Here are the undisputable facts. Over the past month, two people have been killed by federal law enforcement officers in Minnesota. On January 7, 2026, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent shot and killed Renee Good, a mother of three. Then, on January 24, 2026, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent shot and killed Alex Pretti, a Veterans Affairs ICU nurse. Both were American citizens. Neither had criminal records.

What is disputed—and will probably remain unresolved without consensus for some time—is the answer to the question: “Were Good and Pretti breaking the law and threatening the lives of ICE agents so that their shootings were justified?”

I’ve watched innumerable videos of the shootings taken from multiple angles, I’ve read countless social media posts by both experts and armchair analysts alike, and I’ve listened to the official statements by government officials like President Trump, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

Frankly, I’m a bit tired and frustrated by it all. Everyone has an opinion. And like so many topics about current events these days, those opinions are often entirely predictable by the political affiliation of the person offering them. The endless back and forth gets us no closer to the truth.

Rejecting the Evidence of Our Eyes and Ears

One side of the debate—let’s call it the Red Position—says Good and Pretti were interfering with law enforcement operations and foolishly putting themselves in danger by their presence and actions. It argues that they were attacking federal agents, so that justifiable force was necessary to defend the agents from bodily harm.

The other side of this debate—the Blue Position—says that Good and Pretti’s behaviors were acting well within their Constitutional rights without putting anyone in harm’s way, so that their shootings amounted to unjustified executions. It argues that claims to the contrary amount to the federal government asking us to, as George Orwell wrote in 1984, “reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.”

That two people can witness the same events and draw such disparate, but predictable conclusions is a sign of both our times and our downfall as a country. But how is it possible to hold such discordant beliefs about the same incident?

To explain, let’s start by recognizing that these days, we’re often exposed to—and trust—different informational sources.

The Red Position is largely supported by the Trump administration. Indeed, President Trump wrote that Good “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE officer” so that it was “hard to believe he is alive.”¹ Trump administration officials reported that the ICE officer who shot her suffered from “internal injuries” from her car. Noem labeled Pretti a “domestic terrorist” while a social media post by her agency claimed that Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement” and that the CBP agent who shot him “fired defensive shots” because he was “fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers.³

The Blue Position is supported by liberals and Democrats like Governor Walz, who, last year, called ICE a “modern-day Gestapo.”⁴ Speaking to the press more recently, he asked a national audience, “What side do you want to be on? The side of an all-powerful federal government that can kill, injure, menace and kidnap its citizens off the streets? On the side of a nurse at the VA hospital [Pretti] who died bearing witness to such a government? Or the side of a mother whose last words were, ‘I’m not mad at you’ [Good]?”⁵

So it is that some people adopt the Red or Blue Position simply because they believe what they’ve been told by their trusted ideological sources, whether or not the information they’re relying on is accurate or provides the full picture.

Morality and Motivated Reasoning

As I explain in my book False: How Mistrust, Disinformation, and Motivated Reasoning Make Us Believe Things That Aren’t True, however, an understanding of motivated reasoning is necessary to account for how two people can view the same evidence but interpret it so differently. Motivated reasoning means that we interpret evidence in a biased fashion that supports our ideological identities as well as our associated moral stances.

While many of our beliefs relate to objective and provable facts, our ideological identities are also rooted in subjective values (beliefs about what’s important or not) and morals (beliefs about what’s right or wrong and good or bad). Moral beliefs in particular are held with a “binary bias” so that they are seen as “black and white” absolutes.

MAGA Republicans who believe that ICE is performing a vital function view President Trump, Noem, and ICE agents as good, whereas individuals like Good and Pretti who try to disrupt ICE are bad. Accordingly, they’re likely to interpret the evidence in a way that supports the Red Position. When they watch video of Good’s shooting, they judge that Good did try to run over the ICE agent who shot her. When they read about Pretti, they conclude that since he had a concealed carry gun on him, it must have meant he was looking for trouble and planning mayhem. And when they see videos and social media posts supporting the Red Position, they’re all too eager to repost and share.

Liberal Democrats who view President Trump and ICE as bad are likely to interpret the evidence in a way that supports the Blue Position. When they watch Good’s shooting, it looks like she was trying to drive away, not run over anyone. When they watch Pretti’s, they note that he was trying to provide aid to a woman, never drew his gun, and had been disarmed before he was ever shot.

The considerable power of motivated reasoning is best appreciated when it results in logical inconsistency and hypocrisy, as it often does. Those supporting the Red Position argue that people like Good and Pretti shouldn’t have been interfering with ICE operations. But when they talk about the events of January 6, 2021, they view the “protesters” as heroes and the killing of Ashli Babbitt as an injustice. They accept that when Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people during a protest, he was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights to carry a semi-automatic rifle in public and was acting in self-defense. It’s the same for supporters of the Blue Position, only backward.

A Breaking Point?

What’s interesting now, following Pretti’s death, is how the morality of 2nd Amendment gun rights—which are often defended based on the need for citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government—may be leading to a breaking point for some Red Position defenders. After White House Senior Advisor Stephen Miller called Pretti a “would-be assassin [who] tried to murder federal law enforcement”⁶ and FBI Director Kash Patel told Fox News viewers, “You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines, to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple,”⁷ there’s been a backlash against demonizing Pretti’s intentions based on his possession of a gun.

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie commented that, “Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it’s a constitutionally protected God-given right, and if you don’t understand this, you have no business in law enforcement or government.”⁸ And the National Rifle Association (NRA) called assertions that those who carry guns risk being lawfully shot by officers “dangerous and wrong” and called for a full investigation of Pretti’s shooting.⁸

Although there’s no shortage of opinions about whether or not the shootings of Good and Pretti were justified, this isn’t a “both sides” issue. The truth is knowable and only one side is right, but justifiability is a legal question, not a moral one. As the NRA suggests, the only way to determine the answer is thorough investigations of the shootings. Let’s hope they happen—and that they’re conducted by objective analysts who aren’t already committed to the Red or Blue Position before they look at the evidence.