Joe Rogan slams ICE tactics on podcast
Joe Rogan called ICE operations dangerous on his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, and condemned the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good.
- The New York Times reports that investigators are looking into potential ties to activist groups as part of the federal investigation into Goode’s murder.
- First Amendment experts questioned how that context, if it existed, would be relevant in determining whether ICE officer Jonathan Ross acted in self-defense when he shot her.
- Their views differed on how state and local governments should respond to the federal government’s presence in their jurisdictions.
First Amendment advocates are concerned that the federal investigation into the murder of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis will have a negative impact on free speech.
The concerns follow a New York Times report that the Justice Department and FBI are investigating Good’s potential ties to activist groups as part of a federal investigation into the Jan. 7 shooting that killed Good by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officer Jonathan Ross.
The administration is investigating her possible ties to groups protesting President Donald Trump’s immigration efforts, the news agency reported, citing people familiar with the investigation.
Several First Amendment experts questioned the relevance of that potential context in interviews with USA TODAY. They reiterated that the Good investigation is still in its early stages and more facts will emerge as the investigation progresses.
The Department of Justice referred USA TODAY to an X post featuring Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in the aftermath of Goode’s murder.
Bondi said in a Jan. 8 post that while peaceful protest is “a sacred American right protected by the First Amendment,” it is a federal crime to obstruct or assault federal law enforcement or damage federal property.
“If you cross that red line, you will be arrested and prosecuted,” she wrote. “Don’t test our resolve.”
Blanche wrote in part that law enforcement officers should not have to “risk their lives in the face of a threat of serious harm.”
USA TODAY has reached out to the FBI for comment.
Experts question relevance of potential activities
Teresa Nelson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, said she saw “a lot of parallels” between the reported investigation into Good’s possible ties to activists and the department’s response to other police custody deaths in the state.
She described the tendency of authorities to downplay the role of law enforcement in these deaths, with particular reference to the case of George Floyd, who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020. and David Cloud, who died in the custody of the Duluth Police Department in 2005.
Nelson said the most important thing in such an investigation is “what’s going on when a situation like that arises.”
“The person’s past or involvement in other activities is completely irrelevant,” she says.
Nelson noted that the ACLU was founded amid threats to civil rights fueled by widespread anti-communist sentiment in the years after World War I, and said there is a “long history of the U.S. government suppressing speech in times of turmoil.”
Her organization sued ICE in December on behalf of several community members, alleging that the federal government violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by responding to their peaceful protests with “harassment, intimidation, violence, and detention.”
Courtney Hostetler, legal director for People for Free Speech, called the reported federal investigation into Goode’s potential activities “an incredibly dangerous attack on the First Amendment.”
He said Americans “should be concerned about their First Amendment rights,” adding that the Founders “understood that tyranny would be a constant threat” when they established a system of checks and balances.
Diverse views on the role of national and local governments
Hostetler said state and local governments are “one of the most powerful mechanisms” in combating federal overreach, and urged them to “stop standing by” as the Trump administration increases its presence in their jurisdictions.
But David Keating, president of the Free Speech Institute, said “the temperature would drop significantly” if states and local governments committed to cooperating with federal authorities on immigration enforcement.
“If they cooperated, I think things would be a lot less volatile politically,” he said.
Keating also condemned certain rhetoric about ICE, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin’s Jan. 11 X post. These include comparisons between the United States and Iran, where thousands of people have reportedly been killed in nationwide protests against the Iranian government. Mr Martin said both governments had shown “authoritarian behaviour” and Mr Keating’s comparison was “patently wrong”.
USA TODAY has reached out to the Democratic National Committee for comment.
Nelson said the federal government’s response to protesters has been “disproportionate to the actions” and that such response has contributed to “an extreme chilling of speech.”
“We recognize the need for safety, the need for law enforcement performance, all of that,” Nelson said. “We also need to ensure that First Amendment rights are not only respected but promoted.”
Breanna Frank is USA TODAY’s First Amendment reporter. please contact her bjfrank@usatoday.com.
USA TODAY’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded by the Freedom Forum in collaboration with our journalism funding partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
