Renee Good was murdered by Johnathan Ross, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, on the 7th of January 2026 (Thomas, 2026) when attempting to flee ICE agents. Ross’s role as an ICE agent – an arm of the state—classifies this event as an act of state violence (Wertheimer, 2026). Through the case study of Good and the State narratives created around her murder, this essay seeks to demonstrate how state violence is fiercely legitimated through the state’s creation of narratives. Furthermore, the essay contends that the state’s monopoly over the use, designation, and definition of violence gives it a disproportionate ability to create narratives legitimating state violence, as demonstrated in Good’s case. In the wake of her murder, Good’s actions were discussed, deconstructed and interrogated to shift focus from Ross’s lethal use of force, a deliberate method of legitimation to discredit the victim. Only once Good was portrayed as extreme and violent did the state narrative shift towards Ross: his actions were then constructed as self-defensive and driven by fear. The Trump administration’s language choices were purposeful, aiming to protect its agent and legitimise the use of state force to murder a civilian. Therefore, this essay hopes to lay bare the harmful narratives which seek to legitimise state violence.

Understanding Violence and the State

Violence has been consistently linked to the state; Weber’s conception of the state centres on its “monopoly over the legitimate use of force”, positing that the state’s true power is underpinned by its ability to gatekeep legitimate violence and to delegate this legitimate violence to its extensions, such as the police (Weber, Gerth and Mills, 2009). However, this monopoly is not absolute; it is a claim to the use of force that must be constantly asserted and enforced (Anter, 2019). Consequently, to assert this monopoly, states must also claim the power to designate what counts as violence and when such violence is legitimate (Dos Santos, 2022). In this context, legitimacy refers to the empirical “acceptance of a discourse of legitimation” rather than to a normative conception of what is just or rational (Herzbrun-Dayan, Lowy and Varikas, 2022). The ability to shape these legitimating narratives is unequally distributed, concentrated in the hands of the state because of its monopoly over violence (CrimethInc, 2012). Therefore, to maintain this monopoly, the state must work to manufacture fitting narratives that frame specific instances of state force as acceptable. As the state has significant influence over the narrative through which its own force is understood, it is often able to manufacture a context that enables its force to be seen as acceptable amongst enough of the public, affording the violence it commits legitimacy. This essay seeks to highlight the methods and language used to build these legitimating contexts for state violence.

ICE is a federal U.S. law enforcement agency tasked with enforcing immigration law; it receives an average of $37.5bn annually (RepresentUS, no date). Its standing as an extension of the state and its powers must be considered in understanding Ross’s murder of Good as an act of state violence. Ross, as an ICE agent, was acting on behalf of ICE and, in turn, the federal government. This also contextualises the Trump administration’s systematic legitimation of Good’s murder. If state power relies on the monopoly on legitimate violence, then the American State and the Trump administration can be understood as holding a vested interest in constructing Ross’s actions, understood as a form of state violence, as legitimate to reiterate the wider legitimacy of state violence, re-securing their monopoly (Anter, 2019). The Trump administration sought to legitimate this use of state force by constructing a narrative of self-defence, beginning with the victim’s apparent violence.

Emphasising the Victim’s Violence

The groundwork of the American state’s legitimating narrative of Good’s murder was to shift focus away from Ross’s actions and towards Good’s. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that Good had “weaponised her car”, and President Trump labelled her actions as a “moment of violence” (Zurcher, 2026). This language, provided by arms of the state, emphasises that the victim’s actions must be considered in our understanding of the use of state force, clouding responsibility. Donegan (2026) succinctly expressed that federal authorities were “eager” to demonise Good rather than investigate Ross’s lethal shooting. The claim that she “weaponised her car” can be proven false; the SUV’s wheels turned away in an attempt to flee the ICE agents, not to attack them (Hjersted, 2026). Regardless of the facts, the Trump administration’s narrative focused on framing Good negatively, a well-utilised tool to legitimise state violence.

As Hjersted (2026) articulates, police killings often become a “referendum on the victim’s character” with intense discourse surrounding factors ranging from their clothing to compliance. However, whilst Good was subject to this victim-blaming, it is important to note that this construction was likely tempered by Good’s position as a white woman. Victim-blaming is most prevalent when victims of state violence are African American. Black criminalisation—the over-perception of Black people as criminals—means that the........

© E-International