Federal Agents Claim "Absolute Immunity" After Killing Two U.S. Citizens

When federal agents kill U.S. citizens on American streets and then claim they cannot be prosecuted, we're witnessing something unprecedented in modern American law enforcement.

The Trump administration has declared that federal agents involved in the killings of two Minneapolis protesters possess "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution. Department of Justice and Homeland Security officials have gone further, labeling the deceased—Renee Good and Alex Pretti—as domestic terrorists, effectively justifying their deaths.

This extraordinary legal stance emerges from "Operation Metro Surge," a December 2025 immigration enforcement campaign that has transformed Minneapolis into a testing ground for federal policing tactics that blur the lines between civilian law enforcement and military operations.

The Killings That Sparked a Constitutional Crisis

On January 7, 2026, Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was sitting in her parked car when an ICE agent approached with his phone, filming her. "That's fine dude, I'm not mad at you," Good said calmly. Moments later, as a second agent tried to forcibly remove her from the vehicle, Good attempted to drive away. The first agent, positioned in front of her car, shot her three times as she passed. After killing her, he muttered "f-cking b-tch" and walked away from her crashed vehicle.

Alex Pretti, also 37, was killed on January 24 under even more disturbing circumstances. Standing in a public street holding only a cellphone, federal agents sprayed him with chemical agents, wrestled him to the ground, and beat him repeatedly. During the scuffle, an agent removed what appeared to be a firearm from Pretti's waistband. Agents then shot him 10 times. His crime? Kicking the taillight of a law enforcement vehicle 11 days earlier.

These weren't split-second decisions in active firefights. Video evidence shows federal agents creating the very circumstances that led them to claim they feared for their lives.

When Federal Power Meets Constitutional Law

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from "unreasonable seizures"—and every use of force by law enforcement constitutes a seizure under the law. The Supreme Court established in Tennessee v. Garner that deadly force is only justified when a suspect poses "a significant threat of death or serious physical injury."

Luke William Hunt, a former FBI special agent and policing scholar, argues these cases reveal federal agents operating outside established constitutional principles. DHS policy explicitly requires officers to have "a reasonable belief that the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury" before using deadly force.

The evidence suggests otherwise. Good was unarmed, sitting in her car, and expressed no hostility. Pretti was holding a phone, not a weapon, when agents initiated contact. In both cases, federal agents created dangerous tactical situations that escalated to lethal force—precisely what their training is supposed to prevent.

Yet the administration's response has been to shield these agents from any accountability through claims of absolute immunity.

The Militarization of Immigration Enforcement

Operation Metro Surge represents a fundamental shift in how federal agents interact with American communities. Instead of conducting methodical investigations, ICE and CBP agents now patrol streets in tactical gear, managing traffic stops and crowd control like an occupying force.

This militarized approach extends beyond immigration enforcement. Federal agents are now policing U.S. citizens who protest immigration policies, treating dissent as a form of domestic terrorism worthy of lethal response.

The masked federal agents roaming Minneapolis blur crucial distinctions between civilian policing and military operations. When law enforcement operates like warriors rather than guardians, constitutional protections become casualties.

The Immunity Doctrine's Dangerous Precedent

The administration's claim of "absolute immunity" for federal agents represents uncharted legal territory. While qualified immunity protects officers from civil lawsuits when acting within established law, criminal immunity for killing citizens crosses a constitutional red line.

Former federal prosecutors argue the evidence in both cases warrants thorough criminal investigations. The central question isn't whether agents made split-second decisions, but whether they reasonably feared for their lives or acted from "anger, frustration, retaliation or some other unjustified mental state."

By preemptively declaring these killings justified and the victims terrorists, the administration is attempting to place federal agents above the law entirely.