South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem sharply criticized President Joe Biden during a White House Cabinet meeting Tuesday, saying the administration had used the Department of Homeland Security to “invade the country with terrorists” by loosening border controls and allowing people to enter through airports and other ports of entry.
Noem spoke near the end of the session as officials discussed the administration’s border and enforcement priorities. Her comments underscore a broader national debate over border integrity, removal authority and the fiscal costs of large-scale migration, issues tracked in our Border Coverage.
Why it matters
Noem framed her remarks as a public safety and accountability issue, saying the federal government must restore controls she contends were weakened under the prior presidency and recover taxpayer funds allegedly misspent on relocation programs. She urged stepped-up removals of people she said were in the country improperly, and warned that federal scrutiny of state relocation efforts will intensify.
Background
Noem, a Republican governor and frequent critic of federal immigration policy, has been vocal about border enforcement and state-level responses to migrant arrivals. Governors and state officials have at times clashed with the federal government over responsibility for sheltering, transporting and resettling migrants who arrive at or are bused from the southern border.
Federal removal operations are led by the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which carry out arrests, detention and deportations under federal immigration statutes, primarily Title 8 of the U.S. Code. The State Department can play a role in facilitating returns by negotiating travel documents with third countries, and the Justice Department defends federal enforcement actions in litigation. Those are routine interagency responsibilities that officials cite when explaining the logistics and legal basis for removals.
Details from officials and records
According to a Fox News report, Noem made several specific assertions during the meeting and in remarks afterward:
- She accused the prior president of opening the borders and allowing dangerous individuals into the country through airports and other points of entry. The claim was presented as a characterization of prior policies rather than a referenced legal finding.
- She said DHS will “send more home for the holidays,” adding that removals will focus on people she described as the most dangerous. That language is a description of enforcement priorities rather than a list of specific charges or cases.
- Noem said the administration has hired roughly 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers since taking office to bolster enforcement capacity. That figure was presented as her characterization of hiring trends and is being reported as an assertion by Noem.
- She said DHS is scrutinizing state programs that facilitate the relocation of immigrants, citing concerns about fraud and misuse of government benefits. Federal scrutiny of state and local programs can include reviews, audits and investigations, though legal and jurisdictional limits often shape what enforcement action is possible.
- Noem credited administration actions with reducing fentanyl flows at the southern border and said operations have targeted narcotics shipments in the Caribbean. Border interdiction and international operations are among the tools used to disrupt trafficking, but officials and independent analysts typically consider multiple data points when assessing trends in illicit flows.
Noem also referenced legal allies who have defended enforcement efforts. She named Pam Bondi, who served as Florida attorney general from 2011 to 2019 and has since worked in private practice and as outside counsel in Republican legal circles. Bondi is not the current U.S. attorney general; the U.S. Department of Justice is led by the attorney general appointed to the administration.
Reactions and next steps
Noem singled out Minnesota programs that relocate immigrants into that state, accusing local officials of facilitating improper entries and submitting fraudulent paperwork. Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota pushed back, telling reporters the programs were set up to help people and that criminals sometimes exploit systems designed for humanitarian or resettlement purposes. Walz said enforcement should target criminal activity rather than program administrators.
Federal officials at the meeting outlined continued cooperation across agencies to carry out removals, to negotiate travel documents with third countries and to defend enforcement policies in court. Such interagency coordination can include DHS, the State Department and the Justice Department, but any expansion of removals or new enforcement initiatives may prompt litigation and oversight reviews that could slow implementation or impose legal constraints.
Officials also said DHS will review state-level programs that assist relocating migrants. That review could take many forms, from administrative inquiries to referrals to law enforcement if evidence of fraud emerges. The legal authority of the federal government to intervene in state programs is limited and typically centers on federal funding conditions, immigration law and criminal statutes.
Legal and fiscal context
Removal operations, detention capacity and international negotiations carry material fiscal costs. Detention, transportation and legal processing for removal cases can require significant budget authority, and Congress funds DHS and ICE through annual appropriations. Proposals to increase enforcement often translate into budget requests for personnel, detention space and removal flights, while calls to limit enforcement can shift costs to state and local governments that provide shelter or services for migrants.
Legal limits also shape enforcement. Federal immigration law sets standards for detention, removal proceedings and asylum adjudications. Courts have repeatedly reviewed federal enforcement measures, and litigation can determine how orders are carried out. State-level resistance or cooperation affects logistics but does not nullify federal immigration statutes.
Analysis
Noem’s remarks link border policy to governance questions about capacity, authority and public spending. Her accusations that porous entry points allowed dangerous individuals to enter elevate public safety concerns that can drive political pressure for tougher enforcement and larger budgets. However, many of her claims are framed as assertions rather than independently verified findings, which means oversight bodies, courts and interagency records will be key venues for testing them.
The push to scrutinize state relocation programs highlights a recurring tension between federal enforcement and state or local efforts to manage migrant arrivals. When federal officials threaten expanded removals or audits, states that accept migrants may face legal exposure or financial strain, while efforts to limit enforcement can shift costs and responsibilities to municipalities and nongovernmental organizations.
For policymakers and the public, the practical stakes are clear: choices about border control, detention and removals affect public safety, international cooperation and federal and state budgets. Any shift toward more aggressive enforcement will likely require additional congressional funding and will invite legal and political challenges that could shape how, and how quickly, new measures are implemented.
