www.newsbusters.org
Jake Tapper Tries to Trip Sen. Mullin on Minneapolis ICE Shooting, Gets SCHOOLED
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.