Trump Pick Kristi Noem Stumbles Big-Time on One Simple Question

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem was asked during her hearing Friday whether she was committed to stopping all threats to homeland security—not just the ones that push Donald Trump’s agenda on immigration.

Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, who previously served as a Middle East analyst for the CIA, asked Noem if she intended to be “clear and honest about facts” related to terrorist threats in the United States.

“So, it’s just important to me that I know particularly since you do have one of the intelligence agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, that you’re gonna call a spade a spade,” Slotkin said. “The most recent acts of domestic terrorism in New Orleans—horrible incident—in Nevada, had nothing to do with migrants. Correct?”

“Correct,” Noem replied.

“They were homegrown American citizens; one of them was actually in a very elite military unit. I mean, it’s horrible. It’s one of the hardest things to catch. The sort of lone wolf, radicalized American citizen,” Slotkin continued. It’s worth noting that the incident in Nevada, in which a man detonated fireworks inside a Tesla Cybertruck outside the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas, was investigated as a possible terrorist attack but ultimately ruled a suicide by local officials.

“But I want to protect ourselves, our most recent examples of domestic terrorism were not what we have spent the majority talking about today: crime from a migrant,” Slotkin said. She noted that she didn’t dispute that some crimes are committed by immigrants—in fact, Slotkin was one of the more than two dozen Democrats who voted in support of the Laken Riley Act, which would, among other things, allow the government to detain undocumented immigrants accused of committing nonviolent crimes.

During the hearing, several Republican lawmakers had already waxed poetic on their xenophobic views about immigrants and fretted over so-called “migrant crime,” of which Trump had touted gruesome cases on the campaign trail in an attempt to fearmonger about Joe Biden’s immigration and border policies. In reality, undocumented immigrants are statistically less likely to commit a violent crime—but “migrant crime” still manages to take up lots of airtime and column inches, as well as generate clicks because it evidently also wins elections.

“I just want to know, and I want to hear from you, as an intelligence officer, that you’re going to speak about real threats and not blow something up, politicize something, make something more exciting because maybe that’s what the president wants to hear,” Slotkin said. “But your mission to protect and defend the Constitution means calling honestly what the threats are to the country. Can you just give me a ‘yes or no,’ please?”

“Yes, Senator,” Noem replied, before proceeding to answer about half the question. “I will be as transparent and factual every day with you and the American people as possible, based on the information that I have.”

“I don’t know if the investigations are closed in New Orleans and in Nevada, but what we know so far and needs to be related to the American people needs to be the truth and facts,” Noem said, as if to leave the door open to potential immigrant connections in those incidents—a wild theory that some Republicans, including Trump’s incoming “border czar” Tom Homan, pushed in the weeks since.

Whether she intended to focus on threats from American citizens with the same politicized fervor with which her Republican colleagues have addressed the crimes of undocumented immigrants remains to be seen.

More details are emerging about Donald Trump Jr.’s trip to Greenland, and it’s looking a lot worse than previously thought.

The Guardian reports that when Trump Jr. visited the upscale Hotel Hans Egede for lunch, the “fans” wearing MAGA hats with him were actually homeless people picked up off the street who were promised a free lunch and didn’t find out who Trump was until later.

Trump Jr. “had just met them in the street and invited them for lunch, or his staff did. But I don’t think they knew who they were inviting,” said the hotel’s chief executive, Jørgen Bay-Kastrup.

“That of course was a little bit strange to us because we saw guests that we have never seen in our hotel before—and will probably never see again because it’s out of their economical means,” Bay-Kastrup added. “They were just, ‘Hey, somebody invited us for lunch, let’s go and join him.’ I think they found out later who it was.”

One student who joined the photo op at the hotel, Malik Dollerup-Scheibel, told The Wall Street Journal the experience was “very weird.” He now regrets taking part, saying he only wanted free beer and to meet a famous American. He believes Trump’s visit appeared to be a stunt to convince MAGA supporters that Greenland’s people want the U.S. to take over the island.

“This is probably the most shameful thing I own,” Dollerup-Scheibel said, holding up the MAGA hat he was given. He didn’t expect to have his face circulating on social media.

Trump’s visit led to some American YouTubers showing up on the island handing out $100 bills and “Make Greenland Great Again” hats. While some young people gleefully exchanged the money for Danish kroner and headed for bars, others were less enthused. One man ripped up a bill and stomped on the red baseball cap, according to The Wall Street Journal. It appears the island’s residents aren’t that keen on President-elect Trump or his threats to seize their homeland.

President Joe Biden has proclaimed that the Equal Rights Amendment is now the “law of the land”—with just days left in office.

“We, as a nation, must affirm and protect women’s full equality once and for all,”  the president wrote in a statement released Friday morning. “In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.”

The ERA was introduced by suffragists in the 1920s and passed by Congress in 1972. But it wasn’t fully ratified, thanks to the activism of prominent anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly, and has remained in legislative limbo ever since. At least 38 states must ratify a proposed constitutional amendment, and only 35 have ratified the ERA, with the most recent being Virginia in 2020.

Biden’s late-term announcement will likely do very little to actually advance the ERA’s chances of becoming a constitutional amendment. That lies in the hands of the national archivist and Congress. The national archivist, who publishes amendments, has already stated that she could not add the ERA without approval from Congress or the courts, as the 1982 ratification deadline was missed. And a Republican-controlled Congress won’t be so kind as to give Biden a win like this on his way out. 

It’s a disappointment for the reproductive rights activists who have been calling for the ERA to be ratified for some time, especially since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. 

While Biden’s statement is positive, the timing of such a critical piece of legislation—three days before Trump is inaugurated—leaves many asking where this energy was for the four years Biden was in office. 

The incoming forty-seventh president doesn’t seem to believe he needs to abide by the law when it comes to following through on banning TikTok.

Moments after the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s ban Friday on the popular video-sharing app, Trump claimed he would be making a “decision” regarding its future in the American market, potentially sidestepping two branches of the U.S. government.

“It ultimately goes up to me, so you’re going to see what I’m going to do,” Trump told CNN’s Pamela Brown. “Congress has given me the decision, so I’ll be making the decision.”

Trump did not provide more details on what exactly that would look like.

On Thursday, U.S. officials revealed that President Joe Biden would not enforce the ban through the end of his presidency, handing the responsibility of interpreting the law to Trump.

Experts have said the app will not disappear from users’ phones, though it will be restricted from the app store, and new updates will no longer be available—eventually rendering the app unusable, reported the Associated Press.

Trump claimed he spoke on the phone with Chinese President Xi Jinping, in part discussing the future of TikTok, minutes before the Supreme Court released its opinion.

“I just spoke to Chairman Xi Jinping of China,” Trump posted on Truth Social Friday morning. “The call was a very good one for both China and the U.S.A. It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together, and starting immediately. We discussed balancing Trade, Fentanyl, TikTok, and many other subjects. President Xi and I will do everything possible to make the World more peaceful and safe!”

Trump has pledged to save the platform, though it’s unclear how his team intends to do so. Once inaugurated, Trump could issue a 90-day pause on the ban so long as a sale is in progress, per the terms of the law. But that could be difficult, as Chinese law restricts the sale of TikTok’s proprietary algorithm, according to Bytedance’s attorneys. And Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar—who represented the Biden administration in the case—told the nation’s highest court last week that even the 90-day respite isn’t a guarantee.

As the Supreme Court unanimously voted to uphold the government’s impending ban on TikTok, Justice Neil Gorsuch made an interesting observation in his concurring opinion.

“Whether this law will succeed in achieving its ends, I do not know. A determined foreign adversary may just seek to replace one lost surveillance application with another. As time passes and threats evolve, less dramatic and more effective solutions may emerge. Even what might happen next to TikTok remains unclear,” Gorsuch wrote, but he then added a caveat.

“But the question we face today is not the law’s wisdom, only its constitutionality. Given just a handful of days after oral argument to issue an opinion, I cannot profess the kind of certainty I would like to have about the arguments and record before us. All I can say is that, at this time and under these constraints, the problem appears real and the response to it not unconstitutional,” Gorsuch continued.

Gorsuch, a conservative appointed to the court by Donald Trump in 2017, cast doubt on how much the ban may be able to achieve, national security concerns or not. Even some Democratic lawmakers who voted for the ban seem to be trying to backtrack in the final days before the deadline takes effect, a confusing about-face.

Meanwhile, while the right had previously pushed for banning TikTok, Trump now opposes it, likely because the app altered its algorithm to make his content perform better and because one of his wealthy allies, Jeff Yass, has a large stake in its parent company. However, there’s another major reason that politicians on the right and left wanted to ban the app: the proliferation of pro-Palestine content.

Biden, with just days left in office, has said it will be up to Trump to decide how to enforce the ban. It’s anyone’s guess what he’ll decide to do, although he’s never had a high opinion of anything supporting the Palestinians.