“Shameful, Disgusting, and Gaslighting”: Rep. Melanie Stansbury Erupts Over Minneapolis Shooting Cover-Up and Demands Impeachment of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem

In the volatile political landscape of early 2026, the lines between law enforcement, political rhetoric, and constitutional crisis have blurred into a dangerous smog. Following the fatal shooting of Renee Goode in Minneapolis—an event that has already sparked protests and deepened the partisan divide—New Mexico Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury appeared on “MS NOW” to deliver one of the most blistering critiques of the current administration to date. Her target? The entire upper echelon of the executive branch, from Vice President JD Vance to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem.

Stansbury’s interview was not merely a reaction to a tragedy; it was an indictment of a system she claims has abandoned the rule of law for the rule of force. With allegations ranging from the mishandling of lethal force protocols to a high-level cover-up of the Jeffrey Epstein files, the Congresswoman painted a picture of a government at war with its own people.

The “Cell Phone” Allegation

The centerpiece of Stansbury’s outrage is the specific, chilling detail regarding the final moments of Renee Goode’s life. The official narrative, pushed by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, is that the federal officer involved was “following training and protocol” when he engaged Goode, who administration officials have labeled a “domestic terrorist” and a “deranged leftist.”

Stansbury, however, presented a radically different version of events—one she claims is backed by video evidence.

“The officer who shot her was videotaping at the same time,” Stansbury revealed, holding up her own phone to demonstrate the absurdity of the action. “He had a lethal weapon in his right hand… and Kristi Noem dares to say he was following his training and protocol? You’re trained to hold the phone in one hand and shoot with another?”

This specific allegation—that a federal agent prioritized filming a confrontation over the safe and proper handling of a firearm—undercuts the administration’s defense of “professional conduct.” In law enforcement training, the two-handed grip is standard for stability and accuracy. To fire one-handed while recording suggests a cavalier attitude toward lethal force that Stansbury described as “absolutely shameful, disgusting, and gaslighting the American people.”

The implication is terrifying: If federal agents are entering volatile situations more concerned with capturing content for a “war-themed” narrative than with de-escalating threats, the streets have become a stage for performative violence.

The Rhetoric of Dehumanization

Beyond the tactical failures, Stansbury took aim at the rhetoric coming from the White House. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary Noem have been united in their characterization of the deceased, Renee Goode, framing her as a violent threat to the social order.

Stansbury rejected this framing entirely. “To see the Vice President of the United States over and over and over again go on social media and national television and attack a victim of a crime… and to have zero empathy for a mother who was shot and her family… is absolutely shameful.”

This clash of narratives is emblematic of the 2026 political climate. On one side, the administration views protestors and obstructionists as “enemies of the state” or “foreign invaders” (even when they are citizens). On the other, critics like Stansbury see a grieving family and a mother of three who was executed without due process.

Stansbury argued that Vance’s rhetoric serves a specific, dark purpose. By calling federal officers “immune” and vilifying their targets, he is issuing a “dog whistle.”

“He is saying to federal officers that if you are out there on the streets, you can kill with impunity,” Stansbury charged. “And so that is inciting violence and violating the law.”

The Jurisdiction War

Perhaps the most legally significant accusation Stansbury leveled was regarding the investigation itself. In normal procedure, officer-involved shootings are subject to a multi-jurisdictional review involving local, state, and federal authorities. However, reports indicate that Minnesota officials have been shut out of the Renee Goode investigation.

Stansbury called this exclusion “not only unlawful, it is incompetent.”

“This is a potential murder,” she stated bluntly. “This is a potential federal crime and there must be complete cooperation in the investigation.”

The shutting out of local authorities raises immediate red flags about a cover-up. If the federal government refuses to let independent eyes review the ballistics, the body camera footage (or the cell phone footage), and the witness statements, they are effectively acting as judge, jury, and executioner in their own case. It suggests that the administration fears what a transparent investigation might reveal—perhaps confirming Stansbury’s assertion that the shooting was an “excessive use of force” rather than a justified defense.

The Case for Impeachment

Congresswoman Stansbury is not just offering criticism; she is offering a constitutional remedy. She has signed onto a plan led by Congresswoman Robin Kelly (D-IL) to bring articles of impeachment against Secretary Kristi Noem.

While Stansbury acknowledged the “political reality” that impeachment is unlikely to succeed in a Republican-controlled environment, she insisted the move is necessary to mark the line in the sand.

“She is not fit to serve at this point,” Stansbury said of Noem.

The Congresswoman rattled off a laundry list of failures under Noem’s watch that extend far beyond the Minneapolis shooting:

Deaths in Detainment: Over 30 individuals have reportedly died while in DHS/ICE custody under Noem’s leadership.

West Coast Shootings: Stansbury noted that the day after the Minneapolis incident, two more individuals were shot by federal agents on the West Coast, indicating a systemic pattern of escalation.

Dismantling FEMA: In a time of increasing climate instability, Noem is accused of “dismantling” the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the very organization designed to save American lives during natural disasters.

Instead of managing these crises, Stansbury accused Noem of “parading around wearing cowboy hats and doing press availabilities.” The portrait drawn is one of a Secretary more interested in the aesthetics of power than the responsibilities of governance.

The $100 Million “War” Campaign

The interview also touched on the broader culture within ICE, fueled by the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” passed by Republicans, which reportedly tripled the agency’s budget.

Stansbury highlighted a Washington Post report detailing a $100 million “war-themed” recruitment campaign planned by ICE. The mission statement? To “defend the homeland from foreign invaders.”

“Can this be interpreted as ICE encouraging brutal tactics with this hyper-aggressive messaging?” the host asked.

“Absolutely,” Stansbury replied.

She argued that while laws and checks and balances technically exist, the culture being cultivated by the administration overrides them. When you tell young recruits that they are soldiers in a war against invaders, rather than law enforcement officers upholding the constitution, you create the conditions for the kind of “excessive force” seen in Minneapolis.

Stansbury referenced videos of advisors like Stephen Miller and Pete Hegseth meeting with National Guard troops, allegedly “riling these guys up and telling them… take them down.” This militarization of domestic policy, she argues, is a deliberate strategy to use federal law enforcement to “terrorize the American people.”

The Epstein Cover-Up

In the final minutes of the interview, the conversation shifted to another scandal that threatens to engulf the White House: the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Despite a legal deadline of December 19th for the release of complete files, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has released less than one percent of the records. The official excuse is “pacing to protect victims.” Stansbury didn’t buy it for a second.

“I think it is both a cover-up by the White House… [and] incompetence,” she said.

Stansbury went on the record with a staggering accusation: “The President is clearly in the files.”

She pointed out that in the first small tranche of documents released, the administration “accidentally” released names they likely intended to withhold, leading to a clampdown. “It is very clearly a cover-up,” she reiterated.

The implications of this are massive. Stansbury suggested that Mar-a-Lago itself is implicated as a location where “young women were taken and exploited.” By stalling the release, the DOJ is not protecting victims; it is protecting the powerful, including potentially the President himself.

To combat this, Stansbury announced that Democrats are seeking relief through federal court to get a “special master” appointed to oversee the document release, effectively taking the process out of the hands of the President’s DOJ. They have also subpoenaed three more witnesses, including potential “co-conspirators.”

Cracks in the GOP?

Amidst the gloom, Stansbury offered a glimmer of hope for those opposing the administration’s policies. She noted recent breaks in Republican solidarity, such as Senators voting to reign in unilateral military action in Venezuela and House Republicans breaking ranks on Affordable Care Act subsidies.

“This president has broken the law daily,” she said, expressing shame at colleagues who whisper complaints in the hallways but refuse to vote against him.

However, she views these recent defections as a sign that even the GOP is reaching its breaking point with the “Imperial Presidency.” The attack on Senators by the President, she argued, shows a leader who “doesn’t want to be held accountable.”

Conclusion: A Call to Action

Melanie Stansbury’s interview was a clarion call. It connected the dots between a violent incident in Minneapolis, a dismantling of disaster relief agencies, a militarized border force, and a cover-up of historical sex crimes.

For Stansbury, these are not separate issues. They are symptoms of a single disease: an administration that believes it is above the law.

“This is not about personalities… this is about protecting our democracy,” she concluded.

As the investigations into Renee Goode’s death and the Epstein files continue, the question remains: Will Congress be able to assert its oversight authority, or has the executive branch truly gone rogue? If Stansbury’s allegations about the “cell phone shooting” and the “Mar-a-Lago files” are proven true, the country may be facing a constitutional crisis that makes the events of the last few years look like a prelude.

The “MS NOW” interview may well be remembered as the moment the opposition stopped playing nice and started fighting fire with fire.