Kristi Noem Faces Bipartisan Fury Over False Terrorism Claims About ICE Victims
Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has ignited widespread outrage this week by steadfastly refusing to retract or apologize for publicly smearing two Minneapolis residents who were killed by federal immigration enforcement agents. Her behavior, according to one prominent historian, follows a familiar political playbook that prioritizes deflection over accountability.
Intense Congressional Grilling Over False Statements
Noem endured a bipartisan grilling during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, where lawmakers scrutinized the Department of Homeland Security's violent handling of immigration enforcement operations. The scrutiny intensified on Wednesday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, where several representatives challenged her for falsely suggesting that Renée Good and Alex Pretti—both American citizens fatally shot by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers—were domestic terrorists.
Video evidence from both incidents has widely contradicted Noem's descriptions. Despite this, when given multiple opportunities during the hearings to retract her statements, Noem declined each time. In the aftermath, President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that he had fired Noem, effective March 31, and is nominating Senator Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma, to replace her.
Persistent False Accusations and Deflection Tactics
In January, Noem claimed at a press conference that Good, a 37-year-old mother, appeared to commit an "act of domestic terrorism." Weeks later, after Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, was also shot and killed by federal agents, Noem told the public that Pretti "committed an act of domestic terrorism." During the hearings, senators expressed profound concern over these assertions.
Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, pointedly asked Noem, "Why can't we just say, 'We made a mistake?'" Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, highlighted the deep pain caused by Noem's words, telling her that labeling Pretti a domestic terrorist the day after his death was "one of the most hurtful things" said about him. Klobuchar asked if Noem had anything to say to Pretti's parents, to which Noem responded by citing reliance on information from agents on the ground, then moments later denied having called Pretti a "domestic terrorist," instead stating she said it "appeared to be an incident of."
On Wednesday, Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, slammed Noem for her statements and offered her a chance to correct what he called a "false and defamatory claim." Noem responded by calling the incidents "an absolute tragedy" and offering condolences, but when pressed directly on whether she still believed Good and Pretti were domestic terrorists, she cited "ongoing investigations." Raskin later noted that Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE, had testified last month that he had no knowledge of the victims being terrorists, yet Noem still refused to retract her statements.
Historian Identifies Familiar Political Playbook
Matthew Dallek, a historian and professor at The George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management, analyzed Noem's conduct, stating that her refusal to retract or apologize aligns with a well-known strategy. "She's doing what Trump does," Dallek explained. "She's basically pulling a page from the Trump playbook—which is, you never admit a mistake... you double down... you change the subject... you attack your opponents as being horrible." He added that this approach is "pretty standard fare for the Trump administration" and not surprising.
Dallek emphasized that while past administrations have also seen Cabinet secretaries avoid admitting mistakes in congressional hearings, Noem's testimony was particularly "egregious." He noted that hearings often have a "partisan dynamic" and are "less about fact-finding than they are about fear, public performances," but this week's hearings stood out due to bipartisan pushback and statements "so at odds with reality."
"The difference in how this administration has approached congressional hearings—and Kristi Noem's testimony is an example of that—is [that it's] a more egregious form of denial and deflection, and of turning reality often on its head," Dallek said. "It's more egregious, I think, than other administrations have done."
Messaging from the Top and Broader Implications
Dallek believes Noem's messaging about ICE operations in Minnesota during her testimony "comes from the top." He described the administration's narrative as asserting that ICE has done nothing wrong, operations are without issue, and the real problem is the "radical left." "So that's been the message from the top, from the president, and that, of course, is filtered down to Cabinet secretaries, spokespeople," he stated.
Despite the administration's refusal to admit wrongdoing, Dallek pointed to actions suggesting a need to "correct course," such as reducing the number of immigration enforcement officers in Minnesota last month and the departure of Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino from the state. Overall, Dallek emphasized that Noem's initial remarks were "deeply disturbing on many levels."
"She just flat-out lied, multiple times," he said. "She called them terrorists; they clearly are not. She claimed that the agents who killed them were in imminent danger—they obviously were not. It was a series of flat-out, provable falsehoods, and it involved some of the greatest abuses, frankly, imaginable from federal law enforcement—the killing of American citizens in more or less cold blood."
Dallek concluded that the widespread outrage stems from the high stakes involved. "The reaction is partly fueled by a widespread sense of outrage that what happened was wrong, it was fatal and it was sickening to a lot of Americans," he said. Social media users echoed this sentiment, expressing anger over Noem's repeated evasion of direct questions about the victims' status, highlighting a broader national concern over accountability and truth in government.
