Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) sharply questioned Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a tense Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing Tuesday, calling out the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for misrepresenting fatal encounters involving immigration agents and repeatedly violating federal court orders.
Durbin opened by referencing the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, as well as Marimar Martinez, who was shot five times by a Border Patrol agent after her car was rammed in Chicago. He stated the country “watched in horror” as the incidents unfolded and pointed to Noem publicly labeling the individuals “domestic terrorists” in the immediate aftermath. Video evidence and eyewitness accounts, he said, contradicted that characterization.
“Do you retract these statements?” Durbin asked, offering what he described as an opportunity to correct the record.
Noem responded by offering condolences to the families and describing the events as tragic and chaotic. She said her department relies on reports from agents on the ground and strives to provide transparent information as investigations proceed. But she did not retract the “domestic terrorist” label.
Durbin pressed further, noting that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials had testified under oath in a prior hearing that they did not inform Noem the victims were domestic terrorists. He repeatedly asked where the information originated and why she chose to use such inflammatory language.
Noem maintained that she had been receiving real-time reports from agents during what she characterized as a chaotic situation. She said her department frequently encounters “violent actors” during enforcement operations and emphasized that investigations were ongoing. When Durbin asked directly to her face whether it was “so hard to say you were wrong,” Noem declined to concede any error, reiterating that DHS would continue to provide factual information as it becomes available.
Noem Dodges Questions, Sidesteps Accountability
The exchange grew more pointed as Durbin pivoted to another case: the death of Geraldo Lunas Campos in immigration detention. DHS initially described the death as a suicide, but an independent medical examiner later ruled it a homicide, with witnesses alleging Mr. Campos was strangled by guards. Durbin said DHS attempted to deport those witnesses before a judge intervened to keep them in the country.
“Who ordered those witnesses to be deported?” Durbin pressed.
Dodging questions once again, Noem said she could not speak to the details of an ongoing investigation and emphasized that DHS detention facilities adhere to high federal standards. She said she was unaware of any effort to deport witnesses and noted that internal investigations occur when wrongdoing is alleged. When asked whether any outside independent agency was involved, Noem said she was not aware of one.
Durbin then broadened the focus to DHS’s compliance with federal court orders. Citing a Republican-appointed chief federal judge in Minnesota who documented more than 200 alleged ICE violations in recent months—and a sworn declaration from the Justice Department acknowledging over 50 violations in New Jersey alone— Durbin asked whether DHS is required to follow federal court orders.
“Yes, sir,” Noem replied. “And we do comply with federal court orders.”
Durbin challenged that assertion, asking how she reconciled it with documented violations acknowledged by her own administration. Noem responded that DHS follows court orders “when they apply” and when the jurisdiction is applicable, a formulation that prompted Durbin to seek clarification. She ultimately reaffirmed that DHS follows federal court orders but declined to characterize judges as wrong or address the specific findings cited.
Throughout the hearing, Durbin framed his questions around accountability and transparency, repeatedly asking for clear admissions or explanations. Noem, for her part, offered condolences, general assurances of compliance, and references to ongoing investigations, but she avoided directly retracting prior statements or providing detailed, meaningful, and substantive answers to the specific allegations raised in an oversight hearing.
