Because President Donald Trump administration’s immediately responded to the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by demonizing them and defending the immigration officers who shot them dead, it seems a safe bet the Justice Department won’t fully investigate or seriously consider pursuing criminal charges in either shooting. Consequently, there’s a pervasive sinking feeling that there’ll never be a resolution and that the two Minneapolis shootings will remain a festering wound. Each side has put forward its preferred narrative, and while one subset of Americans wouldn’t trust an inquiry by the Republicans who control the federal government, another subset wouldn’t trust an inquiry led by Minnesota Democrats.
What America needs is something similar to the 9/11 Commission.
What America needs, then, is something similar to the 9/11 Commission: an independent, nonpartisan national commission created by Congress and empowered to investigate the facts surrounding these shootings and the broader circumstances that allowed them to occur. Such a commission should be led by respected, nonpartisan professionals, perhaps former judges or inspectors general, who are chosen for their professional integrity and independence, not political affiliation and can be expected to gather the facts in a fair and objective manner. With the appointment of such commissioners and a mandate that the process be transparent, Congress could help instill confidence in the fairness of the outcome.
As was the case with the 9/11 Commission, the goal of this commission wouldn’t be a mere determination of what happened in two tragic encounters but insight into what happened before the tragedies. In this case, we would expect such a commission to give its attention to the systemic practices — including federal use-of-force rules, coordination (or lack thereof) with local authorities, body-worn camera usage and the chain of command — under which these operations were conducted. Beyond finding facts, we’d want such a panel to prescribe reforms to prevent future tragedies, whether through clearer use-of-force guidelines, mandatory body cameras, better community engagement protocols or new oversight mechanisms.
Both senior Democrats and Republicans have called for an independent review of what happened in Minneapolis, and such an independent commission would be good for both sides of the aisle. For example, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., expressed skepticism on Thursday of the official account of Pretti’s killing and DHS’ response since then.
A commission likely would not descend into partisan bickering like the Jan. 6 committee; rather, it would give time for cooler heads to prevail and allow breathing space to deescalate the tensions. Second, a transparent process with neutral arbiters would instill confidence that all voices and relevant evidence are considered. Even if some ultimately disagree with the commission’s findings, there will likely be public confidence that the process was fair. That alone would help lower the temperature and reduce the risk of further escalation.
Those who believe the federal agents were justified in those shootings should welcome such a review, as an independent review could exonerate the officers. On the flip side, those who believe the officers used excessive force should also welcome an independent review because they’re not inclined to trust an internal review conducted by the same agencies whose actions are under scrutiny, especially not when the relevant leaders immediately labeled the shooting victims “domestic terrorists.”
Normally, I would call for the inspector general to take the lead, but this is a unique circumstance.
I’m speaking from experience. When I was inspector general of the U.S. Department of the Interior, my office conducted a review of a 2017 fatal federal law enforcement shooting of an unarmed person in a vehicle just outside Washington, D.C.
The circumstances were eerily similar to the Good shooting and, like the Minnesota events, were highly politicized. We ultimately found that the Park Police officers’ actions did not violate relevant policies.
Normally, I would call for the relevant agency inspector general to take the lead, as they are perfectly positioned to conduct independent reviews. But this is a unique circumstance. First, DHS has reportedly threatened to shut down the OIG’s oversight over immigration-related efforts. In my experience, no agency has ever used this authority to terminate an IG’s oversight, but even that threat could hang over the IG’s head like the Sword of Damocles. Second, while I have great confidence in the professionals in the OIG community across the federal government, Democrats have previously called for the resignation of the DHS inspector general and, thus, are unlikely to trust the results from that office.
To be clear, the DHS OIG staff is professional and capable of high-quality work. But I don’t see Congress having any confidence in the credibility of reports under this IG’s signature. Removing these matters from DHS and placing them in the hands of an external, transparent and credible commission would bring forensic rigor, public legitimacy and moral authority is the right for this moment of profound national consequence.
We are at an inflection point. Minneapolis is not the only place these issues are unfolding. Protests and debates are happening across the country, from Boston to San Francisco. Confidence in federal law enforcement, especially when local communities feel disenfranchised from the process, is fraying. Trust, once lost, is hard to rebuild.
The country deserve a process rooted in honesty, fairness and accountability.
America deserves more than competing narratives. The country deserve a process rooted in honesty, fairness and accountability. To those who argue that existing mechanisms are sufficient, I would say this: A crisis that roils the country demands an extraordinary response. Ordinary oversight cannot repair extraordinary damage to public trust. Ordinary explanations cannot address extraordinary questions about federal authority, force and the rights of citizens.
An independent commission, modeled on the 9/11 Commission or other bipartisan inquiries into national trauma, would bring clarity where there is confusion. It would give context where there is chaos. History will judge us not by what we say today, but by what steps we take tomorrow. Let us act with courage, with integrity and with the resolve to restore public trust in the institutions that must serve us all.
