Minneapolis shootings: When a gun brings a federal probe – and not having one doesn't

In recent weeks, two Americans were killed in Minneapolis by federal law-enforcement officers under similar circumstances – both amid protests against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown – but the federal response to these tragedies diverged in a way that exposes a sharp irony in U.S. politics.

On January 7, 37-year-old Renee Good was fatally shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent during an encounter in her SUV. Good's death stunned her community and touched off widespread outrage. Video reports suggest that shots were fired into her vehicle as she tried to drive away from the confrontation with federal agents.

The incident, which U.S. President Donald Trump initially blamed on Good's "violent behavior," was fiercely challenged by local officials and Democratic leaders. However, the Justice Department ultimately did not open a civil-rights investigation into her shooting. Instead, senior government officials moved to suppress it as they tried to avoid any contradiction of Trump's claim, according to the New York Times.

Just weeks later, on January 24, 37-year-old Alex Pretti, an intensive-care nurse, was shot dead by federal officers during protests over immigration enforcement. Bystander footage shows Pretti holding a phone – not a weapon – while helping a woman being pepper-sprayed. He was then wrestled to the ground and shot multiple times after an officer removed a gun from his belt.

At first, Washington downplayed Pretti's case by portraying him as a "danger" to federal officers, but as criticism grew from pro‑gun groups – a powerful part of Trump's support base – the Justice Department last week announced a federal investigation into the shooting's circumstances, a step that in some cases can lead to criminal charges if civil‑rights violations are found.

On its face, it is fortunate that prosecutors are taking Pretti's death seriously. Every citizen should have equal access to justice when government force is used against them, but the contrast between how these shootings have been treated raises real questions about fairness and the pressures shaping federal decision-making.

When Good was killed, national coverage and public protests were significant, but the political reaction – especially from conservative leaders and constituencies that are influential in shaping federal policy – was limited. Good was unarmed, and because her shooting did not create a flashpoint among key parts of Trump's political base, federal authorities did not pivot toward a probe.

Meanwhile, when Pretti was shot, many Republicans and gun rights advocates openly criticized the administration's handling of the case, in part because Pretti was a legal firearm owner and because the narrative of a disarmed man being killed by federal agents struck a chord within the conservative pro-Second Amendment community. That political pressure appeared to have helped push the Justice Department into action.

To be sure, there are complexities in both cases that could help explain the discrepancy – Good was in her vehicle, which could be seen as a potential threat, while Pretti posed no danger even as he was carrying a gun – but the administration's active suppression of the Good probe makes it hard to believe the response wasn't political.

Reports that the White House walked back its initial hostile characterization of Pretti after gun‑rights supporters voiced opposition further demonstrates the political nature of this disparity.

This exposes an uncomfortable irony in American democracy. Justice should not vary based on whether a victim fits a particular political narrative or energizes a specific advocacy group. Yet in this moment, political salience seems to determine which deaths get federal scrutiny and which are left without it.

A healthy democratic system should treat all citizens as equally deserving of protection under the law, independent of politics. Investigations into deadly use of force should be guided by facts, transparency and the rule of law – not the likelihood that a particular community will view the outcome as politically satisfying.