Donald Trump and maga Republicans must call for the 25th Amendment to remove evil from our nation's executive branch

Echo opinion published in the Houston Chronicle:  

American citizen, unarmed Renée Good’s death at the hands (murder❗) of an U.S. Customs and Immigration (ICE) agent, in Minneapolis, is another flashpoint in America’s polarized society, with no shortage of commentary about the incident: who was at fault, implications for immigration policy, and how this fits into broader issues regarding federalism and the 

executive power overreach by Donald Trump.

Nevertheless, among such broader political discussions, a counter-narrative has arisen that Good’s death resulted from her “disrespect” for law enforcement. (This is a sinful assertion- assuming this blog is being read by people who claim to be ✝️Christians.)

Donald Trump himself claimed that she was “very, very disrespectful to law enforcement.”

Even as stories of ICE agents’ alleged misconduct continue to emerge, the implied conclusion is that if you just “respect” law enforcement — including ICE — nothing bad will happen to you.

This narrative, advanced from Reddit commenters to the White House, reflects a specific dynamic with implications for both law enforcement and our broader society: honor culture.
Honor culture is a belief system whose central tenet is that reputation is 1) granted by others and 2) always under threat.

When disrespected, retaliation — even to the point of lethal violence — is often the only way to assert one’s status and self-worth.

These beliefs are not abstract or symbolic. Honor regions, such as the American South, have observably higher rates of argument-related homicide, domestic abuse, and gun violence. This is because honor culture not only drives the occurrence of violence, but also how such violence is perceived and interpreted by others — thereby shaping violence before it happens.

Law enforcement is no exception. In my own research, we found not only that more honor-endorsing regions of the country have higher rates of police shootings, but also that individuals’ personal belief in honor norms drove them to perceive law enforcements’ use of brutality as more acceptable if framed as a response to an insult.

This dynamic defines many current discussions of (evil❗) ICE — and it makes future violence more likely. Justifying law enforcement officers’ misconduct in the light of honor norms creates expectations and preemptively excuses misconduct. It tells officers that feeling personally insulted is more important than the professional standards and laws guiding their use of force. It places the burden of protecting officers’ self-worth on the public, rather than on officers themselves.

This is dangerous, not only because it makes future violence more likely, but because it represents a broader failure of responsible citizenship: the duty to be good followers.

Whatever one’s personal political beliefs, the fact is that law enforcement officers — including the evil ICE agents — occupy positions of civic leadership and public trust.

But obviously, leaders do not operate in a vacuum. 

Leadership is co-created by interactions between leaders and followers, whose beliefs, values, and expectations shape leaders’ behavior. Beliefs about leadership flow upward as much as authority flows downward, making good leadership impossible without good followership.

There is no law enforcement agency in the United States that officially permits use of force in response to personal insult — a rationale some law enforcement experts call “contempt of cop.” However, when we signal that officers are entitled to blind obedience and emotional deference, we actively encourage them to become worse at their jobs. 

By granting them carte blanche to act as if they were in a barroom brawl or 18th century duel, we undermine officers’ obligation as civic leaders and agents of the law to the highest levels of self-control and public accountability.


This isn’t an argument about immigration policy. President Barack Obama deported over 3 million people, and ICE misconduct wasn’t widespread or publicly justified at the time. What we are seeing now isn’t a matter of enforcing the law, but of elevating honor norms over the rule of law.

Holding law enforcement — including ICE agents — to a standard beyond honor norms is not anti-police. Rather, it is pro-professionalism.

Even if you’re 100% pro-ICE, 🤢you should still reject honor-based narratives about the agents’ conduct. You should want ICE agents to be excellent at their jobs: disciplined, restrained and effective, not pepper-spraying or pointing guns at peaceful protestors, let alone calling someone a “f______ b____” after a shooting. You should want them supported by clear standards and strong training, not encouraged to indulge their worst impulses.

Encouraging honor norms does the opposite: It makes effective law enforcement harder, thereby eroding legitimacy, increasing the likelihood of escalation, and making tragedies like Good’s death more likely to occur in the future.

There are certainly other important conversations to have about immigration and law enforcement. Statistically, however, most of us

will never attend an anti- or pro-ICE rally. Most of us will, hopefully, never be in a situation like Good’s. But all of us will talk. And those conversations — over coffee or a beer — help shape the cultural narratives that guide our civic leaders.

When we justify violence as a response to “disrespect,” we incentivize leaders to value personal honor over public duty — abandoning our responsibility as good citizens and making our communities less safe.

Aaron Pomerantz is a research psychologist and serves as the assistant director of research and evaluation at Rice University’s Doerr Institute for New Leaders.