Kristi Noem comes into Homeland Security with a border-first, sovereignty-first message and basically dares anyone in D.C. to call that extreme. She talks about immigration enforcement the way a governor talks about guarding their own state line, not the way a career federal lawyer talks about statutory process. Her core premise is: if the federal government won’t enforce the law, states will — and now, in this job, she says she’s here to make sure the federal government finally does.
She wraps border security, fentanyl trafficking, cartel activity, and violent crime into one narrative and calls it a national emergency. For her, Homeland Security is not just about airports and cyber — it’s about shutting down what she calls an “open-border chaos pipeline” that hits small towns, not just big blue cities on TV. She sells that as protecting “regular Americans” instead of “pleasing NGOs.”
Noem is deeply comfortable in hard-edged culture-war space. She talks about “law and order,” “protecting American families,” and “ending catch-and-release” in language that’s meant to sound zero-tolerance, almost martial. She’s not shy about saying that if people cross illegally, they should be detained and removed quickly, period. That rhetoric lands very well with the populist right, which sees DHS as too slow, too lawyered, and too apologetic.
Internally, she pushes the idea that homeland security is inseparable from border security — that you can’t treat them like separate policy silos. That means prioritizing physical barriers, surveillance tech, aggressive interdiction, faster removals, and closer state–federal coordination, with less patience for what she calls “performative humanitarianism.”
Critics say that framing turns asylum seekers into an invading force and treats immigration as a threat vector instead of an economic and humanitarian system. Civil liberties groups also warn that giving DHS a more muscular, governor-style posture usually means more detention, more raids, and more room for abuse with weaker oversight.
Right-Wing Populist
Priorities / Agenda
- Border as national security: Noem treats the southern border as the front line of homeland defense, not an immigration paperwork issue. She pushes for physical barriers, more agents, more surveillance, and faster removals.
- “Stop catch-and-release”: She wants to end policies that allow migrants to enter the interior while waiting on court dates. Her argument is that the system creates incentives to cross first and sort it out later.
- State-level muscle in federal enforcement: She backs formal cooperation with states and governors to police the border, basically telling Washington: if you won’t, they will.
- Fentanyl / cartel framing: She links drug trafficking and cartel logistics directly to border gaps and calls that an urgent homeland threat to communities far from the border.
- “Protect our communities first”: Her messaging is that DHS should defend citizens, not “manage optics.” She leans on small-town safety stories more than big city crime narratives.
Controversies
- Anti-immigration hardline: Civil rights groups say she’s treating all illegal border crossers like deliberate criminals and erasing the asylum process in practice, even if it exists on paper.
- Governor-style DHS: Her critics say she’s importing state-level political combat into a federal security department that’s supposed to operate under strict legal constraints, not just “get tough.”
- Detention and fast removal: Immigrant advocates warn that “rapid processing” often means “no meaningful review,” and that people with legitimate fear claims could be turned around and sent back into danger.
- Civil liberties risk: Expanding DHS power to act quickly on U.S. soil — surveillance, raids, coordination with local law enforcement — raises long-term questions about profiling and federal overreach.
- Polarizing style: Supporters call her direct, decisive, and unafraid to say “secure the border now.” Opponents say she’s deliberately escalating fear as a political weapon.
Senate Confirmation Vote
Votes For
- Republicans: 52
- Democrats: 6
- Independents: 1
Votes Against
- Republicans: 0
- Democrats: 34
- Independents: 1