When something goes terribly wrong, we expect government to ask questions. Investigations begin. Decisions are examined. Timelines are reconstructed. We ask what happened, whether procedures were followed, whether different decisions could have produced a different outcome, and how to reduce the chances of it happening again.
We should.
But that instinct often becomes less certain when the decisions being examined were not made in the moment, but years earlier through public policy.
An officer may have seconds to make a life-or-death decision. Policymakers may spend months or years shaping decisions that affect millions. Yet after tragedy strikes, we often examine operational decisions in exhaustive detail while treating the assumptions behind public policy as beyond the same level of scrutiny.
This is not an argument against investigating government employees or law enforcement. It is an argument for applying the same standard of honest self-examination to every exercise of government power.
President Trump and his administration deserve credit for trying to restore balance, order and fairness to America's immigration system, and for being willing to examine what went wrong, confront the risks that were accepted and make changes intended to prevent those failures from being repeated.
That is the kind of institutional self-examination government should practice regardless of who is in power.
I began thinking about that standard very personally after my daughter, Katie, was killed on Jan. 19, 2025.
Katie was 20 years old and visiting friends at the University of Illinois when the car in which she was riding was struck from behind at nearly 80 miles per hour by an intoxicated man who was in the country illegally. Katie and another young woman were killed. Three others were seriously injured.
The criminal case answered the most immediate question: Who was responsible for taking Katie's life?
But as the case unfolded, another set of questions emerged.
After the driver was arrested, federal authorities informed Illinois authorities, and our family, that the identity he had been using in Illinois was an alias. Yet the official Urbana police report listed an Illinois driver's license number associated with that identity.
That is not an assumption. It is a government record.
So how did an Illinois driver's license number become associated with an identity that authorities later determined was an alias?
Was the license actually issued under that identity? Was the number entered into the police report incorrectly? What information did state officials possess? How was the identity verified?
If the record was wrong, that deserves an explanation. If it was accurate, that deserves an explanation too.
The larger question is whether Illinois meaningfully reviewed what happened, whether policy failures contributed to the circumstances that preceded the crash, and whether similar failures could happen again.
Those questions are not about assigning additional blame to the driver. He is responsible for his actions that night. They are about determining whether government fulfilled its own responsibilities before that night ever began.
What surprised me most wasn't that every question lacked an immediate answer. It was the apparent absence of curiosity about whether government itself had questions worth asking.
Policies are not abstractions. They determine what government collects, what it verifies, what it overlooks and what risks it accepts.
Good government is not distinguished by never making mistakes. It is distinguished by the willingness to ask whether its assumptions were wrong, whether its policies contributed to preventable harm and whether they should change.
That isn't an admission of guilt. It is institutional humility.
When operational failures occur, government routinely asks difficult questions in the hope of preventing the next tragedy. Policy failures deserve the same discipline. The objective is not political advantage. It is institutional learning.
And that learning should extend to the people who live with the consequences.
That is why the return of the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement, or VOICE, Office matters to me personally. The Trump administration restored the office in 2025 after it had been discontinued under the previous administration. Its purpose is to engage with victims and families affected by crimes with a nexus to immigration violations and help them navigate a system that can otherwise leave them feeling forgotten.
For families like mine, that support cannot undo what happened. Nothing can.
But it recognizes something often missing from the immigration debate: victims and their families do not simply move on when the headlines disappear or a criminal case ends. We carry the loss, the unanswered questions and the knowledge that other families should not have to experience the same thing.
I carry that burden because Katie is gone.
And I know she should still be here.
That is why restoring balance and fairness to the immigration system matters to me. Not because enforcement is an end in itself, but because a functioning system, with meaningful vetting, accountability, enforcement and coordination, can reduce foreseeable risks and spare other families from carrying what mine now carries.
Government cannot bring Katie back.
But it can learn from Katie.
It can ask harder questions. It can identify failures. It can correct policies. It can restore order where disorder created vulnerability. And it can stand with the people left carrying the consequences.
That is what institutional accountability should look like, not political vengeance, but a determination to make sure the next family does not have to ask the same questions.
The criminal justice system examined what the driver did that night.
A healthy democracy should be just as willing to examine whether government itself could have done better before that night ever began.
The badge and the pen exercise different forms of public authority. But both carry the same obligation: when something goes terribly wrong, government must be willing to ask whether it could have done better.
Editor's Note: The Democrat Party has been infected by socialism, and it's spreading FAST. Democrats are claiming there's nothing to worry about, but we know the truth.
Help us continue to shine a light on the socialist takeover by joining Townhall VIP. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.