The Unnecessary Killing of Renee Nicole Good

Overview

On Wednesday, January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by ICE officer Jonathan Ross during a confrontation between ICE officers and observers. Federal officials claimed she attempted to run over an agent. Local officials and eyewitness accounts dispute this. Video evidence has raised further questions. The Trump administration and DHS assert that Ross acted in self‑defense. The Homeland Security Secretary described the incident as an act of “domestic terrorism,” a characterization rejected by Minnesota officials. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has sharply criticized the federal narrative, calling it misleading, and is demanding a state‑involved investigation.

The FBI took control of the investigation, reportedly blocking Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from accessing evidence. Local leaders argue this exclusion undermines trust and transparency. The FBI and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension have worked together on many cases over the years. As a retired law enforcement professional, I have so many questions that need to be answered. A joint investigation should be initiated so that the family, community, and nation can have trusted answers to the questions.

Questions

What authority does ICE have in dealing with blocked traffic flow? For that matter, what are the mandates for ICE, and what legal authority do officers have in implementing orders?

Who is Jonathan Ross? How well trained was he in dealing with the type of situation that he found himself in on January 7? Did he position himself in a place of danger? Was deadly force his only option? How badly was he injured 6 months ago in a previous apprehension attempt, where he was dragged over 50 yards by a fleeing vehicle? Did he receive any follow-up medical or psychological treatment? If not, why not? If so, did the psychological team clear him for a return to duty?

What were Renee Good’s intentions on the morning of January 7? Did she intend to block an ICE operation? Was she shocked by the manner of approach by an ICE officer when he attempted to open her door? Was she defiant? Was she simply trying to remove herself from an uncomfortable situation?

Commentary

Only an open, joint investigation can answer these questions. The various videos and eyewitness statements will help answer some questions. An investigation into ICE operations, training, and policies that address officer actions will provide additional information.

What is ICE and its mandate? U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law‑enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It was created in 2003 as part of the post‑9/11 reorganization of federal security agencies. Its core mission is to enforce immigration and customs laws inside the United States. ICE is responsible for investigating, enforcing, and preventing violations of federal immigration, customs, and border‑related laws. It operates primarily inside the U.S. interior, not at the border. Border operations are handled mainly by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

ICE is responsible for locating, arresting, detaining, and removing individuals who violate U.S. immigration laws. They are also responsible for prioritizing individuals who are recent arrivals, fugitives, or those with criminal convictions. A third major area of responsibility is conducting worksite enforcement to ensure employers maintain a lawful workforce. Secondary functions include investigating human trafficking, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other cross‑border criminal networks. In fulfilling their duties, ICE must also manage needed detention facilities, ensuring the “safe and humane” detention and removal of individuals ordered to be deported.

ICE agents can conduct operations in public spaces without restriction, but entering private areas requires a judicial warrant. Administrative warrants—common in immigration cases—do not authorize entry into private spaces without consent. ICE agents, while federal agents, are NOT police officers. Their scope of authority is limited to detaining and arresting with probable cause, and/or signed arrest warrants, individuals suspected of being in the United States illegally. ICE has no authority to pull anyone over for a traffic violation. Any involvement with vehicles must be justified with probable cause that the driver or passengers are wanted on immigration violations.

ICE has been under pressure to rapidly expand its workforce, leading to streamlined training and more field‑office‑based on‑the‑job learning. Prior to the surge in hiring, ICE agents received 240 days of training which included 25 days of training in Spanish. New recruits now receive 47 days of training. The training is less than that of most police officers, who receive at least 75 days of training (with some states requiring 125 days). The ICE training comes closer to the 5-day requirement for citizens to receive firearm permits in many states.

My own cursory examination points in the direction of an ICE operation that exceeded general mandates. The training that ICE officers receive does not prepare them for police work. Several mistakes were made by ICE officers during the Minneapolis confrontation. While Officer Ross received more than the 47 hours of training now mandated, his training was in enforcement of ICE mandates, arrests and warrants, not police tactics. The most significant example of not having proper training is a simple axiom taught in most police academies: TIME + DISTANCE = OPTIONS. Other mistakes, such as the approach of ICE officers, violate another key point in police training. De-escalate the tension in any given situation.

In addition, Officer Ross was involved in an arrest attempt in June 2025 where he was injured by being dragged over 50 yards by a suspect in a fleeing vehicle. He was hospitalized with severe injuries. To treat his injuries, doctors used 20 stitches in his right arm and 13 in his left hand. It is possible that Officer Ross was not given a proper vetting before being returned to duty. Without proper clearance, it is possible that Ross did act to protect himself from his own perceived harm. He was not mentally prepared for a return to duty. It does not justify what happened, but it does point a guilty finger at the ICE organization.

Conclusion

The administration’s goal of deporting illegal immigrants (particularly criminals) has required additional ICE agents. To accomplish this goal, the agency has increased its hiring numbers. To get the new agents on the job quickly, the required training has been reduced to a level that is far below an acceptable level for agents who are now also acting as if they are police officers.

There are no public records of Officer Ross’s previous leave requirements or the requirements to return to duty. However, given the just over six-month time span between his first tragic vehicle arrest encounter and the January 7 incident, there should be interest in whether the ICE agency policy of psychological support falls short regarding the officer’s suitability to return to duty.

Why Can’t Congress Find a Solution to Health Care Cost?

A Brief History

The modern U.S. healthcare system has its roots in World War II. To circumvent wartime wage controls implemented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, employers boosted fringe benefits, notably health insurance. These benefits were later institutionalized by the Internal Revenue Service in the 1950s, when it excluded employer-sponsored health insurance from taxable income.

By 1965, significant legislative changes expanded health coverage with the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid under the Social Security Act amendment. Medicare provided healthcare to the elderly, while Medicaid expanded access to the impoverished. These programs, especially Medicare, were modeled on employer-sponsored plans which were prevalent at the time but lacked stringent cost controls. This led to a system in which healthcare providers were reimbursed based on the “usual, customary, and reasonable rate,” significantly influencing increased charges for services.

Until 1973, health care in the United States was considered a public health service provided by doctors and hospitals. Payment for such services was paid by the user or through some type of insurance plan. In 1973, President Nixon signed the Health Maintenance Organization Act (HMO) into law. The HMO model was developed in response to rising medical costs and aimed to provide a cost-effective alternative to traditional health insurance. By focusing on preventive care and establishing fixed reimbursement rates, HMOs were supposed to reduce overall health care expenditure while maintaining quality services. The Act encouraged private investment in HMOs and required employers with a certain number of employees to offer these plans alongside traditional insurance options. The definition of what an HMO is has morphed a bit over time. Today the HMO is essentially a company that blends insurance functions and health care functions. After the 1973 act, HMOs became easier to form and operate. (Daniel Polsky, health economics professor at Johns Hopkins University) Many of the early HMOs (non-profit) were bought by for-profit insurers. (Paul Starr, Pulitzer Prize author, Professor, Sociology, Princeton University)

Today, what we have is not what Nixon signed into law. The U.S. healthcare system operates through a complex hybrid model. Private insurance, primarily employer-sponsored, is the main access mode for most Americans, complemented by public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. These public programs serve critical demographic segments, with Medicare covering over 60 million elderly and Medicaid providing for over 72 million low-income individuals as of 2023.

While most Americans believe that the United States has the most advanced and best health care in the world, this is not entirely true! The facts do not support this myth. In fact, the data shows that the United States lags far behind a significant number of other nations.

The Data

A good comparative source for health care is the Office for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It collects and analyzes data from each of the 100 member countries on a wide range of social, economic and health-related topics. Its data gives insight into how the health of the U.S. population compares with the health of other countries. The data compared the U.S. with other OECD member countries on three health measures: infant mortality, health spending, and life expectancy.

The results show that the United States has a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy compared with most other OECD member countries. Even the top U.S. state ranked lower among member countries for the infant mortality and life expectancy measures. The United States also had the highest amount of health spending of all OECD countries.

Our Strong Points

Another good source for health statistics is the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP) Index. The Index evaluated the national healthcare systems of 32 high-income countries on four key dimensions: quality, choice, fiscal sustainability, and science and technology. Those categories were chosen to examine not only the quality of each healthcare system, but also the ability of that system to improve over time through scientific and medical advances.

The top four national healthcare systems — Switzerland, Ireland, Germany, and the Netherlands — have all achieved universal coverage in part by relying on private insurance. Those countries empower patient choice and allow private insurers to innovate without delays due to political or regulatory inaction. In addition, those systems tend to be more fiscally sustainable than the U. S. because subsidies are phased out for wealthier patients.

Ultimately, the U. S. ranked 7^th overall, a result of excellent scientific advancement (1st), good quality medical coverage (14th), and moderate choice (6^th). Such rankings allude to the nation’s relative strength in research and development along with its struggle to control rising spending on healthcare. At the same time, spending on healthcare in the United States has far outpaced other major healthcare systems without yielding better outcomes. The Index makes clear that pure scientific advancement is not enough to create a strong healthcare system; it is necessary to control rising costs and ensure that high-quality healthcare is accessible to every American

Congress and Fiscal Sustainability

The United States is positioned last (32nd) in Fiscal Sustainability, primarily due to its exceptionally high government health spending, which is the highest globally. Per capita spending reached $13,500 for this year’s Index, of which nearly $7,500 is public spending. For comparison, Switzerland, with the second-highest health spending, recorded a per capita expenditure of $9,200 but only $1,999 in public spending. The fiscal outlook for the United States is likely to worsen as healthcare inflation continues to escalate the costs associated with subsidies for Medicare, Medicaid, the employer tax exclusion, and the insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act.

Switzerland achieves universal coverage through a tightly regulated private insurance market, ensuring that everyone has access to essential care. By contrast, the U.S. relies on a fragmented mix of private and public systems, resulting in higher costs, uneven access, and significant administrative complexity.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to an affordable universal health care policy is the insurance lobby (HMOs) The insurance lobby wields substantial influence over US health policy through massive financial investments, strategic lobbying, and close relationships with lawmakers. This influence shapes legislation, regulatory priorities, and public program funding—often prioritizing industry interests over consumer outcomes. The scale of spending and the number of lobbyists involved underscore the lobby’s power, while public opinion reflects widespread concern about its impact.

What role does the insurance lobby play in the failure of meaningful reform? America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry’s main trade group, spent over $4.2 million on lobbying in just three months (July–September), marking its highest level on record for that period. This level of spending isn’t an outlier; it reflects a long-term strategy of saturating Congress with data, arguments, and pressure.

The industry is currently fighting hard to preserve enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are set to expire unless Congress acts. These subsidies directly affect millions of Americans and billions in insurer revenue. Insurers have made this extension a top legislative priority, coordinating with hospitals and other health‑sector players through coalitions like Keep Americans Covered.

Lobbyists emphasize that in today’s Washington, direct engagement (“the inside game”) is more likely to produce favorable outcomes. This means constant meetings, briefings, and relationship‑building with lawmakers and staff. The industry’s approach is sophisticated: they combine economic arguments, constituent‑impact data, and political pressure to shape legislative outcomes.

Bottom Line

The health insurance lobby wields significant, sustained influence over Congress. Their power comes from: enormous lobbying budgets, deep relationships with lawmakers, coalitions that amplify their message, and the economic stakes tied to federal health policy

They don’t win every fight, but they remain one of the most formidable players in federal policymaking. Other major lobbies which influence health policy include pharma, hospitals, and the health technology industry.

Venezuela: A Legitimate Action or Something Else?

Following yesterday’s arrest of Maduro, politicians and pundits are debating the legality of the arrest and looking for an explanation of the actions taken by the Trump administration. While I have my personal opinions, the following is a look at legal arguments for and against Donald Trump’s decision to order the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, supported by U.S. military operation used to assure the success and safety of the arresting team. I have attempted to present the information as it has been reported by the media, legal experts, and the Trump administration.

Legal Arguments Against Arrest

1. Violation of International Law- Many experts argue that the operation was an illegal use of force inside a sovereign nation without its consent. Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer, said the operation was a “clear violation of international law.” (Lisa Mascaro, Joshua Goodman and Ben Finley, “Capture of Maduro and U.S. claim it will run Venezuela raise new legal questions,” The Associated Press) The military strikes inside Caracas typically require either UN authorization, self‑defense justification, or host‑nation consent—none of which were present.

2. No Congressional Authorization–The U.S. Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war. Trump’s own chief of staff previously said that. Congress was not notified before the operation, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. (Tom Hals and Andrew Goudsward,“Was the US capture of Venezuela’s president legal?” Reuters, January 3, 2026)

3. Inconsistent Legal Justification—Experts note the administration blurred the line betweena law enforcement action (arresting an indicted individual), anda military regime‑change operation (Trump’s statements about “running” Venezuela and taking its oil). Jeremy Paul of Northeastern University said:“You cannot say this was a law enforcement operation and then turn around and say now we need to run the country.” (Hals, Goudsward)

4. No Extradition Treaty or Legal Basis for Seizure–The U.S. has no extradition treaty with Venezuela.Mark Nevitt, former Navy attorney, said “I see no legal basis for us to go into another country and take a leader without an extradition treaty.” (Mascaro, Goodman, Finley)

5. Precedent of Unlawful Targeted Killings/Strikes–The U.S. had already conducted 35 boat strikes, killing more than 115 people since September. Many experts say this likely violated U.S. and international law. (Mascaro, Goodman, Finley)

Legal Arguments for Arrest (These are the justifications the Trump administration or its defenders have offered.)

1. Maduro Was Under U.S. Indictment—Maduro had been indicted in New York on narcoterrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges in 2020. The Justice Department requested military assistance to apprehend him. (Hals, Goudsward) Attorney General Pam Bondi said the defendants would “face the full wrath of American justice.” (Hall, Goudsword) This frames the operation as a law enforcement action, not an act of war.

2. National Security Justification–The administration claimed Maduro supported drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations, responsible for thousands of U.S. deaths from illegal drug use. (Hall, Goudsword)Under this theory, the president can act to protect U.S. national security without prior congressional approval.

3. Precedent for Limited Military Actions Without Congress— Presidents of both parties have used military force without congressional authorization whenthe action was limited in scope andtied to national interests. Examples that are often cited includeReagan in Grenada, Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya and George H. W. Bush in Panama. The administration may argue this operation fits that pattern.

4. Maduro’s Status as an “Illegitimate Leader” —Some international actors and the U.S. government had previously recognized Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela. If Maduro is not recognized as head of state, the argument goes, the U.S. did not violate sovereignty by seizing him.

Other Factors

President Trump has been clear that the United States will run the country and rebuild the oil industry in Venezuela. How can this be accomplished? Who benefits the most from this plan?

China and Cuba have been major importers of Venezuelan oil. How will the United States deal with the complications in oil trade?

The United States entered a foreign county and arrested its leader. Does this mean that the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia can be justified? Can China reclaim Tawain? Can Netanyahu be arrested by another country and presented to the United Nations since he is currently wanted for war crimes by the World Court? Can a country be justified in kidnapping President Trump if they don’t like him?

Summary

There are so many questions that this incident has raised. How will Congress react? Should Americans allow their government to act as the sole authority on issues that impact our nation? There are many opinions. As is apparent from the above arguments for and against the legality of Maduro’s arrest, the weight of the legal arguments makes it apparent that the arrest, supported by the military, was illegal. The arguments supporting the administration are justifications, not legal interpretations.

Nigeria—A Real Crisis or a Distraction?

The Trump administration, following the President’s post, shared that the United States had attacked terrorists in Nigeria. To be fair, President Trump had warned Boko Haram that if they continued to carry out attacks on Christians that they would pay a heavy price. The question that should be asked is, “Are terrorist organizations in Nigeria targeting Christians in a jihad?” The answer should be easy to find in the news media. However, there has been little to no mention of a jihad against Christians in Nigeria, except in social media, blogs, and right leaning Christian media. Mainstream churches have not mentioned any concerns. Mainstream non-biased media had not covered any stories related to a Christian jihad. The Nigerian government, while struggling with political turmoil, did not report any targeted attacks on only Christians.

Questions need to be asked and researched, and the source of the reporting needs to be considered in any evaluation. I advise you to look to mainstream media that generally do not have a right or left leaning bias. To verify this check out the AllSides Media Bias Chart (allsidesmedia.com) or The Media Bias Chart (adfontsmedia.com).

Are Christians being killed? Yes, but so are Muslims and other Nigerians. Nigeria is a nation with mostly Christians in the north and Muslims in the south. There have been clashes between farmers and herders in central Nigeria, much like the former problems in our own country decades ago. The herders are primarily Muslim, while the farmers are generally Christian. Most of these disputes are over access to water and pasture. However, there is little evidence that either group is disproportionately at fault. Olajumoke Ayandele, an assistant professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs who specializes in conflict studies, told the AP that the violence in Nigeria represents widespread killings rather than targeted attacks against a specific group.

What are the neutral mainstream media saying? The BBC reports that there is NO evidence that more Christians are being killed than Muslims. Al Jazeera reported that there are reports of attacks by Boko Haram and other fringe groups. However, the attacks do not target only Christians. The attacks are not about religion. The Associated Press reports that analysis does not support the idea of genocide as defined by the United Nations. There is no one group dedicated to destroying a religious group. Reports claiming “Christian genocide” hide the fact that Nigeria is having an ongoing civil conflict.

Although less known, the Armed Conflict Location and Event (ACLED) organization reports that most of the victims of Boko Haram and the Islamic State have been Muslims. Since 2009, 53,000 civilians have been killed due to internal civil conflicts. The group reports that data from right wing Christian groups claiming that 100,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria, is not supported by the data. Most deaths are attributed to political power grabs, land disputes, cult affiliations, and simple banditry. (acleddata.com March 15, 2024)

The issues in Nigeria are not about Christian genocide. The U.S. involvement appears to be another distraction from the political turmoil in Washington.

Donald Trump and the International Criminal Court

Historical Background

It has been 50 years since the United Nations first recognized the need to establish an international criminal court, to prosecute crimes such as genocide. On December 9, 1948, the General Assembly, “Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required, adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states (countries) or if a situation is referred by the U.N. Security Council.

“In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realization. We will do our part to see it through till the end. We ask you . . . to do yours in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity. Only then will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they, too, may sleep under the cover of justice; that they, too, have rights, and that those who violate those rights will be punished.” — Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General

The Roman Statute (named for its introduction in Rome, Italy) establishing the ICC was signed by 125 countries. Former President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in December 2000, but according to official documentation, the U.S. government under the Bush administration, requested the country’s removal from the treaty before ratification. Other non-signers included China, Russia, and Israel. The United States did not sign the Rome Statute for several reasons, primarily related to concerns over the jurisdiction and effectiveness of the ICC. The U.S. government also expressed fears that the court’s jurisdiction cold be politicized and that it might not be effective in preventing unwanted scrutiny of U.S. military personnel and officials.

The ICC’s Role

The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. The Court is participating in a global fight to end impunity, and through international criminal justice, the Court aims to hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again.

Today the Court has over 900 staff members from approximately 100 States. It is Headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands. Since 2002, there have been 34 cases before the Court, with some cases having more than one suspect. ICC judges have issued a total of 61 arrest warrants. Since 2002, thanks to cooperation from member countries, 22 people have been detained in the ICC detention center and have appeared before the Court. Thirty-two people remain at large. Charges have been dropped against 8 people due to their deaths. ICC judges have also issued 9 summons to appear. The judges have issued 13 convictions and 4 acquittals.

The Office of the Prosecutor is an independent organ of the Court. The Prosecutor conducts preliminary examinations and investigations, and is the only one who can bring cases before the Court. Defendants are entitled to public, fair proceedings that they can follow in a language they fully understand. Victims’ voices are heard in the Courtroom, as the Rome Statute grants victims unprecedented rights to participate in ICC proceedings. The ICC has a victim and witness protection program that uses both operational and procedural protective measures.

The Court engages in two-way dialogue directly with communities that have suffered from crimes under its jurisdiction, so that they can communicate directly with the Court and gain a sense of ownership in the judicial process. By supporting the Court, the countries that have joined the Rome Statute system have taken a stand against those perpetrators who, in the past, would have had no one to answer to after committing widespread, systematic international crimes. The ICC calls on all countries to join the fight against impunity, so that perpetrators of such crimes are punished, and to help prevent future occurrences of these crimes. (UN International Criminal Court)

The Trump Administration’s Attack

The Trump administration’s dislike of the court goes back to his first term. The ICC was investigating possible war crimes committed by the United States, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan. As a result, in 2020, The Trump administration imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court’s work.

During his second term, on August 20, 2025, President Donald Trump’s administration again imposed sanctions on two judges and two prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, as Washington ramped up its pressure on the ICC over its targeting of Israeli leaders. Washington designated sanctions against Nicolas Yann Guillou of France, Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji, Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal, and Kimberly Prost of Canada, according to the U.S. Treasury and State Department. The designations freeze any U.S. assets the individuals may have and essentially cut them off from the U.S. financial system. All officials have been involved in cases linked to Israel and the United States. In a statement, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the court “a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare” against the United States and Israel. ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defense chief Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri last November for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict. The ICC also has high-profile war crimes investigations under way in Sudan, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Venezuela. (Humeyra Pamuk and Anthony Deutsch, Reuters, August 20, 2025)

“The United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC’s politicization, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach,” Rubio said. “I urge countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to resist the claims of this bankrupt institution.” Countering Rubio’s call to other countries to oppose the ICC, the court urged member states to stand in solidarity. “The Court calls upon States Parties [countries] and all those who share the values of humanity and the rule of law to provide firm and consistent support to the Court and its work carried out in the sole interest of victims of international crimes,”

Both France and the United Nations said the judges’ work is crucial for international justice. “Their role is essential in the fight against impunity,” a statement from the French Foreign Ministry said. The U.S. sanctions undermine the foundation of international justice, U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said, adding: “The (U.S.) decision imposes severe impediments on the functioning of the office of the prosecutor.” Netanyahu’s office issued a statement welcoming the U.S. sanctions.

Trump’s Pressure Campaign Against the ICC Reaches New Heights

On December 10, 2025, a U.S. official told Reuters that the White House pressured the International Criminal Court (ICC) to alter its founding document to prevent it from investigating U.S. President Donald Trump and his senior officials. These threats mark a significant escalation in Trump’s long-time campaign against the world’s war crimes tribunal at a time when legal experts are suggesting that the administration may have violated international law with U.S. military operations against alleged drug boats near Latin America.

The White House wants the court to alter the Rome Statute so Trump and his officials can’t be prosecuted. The anonymous U.S. official did not specify which issues the Trump administration fears could become subject to an ICC investigation. However, the official said there was growing concern that “in 2029, the ICC will turn its attention to the president, to the vice president, to the secretary of war and others, and pursue prosecutions against them,” referring to Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The timing of the renewed pressure campaign comes as the White House faces growing congressional pressure to release the full, unedited video of a Sept. 2 double-tap strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean, in which a second strike killed two survivors of an initial U.S. attack. According to the U.S. official, the Trump administration wants the ICC to also formally end its probe into U.S. military actions in Afghanistan as well as to drop its investigations of senior Israeli officials related to the war in Gaza.

The Trump administration has threatened to penalize more ICC officials and potentially sanction the court itself if its three demands are not met. (Alexandra Sharp, the World Brief writer at Foreign Policy)

The Trump Hegseth War on Drugs

One the issues that the Trump administration campaigned on was the alleged out of control drug problem. Following President Trump’s lead, his Secretary of Defense (War) has declared a full-scale war on “narco terrorists.” Since July, Secretary Hegseth has ordered twenty-one strikes against the narco terrorists, blowing up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that were allegedly transporting illegal drugs to the United States. Nothing new! The war began under Richard Nixon.

As a police officer more than 50 years ago, I arrested drug users and dealers. I was often frustrated by the way the legal system handled many of these drug cases. I saw people die from overdosing! I wanted stronger penalties for those who sold drugs. Over the past decades various efforts have been made to curb drug abuse, with little or no apparent success.

The “War on Drugs”

In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one” and announced what would soon be known as the country’s “war on drugs”. The policy promised to cleanse streets of narcotics, dismantle trafficking networks, and deliver a safer environment for Americans.

Instead, according to estimates by the Center for American Progress, decades of punitive policing and militarized crackdowns left the U.S. with a record number of overdose deaths, one of the world’s highest incarceration rates, and more than $1 trillion spent, with little measurable impact on drug availability or demand. The war on drugs helped reshape policing and criminal justice, disproportionately sweeping Black communities into prisons. Internationally, it fueled a parallel conflict across Latin America, where U.S. backed operations deepened cycles of corruption and organized crime. Today, overdose deaths driven by fentanyl have reached historic highs.

Nixon’s administration laid the groundwork for a punitive system, including new federal agencies, tougher penalties, and a rhetoric that framed drug use as a threat to national stability. The political logic behind the move was later revealed by John Ehrlichman, a Nixon aide, who in 2016 told a reporter that the administration saw two main “enemies” – the antiwar left and Black Americans. Since the government could not criminalize dissent or race, it instead associated “hippies” with marijuana and Black communities with heroin, and then heavily criminalized both. The aim, he said, was to disrupt and discredit those communities by raiding homes, arresting leaders, and vilifying them on the news.

The campaign intensified dramatically in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 toughened sentences for marijuana possession.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, successive administrations upheld these approaches. Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill expanded federal funding for prisons, led to more aggressive policing, and introduced a controversial “three-strikes” approach– a mandatory life sentence for a third violent felony conviction.

Not much changed under the Bush and Obama administrations. It was not until the 2010s that the conversation around drug use started to change, especially as cannabis legalization expanded, and the opioid crisis – driven by prescription painkillers – showed that punishment couldn’t curb addiction. “The War on Drugs turned out to be more of a war on America’s poor than an effective solution to rampant drug abuse in the United States.”

The war on drugs did not remain limited to the US and its borders. In the 1980s, Washington funded and trained military and police forces across Latin America to fight drug trafficking at its source. In Colombia, the US invested at least $10 billion from 2000 to the present under what was known as Plan Colombia, according to the Latin America Working Group.

According to Colombian human rights organizations and Columbia’s Truth Commission, while the government succeeded in weakening some armed groups, coca cultivation eventually returned to record levels, but civilians paid a high price. Between 1985 and 2018, an estimated 450,000 people were killed in the conflicts involving the cocaine trade.

In Mexico, a government offensive launched in 2006, supported by US intelligence and equipment, caused a wave of cartel fragmentation and turf wars. Since then, more than 460,000 people have been killed, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, and tens of thousands more have disappeared. Cartels diversified into extortion, fuel theft and human smuggling, while corruption spread among police forces as well as local governments. (This section on the Drug Wars is edited from Farah Najjar’s article in El Jazzar, published On 4 Dec 2025.)

A Real War?

Today, the US continues to carry out military operations targeting alleged traffickers. More than 83 people have been killed in 21 known military strikes. The U.S. alleges that these are drug smuggling vessels.

Currently, the Trump administration appears poised for military action against Venezuela over accusations that the South American nation’s government is driving narcotics trafficking into the U.S. Could Secretary Hegseth be right? Should the U. S. declare a real war that should be fought on all fronts, whether in drug producing nations, on the high seas, or here in the United States? Just a thought!! What could go wrong!

In a declared war, soldiers (police officers) would not have to allow for the rule of law. Law enforcement officers could “take out” those that they believe are narco terrorists. No need to make an arrest. There would be no requirements for due process or a right to trial. Justice would be served on the street. Speedy and final. The drug war can be won if only Americans would give full war powers to police officers! Kill the foot soldiers. These are frightening thoughts!

The Real Solution

The US has continued to fail in treating addiction as a public health issue. As enforcement ramped up, investment in prevention treatment, and mental health care fell behind. Instead of reducing use, the environment helped drive people into other forms of consumption. Today, the US faces its deadliest drug crisis ever. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there are more than 100,000 overdose deaths each year, largely driven by synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Overdose is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18–44.

To address the US drug problem, there needs to be recognition that a war of arrest and punishment has limits. The root causes of alcohol and other drug addictions must be addressed. Treatment and recovery programs, to treat the disorder through public health initiatives, are essential.

Community engagement where citizens learn to trust their government officials and share information regarding illicit drug use should be improved. Communities need to find their own way to reduce the demand for illicit drugs. Government policies (federal, state, and local) must send the same message.

These strategies aim to reduce overdose deaths, improve treatment availability, and disrupt the drug supply chain, ultimately addressing the broader issues that contribute to the drug crisis in the United States. Some of these issues deal with poverty, associated with a low minimum wage. Too many jobs that do not pay enough to support a single person, and certainly not a family. Other issues include the need to rebuild our mental health support network and strengthen our drug rehabilitation programs.

We DON’T need a war! We need a socially based strategy to address the root causes.

The Trump Economy: An Opinion

How healthy is the Trump economy? According to President Trump, the economy is healthy, the best in recent years. But given the media reports over the past several months, I find his claim hard to believe.

I am not an economist. My most difficult courses in college were my two economic classes. However, I have recently spent days evaluating what is considered a neutral analysis on the American economy. Economic evaluations by Purdue University, the Federal Reserve, Deloitte, and Ernst and Young Parthenon report that in 2025, the U.S. economy experienced slower growth, increased inflation, and potential challenges in consumer spending as compared to 2024. In 2025, the expected economic growth rate of around 1.5% is less than it was in 2024 (2.8%). This reduced growth rate is likely due to President Trump’s high tariffs and overall reduced consumer spending (although the recent pre-Christmas shopping has set records).

The Simple Data

The unemployment rate rose slightly in 2025, reaching 4.8%, as compared to 4% in 2024. The risks surrounding the labor market have sharply increased. The increase is linked to the cooling labor market and higher costs due to tariffs. At the same time, business investment has decreased due to economic uncertainty and higher costs. This is partially due to the increased tariffs.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumer Inflation in 2024 was historically low at 2.9%. However, the 2025 annual rate is estimated to be 4.1%. While the Federal Reserve has been cautious in lowering its prime lending rate, a further cut in December could bring the target range for inflation to +3.5% – +3.75% by year-end.

These trends indicate that American businesses and citizens are having a difficult time navigating the changing federal economic policies. In addition, the uncertainty in U.S. economic policies has had an international impact. European markets are more competitive. EY Parthenon forecasts that the dollar will continue to depreciate against the Euro. The same is projected for the dollar against the yen.

How Does America Compare with Other Major World Economies?

CHINA

In 2024, China’s economic growth stood at 5.3%, but slowed to 4.8% by the end of the third quarter of 2025. The annual growth is projected to be 5%. The strengthening of private consumption is a key priority for the Chinese authorities. Despite US tariffs, manufacturing activity has been driven by export growth in other trade partnerships. However, export growth is expected to lose momentum in the coming months as the export sector suffers from the rise in protectionism and the weakening of global demand.

EUROZONE

The planned increase in military spending in Europe, and significant budgetary support in Germany, have provided a boost to the Eurozone in 2025. This trend will likely continue into 2026 if support for Ukraine remains strong. However, economic growth will be limited in the short term by trade tensions between the United States and China. Inflation is expected to remain stable around the 2% target.

FRANCE

France has a low GDP rate of 0.5%. The inflation rate continues to decline. The low GDP may be the result of significant political uncertainty and its impact on household confidence. But German economic growth recovery should push the French rate up to 1.2%.

UNITED KINGDOM

Economic activity in the United Kingdom strengthened slightly in 2025, rising to 1.3%. According to EY Parthenon, it will continue to slow to 1.0% in 2026. However, increased defense spending in the United Kingdom and Europe may support an increased GDP. Downside risks have been mitigated by the trade agreements with the United States. In 2025, inflation remained well above 2%, supported by wage growth and persistent supply-side pressures. The Bank of England cut its key interest rates again in November which may further reduce inflation.

JAPAN

Japanese growth has been increasing throughout most of 2025. However, due to the US trade policy, the negative consequences for export businesses have resulted in muting this growth. Household consumption is facing inflation. The Bank of Japan has started a cautious monetary tightening cycle, bringing the key rate to +0.5%. In December, the rate was raised again to deal with persistent inflationary pressures.

Final Observations

In summary, the United States economic policies under President Trump have eroded the gains achieved during previous years. For example, President Biden had inherited a troubled economy due to the COVID outbreak and the Trump administration’s “American Economic Revival” plans. (See Trump’s 2016 speech in Time, September 15, 2016.)

When President Joe Biden left the White House economics reported a strong economy, historic gains in the job market, a foundation for future manufacturing growth, and having brought down decades-highinflation without triggering a recession. Those feats, economists say, are even more impressive considering the nation was deep in the throes of a deadly, economy-scarring pandemic

Post Trump administration analysis of his American Economic Revival plan found that the plan did not work. Economist Justin Wolfers wrote in February 2019: “I’ve reviewed surveys of about 50 leading economists – liberals and conservatives – run by the University of Chicago. What is startling is that the economists are nearly unanimous in concluding that Mr. Trump’s policies are destructive.”

In my opinion, the second term Trump policies are no better than those of his first term. President Trump has placed the country in an economic position that is less than favorable in the world economy, and more importantly, domestically. Inflation is still high. The unemployment rate is static. Trump tariffs have increased prices domestically and alienated many nations. In early 2025, the Yale Budget Lab estimated that consumer prices would rise by 1.4% to 5.1%, with an average cost per household of $1,900 to $7,600. In a Yahoo/YouGov poll conducted Nov. 21-24, 49% of respondents said Trump’s actions, since taking office for his second term in January, have raised prices instead of cutting them. Only 24% said he’s lowered costs.

Did Slotkin, Kelly, Houlahan, Deluzio, Goodlander, and Crow Say Anything Illegal?

Senator Slotkin and six others recently posted a video reminding our military that they can refuse illegal orders. President Trump’s team is upset, saying that the President is the Commander-In-Chief and his orders must be followed. He also said that Slotkin and her “co-conspirators” are traitors and should be executed. Did they cross the line? Can soldiers, police officers, and other line personnel refuse an order. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is clear for military personnel. And, as a police officer, I was taught the same material. A soldier or police officer can refuse illegal orders. The question is, what is an illegal order? Equally at issue is whether the Commander in Chief has issued any illegal orders that can be refused.

Members of the military have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to refuse illegal or unlawful orders. The oath that soldiers take provides a duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not a loyalty to the Commander-In-Chief or his subordinates. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means. The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders that are beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The Rules go on to say, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal.

Has the Commander in Chief or his delegates issued any orders that are unlawful? To date, as far as the public knows, there has been no military action to ignore any of President Trump’s directives. However, there have been numerous orders/directives, which have come under scrutiny by Congress, retired military, and the media. The question yet to be answered is “If you were given orders to take part in any military actions or asked to deploy to support the ordered actions which are possibly illegal, what would you do?”

What action has the Trump administration taken that involve the military, and once adjudicated, could be found to be illegal? The first action during his second term occurred in Los Angeles. The military (guard and marines) were called to duty to support ICE officers. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions– primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.” The use of guard units has continued in operations in other cities. The issue has met with stalled legal action.

Most recently the Secretary of Defense (War) has ordered the Navy to attack vessels in international or foreign waters. And this week, the Washington Post reported that the Secretary had ordered attacks on surviving crew members or passengers of vessels sunk at sea.

Also, this week the President has signaled a pending invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals. This action follows earlier suggestions that the United States might attack, invade, or attempt to seize control of the Panama Canal by force. President Trump has also not ruled out “preemptive” use of military force against China, Iran, or other countries, or to annex Greenland or Canada. International law prohibits the use of military force except in retaliation for a military strike or in the face of an imminent military strike.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Absent such a declaration, an order to deploy to in many situations is legally questionable. In the above situations, Congress has not declared war. However, no U.S. military action since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the result of a declaration of war. In place of a declaration of War is the Gulf of Tolkin Act which requires that the President receive permission from Congress to continue military operations beyond 30 days. As for self-defense, none of these countries have declared war against the U.S., attacked the U.S., or is preparing an imminent attack. However, an order to deploy is presumed to be lawful. The question of whether an order to deploy in the absence of a constitutionally required declaration of war can only be decided by a military judge at a court-martial.

The Military Law Task Force urges anyone who is deployed or might be facing a future deployment or order or is facing court-martial for refusing an illegal order, to call The Military Law Task Force for a referral to a civilian attorney or counselor to discuss their options.

Did our six Congressional Representatives do anything that could be considered treason? Absolutely NOT! They simply noted that our military personnel need to know that they can refuse an illegal order.

What Can I Do?

Whether it is climate change, animal rights, pollution, civil rights, or other political problems, I am often asked, “What Can I Do? I’m just one person!” That’s true. As one person, you have little power to influence the direction of policy. But one person can influence another person, who might influence another person, and so on. As an individual you need to share your voice with others. When you become a small group, you have power, and the larger the group, the more power.

We have all seen the media coverage on the “No Kings” march. That is a group action that cannot be ignored. If you are concerned about recent government efforts to minimize the fact that there is global warming, you should be focusing on COP30. World leader from almost all the nations of the world have pushed back against the Trump administration’s dismantling of our nation’s environmental protection plans. The world is moving ahead with efforts to reduce global warming. And while the Trump administration did not have any representatives present, there were many American mayors, governors, business owners, and individuals who did attend.

Do NOT sit on the sidelines asking, “What can I do?” Talk with those who may agree with you. Have civil conversations with those who have differing opinions. Work to organize small groups, write letters, send emails, and send texts. Get involved. The more the average American becomes an advocate for a cause, the more likely some action will eventually come about.

It can take only one person to start a movement. Consider Candy Lightner, Rosa Parks, Harvey Milkman, Margaret Sanger, David Hogg, Ross Pero, Lydia Marie Child, Ida B. Wells, and many others too numerous to name. Smaller movements on the local level can also reap benefits. For example, in McDonough County, the Macomb Woman’s Club worked for years to bring glass recycling to the county. Now over 12 tons of glass has been recycled since June 26, 2025. You can make a difference! Get involved whether it be at the local, regional, state or national levels!

We The People

I just finished reading In the Hands of the People: Thomas Jefferson on Equality, Faith, Freedom, Compromise, and the Art of Citizenship for the second time. Our small book club had decided to discuss it at our last meeting. While most of you probably do not need to hear the following, I am compelled to speak out to those who say, “It’s politics and I don’t want to get involved.” Or “I don’t want to have my life interrupted by all that bad news, so don’t talk about it.” Our Constitution starts with the familiar words, “We the People.” Our founding fathers’ vision was revolutionary. The government would be in the hands of the people, not kings or other individuals. They knew they were taking a chance. People were accustomed to having government make decisions for them, not having the option to make their own choices.

These same founding fathers, while holding doubts about the long-term viability of their creation, believed that a well-educated and informed people would make good choices in this republican system of representative democracy. Public education was supported by Washington, Jefferson, Adams and many others. Educated people who had access to information, whether biased or not, could and would make good decisions. With these dreams in mind, subsequent generations of Americans improved education and created a Fourth estate to provide good information even when it showed obvious bias. We the People were controlling our own destiny.

However, in recent years, complacency has become common. Many of the People have failed to keep fully informed, basing their judgment on biased or limited information. Our education system has reduced the amount of teaching in civics, history, and social sciences. There have been successful efforts to restrict information that does not conform to standards established by power groups. Too many citizens have failed to realize that the government that they are criticizing is a criticism of self. If you are not informed and engaged, if you fail to take part in your government, you have no justification for complaining.

Get informed. Know your sources of information. Research “hot topic” issues. Engage in civil discussions with your friends and acquaintances. Take time to know what your elected representatives believe. Take part in local, state, and federal elections. Don’t tell me “I don’t want to hear about it!”