didn't… MULLIN: What's the difference in a horrible way or not? It's like saying, “well, I didn't really shoot you completely. I just shot you in the arm. But I shot at you.” That's -it doesn't matter. The vehicle was being used in a lethal manner, and he has a right to use lethal force at that time. TAPPER: It may be.  MULLIN: And I mean, I've heard reports saying that. “Well, why didn't you just shoot the tires out?” Okay, give me a break. Like that's going to stop a vehicle.  TAPPER: Yeah, I didn’t say that. MULLIN: That’s the same thing that these people are saying…I know, but I'm just saying these reports out there, there is obviously, I mean, there's video, Jake, you can see the video. It's- it's widely spread across the internet, from- from different angles that you can clearly see him being struck by the vehicle, in front of the vehicle. It doesn't make any difference if he was struck or not. When he was standing in front of the vehicle and she was given verbal commands to leave the vehicle and she accelerated at that point, he doesn't have five seconds, 10 seconds- he has a split decision on what he can do to protect his life and those around his life. So remember, there's a crowd around there too. What if she accelerated out of control at that point, too? But he did- she did hit him and he did use lethal force. And unfortunately, his life has changed. Her family's life has changed. This should have never taken place. But what we do know is that law enforcement had the right to be there to enforce the laws. She was interfering with law enforcement from doing their job, and that is a federal offense. TAPPER: So it may be that she hit, I don't know. I'm waiting for the results of the investigation, but let's- let's take a look more closely at some of the images of the shooting, as you just referenced. From the view I'm showing right now is the- this is the first video that we all saw. Officer Ross is obstructed when he appears to fire the first shot. You can't see because the other two ICE agents are there. But when he fires the second and third shots, he appears to be at the side of the vehicle, not in front of the vehicle, firing through her window to her left. Were the second and third shots warranted, if by then he was shooting from the side and out of harm's way? MULLIN: Well, that's very selective imaging that you guys are using there, because you can use a lot of different images in just that. You could also use the one where he's actually hit by the car. TAPPER: I'm granting you your first- I'm granting the first shot! I'm just saying what about the second and third? MULLIN: I get that, but let's just talk about that real quick. Anybody that's been trained in law enforcement or with- with even in military, you don't get- you don't train just to shoot the one shot. You're always trying to shoot 2 or 3 shots. Typically it's three. It's called a triangle one, two, three or running the buttons: one, two, three or a zipper. So everything you're trained in with muscle memory is a three shot go. And that is- and you can go- you can talk to any law enforcement agency you want to that's went through CLEET certification or much higher levels of training with a weapon. So the three shot is a full fledged muscle memory. However, she is still accelerating- accelerating at this point when he was firing the first and second shot. Iit wasn't a clean stop. And so the threat was still taking place. It was still an active threat because the vehicle was still acting in a manner of a deadly weapon. And until that completely stops, he has to eliminate the threat. And unfortunately, like I said, this officer's life is turned upside down. Mrs. Good's life and her family, obviously, Mrs. Good's life is lost, but her family's life has turned upside down. It should never have taken place. But the real story is, is why were they even out there? They shouldn't have been out there interfering to begin with. And those that are paying for professional protesters to obstruct the justice of law enforcement, that at some point they need to start being held accountable because they're costing people their lives. And, so like George Soros… TAPPER: We don’t know that she was being paid. That she was being. MULLIN: …who is paying these individuals, need to held- be held accountable. TAPPER: We don't know that- that she was being paid. She obviously was protesting. We don't know that she was being paid. I want to ask you, when it comes to just, like, what appropriate responses are for law enforcement when they're feeling threatened, you were at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. We just honored the fifth anniversary of that horrible day. On that day, more than 140 police officers were injured when that violent mob stormed the complex. President Trump ultimately pardoned all of them. More than 1000 of the rioters, including those who physically attacked police. So using this assessment of when law enforcement can shoot, when they feel threatened, would those officers have been justified shooting dozens of the January 6th rioters who were, as we see on video, physically attacking police in ways that caused them harm? MULLIN: You know, it's interesting you bring that point up because remember, the Democrats went after President Trump saying that he agitated the crowd to do that when he also said that he went, he told them to go down and peacefully demonstrate. But yet they try to pin that on President Trump. In my opinion, when you're using lethal force at all towards law enforcement, they have the right to use lethal force too, if they're feeling threatened. And I made that very clear at the time of that riot that I said, it is a miracle that the Capitol Police didn't use lethal force because in that manner, in that position, I wouldn't have blamed them for doing so. I also went down to the triage center when- when those officers were being medically attended before we could get them to the hospital and visited almost every single one of them. So, yes, I think the Capitol Police had the right to defend themselves in a lethal manner if they felt threatened, which some of them obviously did. But that goes back to my original point. Before you switched to that point is George Soros, who is obviously paying these agitators and paying for these professional protests to go on, he should start being held accountable because he's costing people's lives. And there's no question that he is obviously behind this. We know this, and that's not even disputable at this point. But that's a big difference between the First Amendment and purposely disrupting and purposely getting in the way of law enforcement people- of law enforcement from doing their job. TAPPER: I'm just saying, we don't know that George Soros is directly involved in this specific incident, but let's turn to foreign policy, because I want to ask you about what's happening in Iran. President Trump posted on Truth Social yesterday that, quote, “the USA stands ready to help all the demonstrators in the streets.” The New York Times reports that the president has been briefed on options for military strikes on Iran against the government of Iran in support of the protests. Would you support military strikes against the Iranian regime? MULLIN: You know, the Iranian regime has been attacking the United States, said they're at war with the United States. They publicly said that just a simple two, two weeks ago. We know they're the world's sponsor on terror, who have made USA their their main target. The president has made it very clear that we're not wanting to interfere with what the Iranian people are doing by trying to take back their beautiful country again. We're not at war with with the Iranian people. It's the terrorist regime that's trying to run that country that is at war with us. And the president has made it very clear that if they begin to kill their own people and slaughter them, that the United States will be forced to interfere at that point. And I would back the president. And having that strategy of protecting the Iranian people from the right to restore their country to what it used to be in the 1970s. TAPPER: It does appear as though they are- they are killing and slaughtering the demonstrators in the streets. So we shall see what comes next. Senator Mullin, always good to have you on the show. Thanks for getting up early for us. We appreciate it. MULLIN: Thanks for having me on.  

The failure of both Democrat and Republican plans to extend or partially replace enhanced Obamacare subsidies offers a clear lesson: Escaping an entitlement trap almost never happens.Yes, the House of Representatives on Thursday voted to extend the COVID-era Affordable Care Act subsidies that expired at the end of 2025. Seventeen Republicans even joined a unanimous Democratic Caucus in voting for the extension. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Republicans have “no appetite” for an extension — at least not without reforms.Republicans remain an impediment to the necessary reforms and are working hand in hand with Democrats to bring on economic collapse. Time is not on our side.The reality is, once government creates a welfare entitlement, logic and sustainability exit the conversation. Politicians do not debate whether to grow the program. They argue only over how much to increase spending and how to disguise the costs. That pattern now governs the fight over enhanced Obamacare subsidies.Why the premise never gets challengedWhen the Senate rejected a nearly identical bill in December, the Wall Street Journal reported that Congress faces “no clear path for aiding millions of Americans facing soaring Affordable Care Act insurance costs next year.”The Journal’s framing accepts the entitlement premise without question. It treats “aiding millions” as morally self-evident while ignoring the coercion necessary to fund that aid. Government assistance does not materialize from thin air. It transfers responsibility, money, and risk from one group of Americans to another.Once imposed, that transfer only grows.Both rejected plans would have sent more taxpayer money to insurers than the ACA already guarantees. With no deal in sight, the Journal observed last month that hope for extending the subsidies is fading. That assessment may be accurate politically, but an extension does not deserve hope. It deserves scrutiny.How entitlement politics worksDemocrats want Republicans to extend an expansion they never voted for of a program they never supported. Republicans respond by proposing modest adjustments to reduce political damage without challenging the underlying structure.Rep. Max L. Miller (R-Ohio), who voted for the bill, summarized the dilemma perfectly. “I just want to make this abundantly clear: This is a Democratic piece of legislation. It is absolutely horrific. Now, it is the best alternative to what we have at the moment.”That is how entitlement traps operate.For decades, big-government advocates have followed a reliable strategy. They create a benefit for a defined group, allow costs to spiral, then dare the opposition to take something away from a newly entrenched constituency. When the moment arrives, those who claim to favor limited government retreat or propose cosmetic reforms that leave the core system untouched.That dynamic explains why the country remains locked into the socialist ratchet, the uniparty routine, and a political class that acts as tax collector for an ever-expanding welfare state.RELATED: Democrat senator makes stunning admission about Obamacare failures Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesTrapped voters, trapped taxpayersEntitlements squeeze the nation from both sides. They trap recipients by discouraging work and mobility, and they trap taxpayers by locking future governments into permanent obligations.The Affordable Care Act stands as one of the most powerful modern examples of this system. The law forced millions into government-regulated insurance markets while guaranteeing insurers a growing pool of subsidized customers. The result was predictable: higher costs, deeper dependency, and a massive political constituency invested in permanent expansion.Not a single Republican voted for the ACA. They understood what the law would do. Democrats passed it anyway, and it worked exactly as designed.Who Obamacare was really built to serveAs Connor O’Keeffe has argued at Mises Wire, federal health care policy has long served industry interests. Government interventions channel money toward providers, pharmaceutical companies, and insurers under the guise of helping patients.Obamacare accelerated that process by mandating coverage and expanding what insurers must provide, driving demand and cost growth in tandem. Once people rely on government assistance to afford insurance, any reduction becomes politically unthinkable.Republicans now scramble to avoid electoral consequences. House Speaker Mike Johnson says the GOP will advance health care proposals without extending subsidies, yet many lawmakers privately admit that only an extension prevents immediate pain ahead of the 2026 midterms.That admission exposes the trap. Spending limits become cruel. Taxpayer costs disappear from the conversation. Only the next premium increase matters.Why conservatives keep losingHistory explains where this leads. Entitlement debates almost always end with higher spending. Political power depends on payments to voters. Reducing benefits means losing elections.Progressives act decisively when in power. Conservatives obsess over procedure and restraint, even as the administrative state grows unchecked.Last week alone offered two examples. The House overturned President Trump’s March 2025 executive order blocking collective bargaining for over a million federal employees, with 20 Republicans joining Democrats. Even Franklin Roosevelt opposed public-sector unions. Modern conservatives could not summon the resolve to block them.On the same day, Indiana Republicans declined to redraw their congressional map despite the risk of losing the House and triggering impeachment proceedings against Trump. They clung to unwritten norms while their opponents prepared to exploit the outcome.RELATED: If conservatives will not defend capitalism, who will? Leontura via iStock/Getty ImagesThis pattern defines conservative failure. Republicans manage decline. They preserve a decaying system rather than reverse it.Donald Trump broke from that habit. A former Democrat, he understands power. Win elections, then act. Trump restored a political energy absent on the right for decades.His approach to entitlements focuses on restraining growth outside Social Security while expanding private-sector freedom to increase economic output. The goal is not austerity. It is to shrink government’s share of the economy by growing everything else faster.Reform or collapseThat strategy may succeed or fail. It remains the only alternative to collapse. Without reform, federal spending and debt will overwhelm the system within a decade, possibly sooner. Borrowing costs will explode. Inflation will surge. Control will vanish.The United States approached that danger under unified Democrat control and Joe Biden’s autopen in 2021 and 2022. Voters halted the slide by electing Republican majorities and returning Trump to the White House.Trump failed to drain the swamp in his first term, largely because congressional Republicans refused to legislate when they had the chance. In his second term, he has advanced reforms through executive action. Congress has responded with delay and timidity.The country will escape the entitlement trap one way or another. Reform can arrive through disciplined growth and economic expansion, or through collapse driven by massive overspending.With their conservative approach to governance, Republicans remain an impediment to the necessary reforms and are working hand in hand with Democrats to bring on that collapse. Time is not on our side.

Juan Williams: 'The Record Shows the Big Bump in Premiums Is Due to Republicans'

Now the Car Was Already MOVING? Ilhan Omar Tries Out a New Lie About Minneapolis ICE Shooting

FAFO in Real Time: Man Points 'Gun' (It's His Phone) at Federal Officers, Gets Instant Lesson

Worried about AI surveillance? Discover the free app that "cloaks" your photos to block facial recognition technology without ruining your images.

There are a lot of Roku remotes out there. Which one is best for you comes down to whether you own a Roku TV, want to use hands-free voice commands, and more.