Recently, a firestorm erupted online over a GoFundMe fundraiser for ICE agent Jonathan Ross, the federal immigration officer who fatally shot Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis. What’s raising eyebrows isn’t just the size of the donations — it’s that GoFundMe appears to be ignoring its own policies by allowing this campaign to remain active.
The Controversial Fundraiser
A campaign titled something like “ICE OFFICER Jonathan Ross” has drawn hundreds of thousands of dollars — nearing half a million at last count — in public support for Ross. The fundraiser’s organizer originally included language saying the money would help cover his legal defense, which would directly violate GoFundMe’s rules banning fundraising for the legal costs of violent crimes such as murder, assault, and battery. Even after the language was tweaked to remove explicit reference to legal fees, visual elements on the fundraiser page still clearly emphasize legal-defense support — and donors are giving anyway.
So What Are GoFundMe’s Rules?
GoFundMe’s Terms of Service explicitly prohibit fundraisers meant to:
- Assist with legal defense for financial or violent crimes, including murder, robbery, assault, battery, and similar acts.
In past high-profile cases — such as campaigns for law enforcement officers charged in the deaths of Freddie Gray and Walter Scott — the platform removed fundraisers that violated these rules.
Yet in this case, the campaign remains online despite clear contradictions between policy and practice.
GoFundMe’s Response
So far, GoFundMe’s official statement is that its Trust and Safety team is reviewing the situation and that funds are being held by payment processors during that review. They claim that removals will happen only if a fundraiser is found to violate terms, and that Ross hasn’t been formally charged yet, creating a gray area. But this reasoning hasn’t satisfied critics — and some donors on platforms like Reddit have been urged to report the campaign for violating policy.
Why This Matters
This controversy highlights a growing distrust in big tech platforms enforcing their own rules consistently:
- If a platform refuses to enforce its terms, what message does that send to users?
- Does having a large political or social backer change how policies are applied?
- And perhaps most importantly, should platforms designed for generosity be used to financially support people accused of serious violence?
These questions aren’t just academic — they go to the heart of how we expect companies to act when they position themselves as values-driven.
Public Outrage and Action
Online petitions and social campaigns are already circulating, demanding that GoFundMe remove the Jonathan Ross fundraiser immediately. 📣 One petition argues that keeping the page live undermines trust in both justice and the platform itself, calling for strict policy enforcement. Meanwhile, the story of Renee Nicole Good — the victim whose death sparked all of this — continues to draw donations to a separate fundraiser for her family that has raised over $1.5 million.
Final Thoughts
Platforms like GoFundMe have enormous power to shape public response to tragedy and crisis. That power comes with responsibility — including honoring the rules they set and enforcing them impartially.
Right now, many people feel GoFundMe isn’t living up to that responsibility. Whether you care about justice reform, corporate accountability, or simply fairness, this situation is a clear sign that we need to hold powerful platforms accountable when they fail to enforce their own standards.