Impeaching Noem, and the Interchangeable Awfulness in the Administration
The killing of an American citizen in broad daylight by an ICE agent continues to dominate headlines, as it should. One response to the outrage has been to call for the impeachment of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. Indeed, at the end of last week Robin Kelly, a Democratic Member of Congress from Illinois, announced that she would file three articles of impeachment against Noem, writing that Noem "has turned ICE into a rogue force, violating the Constitution, tearing families apart, and leaving death in her wake. From Chicago to Minneapolis, her recklessness cost lives, including Renee Nicole Good. This isn't just dangerous—it's impeachable. I'm fighting back."
Given the certainty that no (or at most a tiny handful of) Republicans in the House or Senate would even consider supporting Kelly's effort, is this purely performative? Jan-Werner Müller wrote persuasively in The Guardian that even a process that ultimately ends with no impeachment in the House or with an acquittal in the Senate would be meaningful:
But such dismissals are too quick: this administration has been running on a promise of impunity at all levels, and Democrats have to start signaling that actions have consequences. They also need to break out of a fateful dynamic: during Trump 2.0, misdeeds and scandals are following each other in such rapid succession that neither the press nor the public ever seem to get to focus on one. Impeachment can concentrate minds and slow down political time.
Noem is surely one of the most embarrassing members of the current Administration. In addition to being obsessed with performative "toughness" (read: deliberate cruelty) and simply being bad at her job, she is unable to answer even the most basic questions. And her evasions are robotic and embarrassing in what can only be called a Noem-like way, because she cannot carry out the prime directive of political spin -- "Answer the question you want to answer, not the question the interviewer asked." -- without face-planting.
For some reason, Noem decided over the weekend to go on CNN to be interviewed by Jake Tapper about the murder in Minneapolis. In addition to offering weird deflections ("The question is, why are we arguing with a president who is working to keep people safe?"), she kept coming back to the same mantra when Tapper tried to get her to explain why the domestic terrorism of January 6, 2021, was OK (pardon-worthy, in fact) whereas what Good did justified her death.
At 11:10 of this video, Noem says this: "Every single situation is going to rely on the situation those officers are on." That is a circular and empty response, but she went with it again: "Every one of these investigations comes in the full context of the situation on the ground." When Tapper said that there was one standard for treating Trump supporters and a different one for others, Noem responded: "This individual and these instances and these investigations are all have to be taken, and done, and done correctly in context of every situation that is happening on the ground." So it's circumstances and situations and contexts and instances. Got it.
This is not Noem's first go-round with that kind of impenetrable evasiveness. In an infamous interview two years ago, after she was caught lying in her book about having met North Korea's Kim Jong Un, the publisher edited that claim out of the book. Great, but Noem then refused to admit that what had been edited out was incorrect: "Well you know, as soon as this was brought to my attention, I certainly made some changes and looked at this passage, and I’ve met with many, many world leaders, I’ve traveled around the world." The interviewer followed up: "So you did not meet with Kim Jong Un? That's what you're saying." Noem:
No, I’ve met with many, many world leaders. ... I’m not going to talk about my specific meetings with world leaders, I’m just not going to do that. This anecdote shouldn’t have been in the book and as soon as it was brought to my attention, I made sure that was adjusted.”
It truly is an amazing feat to be so averse to being honest as to repeat "I've met with many, many world leaders" while saying that she "made sure" that the book was "adjusted" to stop lying about meeting with Kim. Trump simply says that up is down. Noem says that she should never have said that up is down but then denies that she ever said it.
But the question here is what would change if Noem were no longer in office (via impeachment or any other means, such as being fired for some reason). The answer is nothing. Early last February, I wrote a Dorf on Law column arguing that only Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. presented unique dangers, meaning that their departures from the scene would truly change what the Administration would do. Musk departed a long time ago (hopefully never to return), and the specific things that he was doing have essentially stopped. RFKJr unfortunately remains as head of Health and Human Services, and it it difficult to imagine even the most committed Trumpist coming up with the harmful, deadly ideas that Kennedy has implemented.
As I explained in a column this past Friday, the people in the Administration and its orbit are "crybaby bullies." That is, they readily use their power to harm or intimidate other people but then whine and moan when anyone even says boo to them. Noem, for example, "insist[ed] that it was, in fact, the media that was making Americans less safe." Right, because the media is saying things that are critical of Noem and her boss, so they are the ones harming the country. Got it.
In a lot of cases, the cry-bullying is merely amusing. One example that I did not include in Friday's column was the current US ambassador to Canada, a former Republican congressperson named Pete Hoekstra, who has perfected the fine art of taking quivering-lipped (but somehow still belligerent) offense when bullied people push back.
Last year, after Trump repeatedly insulted then-PM Justin Trudeau and frequently threatened to make Canada the 51st state, Canadians were (briefly) impolite. I was living in Toronto at the time, and I was surprised to see the outpouring of "Buy Canadian" sentiment, which included consumer boycotts of American goods, with some store owners discontinuing the sale of imports from south of the border. This was completely organic, and it amounted to Canadians saying that they were free to choose whether to continue to buy goods from their bullying neighbor.
But Hoekstra was horrified, saying in an interview in May: "We haven’t banned any Canadian products. We haven’t said Canadian companies can’t bid for projects. Canadians want to travel to the U.S.? That’s an individual choice. That’s not our government’s choice. That’s individual Canadian choices. ... I feel very strongly about that. I think it’s outrageous that you banned American products from your shelves. That is an insult to us. We have not done anything like that."
Nor has Canada done anything like that. A few months later, when Ontario's otherwise-terrible Premier Doug Ford ran an advertisement in some US media markets showing Ronald Reagan criticizing tariffs, Trump responded by ending trade talks with Canada, saying that the Reagan clip was fake (note: it was real). And Hoekstra on cue jumped on the hurt-feelings bandwagon. Per the CBC:
[Hoekstra] suggested that the timing of the ad amounted to foreign meddling.
“Targeting the president of the United States and his policies 10 days before an election, in a couple of weeks before a Supreme Court case would be heard … I'm sorry that does not happen in the United States of America," he said.
“You do not come into America and start running political ads, government-funded political ads … and expect that there will be no consequences or reaction from the United States of America and the Trump administration.”
Hoekstra appeared to be referring to the gubernatorial and mayoral races earlier this month.
That is some serious bellyaching. And it soon became even more silly: "Hoekstra ridiculed people who point out the ad was backed by the Ontario government and not the federal government. 'I'm sorry, we don't go through that slicing and dicing,' he said." Yes, Trump and the Republicans never blame governors or mayors for anything, always being stand-up guys and defending anything that a government official in the US does. (In case anyone missed it, that last sentence was an example of sarcasm.) And Hoekstra even went to Halifax and said to the local Chamber of Commerce (!): "You ran a campaign where it was anti-American, elbows up, me too. You know, that was an anti-American campaign. That has continued. That's disappointing."
Fortunately, many of these bad arguments and wrongful actions are relatively innocuous. And even if Hoekstra were to be removed, he would immediately be replaced by someone else who would have to defend Trump's aggressive rhetoric, threats against Canada, and tariffs. Noem is directing and defending actions that are anything but innocuous, but she too would be replaced by someone who would be doing the bidding of the real decision makers in the Administration (of which Noem is definitely not one).
I will add here that the only additional person who in the past year has shown that he might be uniquely problematic is the US Vice President. In my column last February, I wrote this: "For that matter, J.D. Vance turns stomachs but is nothing special. Had he not been chosen as VP, the finance bro world would still be amply powerful in Trump's universe." Even though Vance has been more public-facing than I expected, trying to build his political brand, I currently stand by my earlier assessment.
Back on the question of impeaching Noem, holding one high-level person responsible in any way is valuable, even if they would be replaced by a clone (or someone who is somehow even worse). For the duration of this regime, the bad things will continue, and personnel changes will not matter (again, RFKJr aside). Even so, the murder in Minneapolis can be a turning point. If Noem were to go, that would be surprising in the extreme. But if the Republicans' decades of scolding about "personal responsibility" meant anything, it should be that some people -- even those who are merely interchangeable parts -- have to face consequences.