[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

A NEW ERA OF HOMELAND SECURITY: A REVIEW
OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET REQUEST
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECU-
RITY
=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MAY 14, 2025

__________

Serial No. 119-14

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-337 WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee, Chairman
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Vice Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi,
Chair Ranking Member
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Eric Swalwell, California
Michael Guest, Mississippi J. Luis Correa, California
Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida Shri Thanedar, Michigan
August Pfluger, Texas Seth Magaziner, Rhode Island
Andrew R. Garbarino, New York Daniel S. Goldman, New York
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
Tony Gonzales, Texas Timothy M. Kennedy, New York
Morgan Luttrell, Texas LaMonica McIver, New Jersey
Dale W. Strong, Alabama Julie Johnson, Texas, Vice Ranking
Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma Member
Elijah Crane, Arizona Pablo Jose Hernandez, Puerto Rico
Andrew Ogles, Tennessee Nellie Pou, New Jersey
Sheri Biggs, South Carolina Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
Gabe Evans, Colorado Robert Garcia, California
Ryan Mackenzie, Pennsylvania Vacancy
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Eric Heighberger, Staff Director
Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
Sean Corcoran, Chief Clerk

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Statements

Honorable Mark E. Green, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Tennessee, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 4
Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8

Witness

Honorable Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11

For the Record

Honorable Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Georgia:
FOX45 NEWS Thu, May 1, 2025.................................... 28
Article, April 30, 2025........................................ 38
Tweet.......................................................... 47
Memo, Oversight Project, May 13, 2025.......................... 57
Field Interview Report, Prince George's County, MD............. 34
Quote, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary McLaughlin........ 59
Honorable Seth Magaziner, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Rhode Island:
Article, April 28, 2025........................................ 31
Honorable Daniel S. Goldman, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York:
Supreme Court Decision......................................... 19
Article, May 14, 2025.......................................... 60
Honorable Robert Garcia, a Representative in Congress From the
State of California:
Excerpt From Public Law 118-47................................. 60

Appendix

Questions From Honorable Gabe Evans for Honorable Kristi Noem.... 95
Questions From Honorable Delia C. Ramirez for Honorable Kristi
Noem........................................................... 96

A NEW ERA OF HOMELAND SECURITY: A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET
REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

----------

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Green
[Chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Green, McCaul, Higgins, Guest,
Gimenez, Pfluger, Garbarino, Greene, Gonzales, Luttrell,
Strong, Brecheen, Crane, Ogles, Biggs, Mackenzie, Knott,
Thompson, Swalwell, Correa, Thanedar, Magaziner, Goldman,
Ramirez, Kennedy, McIver, Johnson, Hernandez, Pou, and Garcia.
Chairman Green. The Committee on Homeland Security will
come to order. Without objection, the Chair may declare the
committee in recess at any point. During today's hearing, I
would remind Members that they should direct their comments to
the Chair or to the Secretary.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Good morning, Secretary Noem, and thank you for joining the
committee today to discuss President Trump's budget to fund the
crucial mission of the Department of Homeland Security. Before
we begin, I want to mention that this is Police Week, a time
for us to remember and honor the contributions of the men and
women of Federal, State, and local law enforcement across this
country, including within DHS. I think a lot of people don't
realize that there are more badges in HSI than there are in the
FBI. So much could be said about all of you who devote your
lives to service and to keep us safe. But for now, let me
simply say thank you. Thank you. Know that our committee has
your back.
Madam Secretary, this is your first appearance before the
committee, and I look forward to continuing to work closely
with you and your team as we strive to undo the damage and the
chaos created by your predecessor. When you took office, you
inherited an unprecedented crisis at our Southern Border and
all of our borders created by President Biden, Vice President
and Border Czar Kamala Harris, and Secretary Mayorkas. For 4
years, the administration and unaccountable bureaucrats helped
create--helped craft their extreme agenda, dismantled our
secure border, gutted interior immigration enforcement, and
implemented a policy of mass catch-and-release that flooded our
communities with millions of illegal immigrants.
Under the Biden-Harris administration, Customs and Border
Protection recorded more than 11 million encounters of
inadmissible aliens at our border. On top of that astronomical
number, CBP has recorded roughly 2 million known gotaways, a
number that exceeded the previous 10 physical years combined.
That is more than 13 million inadmissible aliens who violated
our sovereign border in just 4 years, around quadruple the
number from the first Trump administration, and all because the
administration's policies and rhetoric encouraged them to do
so.
The first few months of the second Trump administration
provided a remarkable contrast.
Under your and President Trump's leadership, the Border
Patrol has apprehended just around 25,000 illegal crossers at
the Southwest Border. By comparison, in December 2024, more
than 47,000 illegal crossers were apprehended. We went from a
record 301,000 illegal crossings at the Southwest Border in
December of 2023 to just over 7,000 in March, an astonishing 97
percent decrease. It turns out we didn't need comprehensive
immigration reform or a woefully misguided Senate border bill
that was pushed by the former Secretary. We just needed a
President willing to enforce the laws Congress had already
passed.
Because illegal aliens now know that President Trump will
have them removed from the country, they have stopped coming.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand this.
They do not want to talk about these victories because they
know that for 4 years they stood on the wrong side of this
issue, defending open borders and the abolition of ICE.
They also understand the American people do not trust them
on the issue of border security and immigration enforcement, in
large part because of their radical stances. I expect they will
spend a lot of time today twisting the truth to mislead the
American people. I look forward to hearing you set the record
straight.
While we are talking about Democrats' anti-enforcement
extremism, I would like to briefly extend my regrets to you,
Madam Secretary, and to the entire DHS work force for the
antics we saw on display outside the Delaney Hall detention
facility last week. Right now, attacks on law enforcement
across this country are up 400 percent. Public officials should
be sending a clear signal that these brave public servants are
to be respected and not assaulted. However, on Friday, current
and former Democrat Members of this committee stormed their way
into an ICE facility in Newark, causing mass chaos, and
verbally and physically accosting members of Federal law
enforcement in the process. I would like to share a video.
[Video shown.]
Chairman Green. I am embarrassed by what I saw and everyone
should be. This behavior is utterly unbecoming of a citizen,
let alone a Member of Congress. Democrats may talk a big game
about law and order, but these actions are a violation of the
sacred principle. Not only have Democrats excused these
actions, but they have actually tried to blame ICE for what
happened. When you punch a law enforcement officer, that is not
the law enforcement officer's fault. This behavior demands a
swift and firm response, and I assure you, action will be
taken.
Despite Democrats' best efforts to prevent it, the Trump
administration has ended the immediate crisis at our borders.
However, more work remains, particularly in removing the
millions of individuals who have no lawful basis to be in the
United States. It is essential that we swiftly fund enforcement
efforts through the reconciliation process. Congress must also
codify President Trump's successful policies to ensure they can
withstand the schemes of open-border radicals.
Meanwhile, the open border is not the only threat our
Nation faces. While the Biden-Harris administration had its
back turned, the Chinese Communist Party executed brazen
operations on U.S. soil, including running secret police
stations in our cities and conducting surveillance operations.
On top of that, Chinese-affiliated firms are buying up U.S.
farmland and commercial properties, including in areas near
sensitive Government and military sites. More than 60,000
Chinese nationals illegally crossed our Southwest Border
between fiscal year 2021 and 2024. Most of them were released
by the Biden administration into the interior, despite us not
having their true intentions or backgrounds. The CCP is pushing
the envelope harder than ever. Consequently, we need a robust,
innovative, and consistent effort to push right back.
Our cyber borders also remain under assault, most notably,
malicious cyber actors associated with the Chinese government
have targeted us with some of the most sophisticated and
sustained hacking operations we have ever seen. The Salt and
Volt Typhoon intrusions revealed significant gaps in our cyber
posture, compromising Americans' private data and key sectors
of our critical infrastructure. We have not forgotten
devastating attacks like the Colonial Pipeline in the spring of
2021, which led to oil and gas shortages across our country and
lines at almost every gas station.
We cannot stay ahead of these evolving cyber threats if we
do not have the right people with the right skills to defend
our Nation. Today more than 500,000 cyber positions across this
country in both public and private sectors are currently
unfilled. That is half a million cyber professionals not on the
front lines to defend us from the malicious activity
jeopardizing our national security.
That is why I introduced the Cyber Pivot Act, which would
create an ROTC-like scholarship program enabling men and women
across this country to gain hands-on experience in
cybersecurity or related fields and in exchange for a period of
required government service across any level of government.
Earlier this year, the committee favorably reported the act to
the House Democrat, Senator Gary Peters, Ranking Member of the
Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee, and Senator
Mike Browns, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee
on Cybersecurity, introduced a companion legislation to this in
the Senate. It is time to bring this bill to the floor for a
vote.
Madam Secretary, I look forward to working with you on
finding creative solutions to our cyber work force shortage, as
well as ensuring that the agencies under DHS tasked with
defending our cyber borders, primarily CISA, remain focused on
their task. As your budget rightly indicates, the agency's
censorship of millions of Americans will come to an end.
Instead, CISA's engagement with the private sector must focus
on protecting critical infrastructure and our Federal civilian
networks. This must include streamlining burdensome regulatory
requirements and ensuring CISA remains a trusted and reliable
partner to the public and private sectors. I trust that over
the next 4 years you will devote maximum effort to dismantling
the censorship industrial complex while ensuring that CISA is
positioned to succeed at its core mission. These are some of
the most substantial challenges, but many more await.
Madam Secretary, I expect continued progress on all of
these issues, and I am equally confident in your leadership and
resolve to get this job done. Together let's resecure our
homeland.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for an opening
statement.
[The statement of Chairman Green follows:]
Statement of Chairman Mark E. Green
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Good morning, Secretary Noem, and thank you for joining the
committee today to discuss President Trump's budget to fund the crucial
mission of the Department of Homeland Security. Before we begin, I want
to mention that this is Police Week, a time for us to remember and
honor the contributions of the men and women of Federal, State, and
local law enforcement across this country, including within DHS. I
think a lot of people don't realize that there are more badges in HSI
than there are in the FBI. So much could be said about all of you who
devote your lives to service and to keep us safe. But for now, let me
simply say thank you. Thank you. And know that our committee has your
back.
Madam Secretary, this is your first appearance before the
committee, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with you
and your team as we strive to undo the damage and the chaos created by
your predecessor. When you took office, you inherited an unprecedented
crisis at our Southern Border and all of our borders created by
President Biden, Vice President and Border Czar Kamala Harris, and
Secretary Mayorkas. For 4 years, the administration and unaccountable
bureaucrats helped create--helped craft their extreme agenda,
dismantled our secure border, gutted interior immigration enforcement,
and implemented a policy of mass catch-and-release that flooded our
communities with millions of illegal immigrants
Under the Biden-Harris administration, Customs and Border
Protection recorded more than 11 million encounters of inadmissible
aliens at our border. On top of that astronomical number, CBP has
recorded roughly 2 million known gotaways, a number that exceeded the
previous 10 physical years combined. That is more than 13 million
inadmissible aliens who violated our sovereign border in just 4 years,
around quadruple the number from the first Trump administration, and
all because the administration's policies and rhetoric encouraged them
to do so.
The first few months of the second Trump administration provided a
remarkable contrast.
Under your and President Trump's leadership, the Border Patrol has
apprehended just around 25,000 illegal crossers at the Southwest
Border. By comparison, in December 2024, more than 47,000 illegal
crossers were apprehended. We went from a record 301,000 illegal
crossings at the Southwest Border in December 2023 to just over 7,000
in March, an astonishing 97 percent decrease. It turns out we didn't
need comprehensive immigration reform or a woefully misguided Senate
border bill that was pushed by the former Secretary. We just needed a
President willing to enforce the laws Congress had already passed.
Because illegal aliens now know that President Trump will have them
removed from the country, they have stopped coming. My colleagues on
the other side of the aisle understand this. They do not want to talk
about these victories because they know that for 4 years they stood on
the wrong side of this issue, defending open borders and the abolition
of ICE.
They also understand the American people do not trust them on the
issue of border security and immigration enforcement, in large part
because of their radical stances. I expect they will spend a lot of
time today twisting the truth to mislead the American people. I look
forward to hearing you set the record straight.
And while we are talking about Democrats' anti-enforcement
extremism, I would like to briefly extend my regrets to you, Madam
Secretary, and to the entire DHS workforce for the antics we saw on
display outside the Delaney Hall detention facility last week. Right
now, attacks on law enforcement across this country are up 400 percent.
Public officials should be sending a clear signal that these brave
public servants are to be respected and not assaulted. However, on
Friday, current and former Democrat members of this committee stormed
their way into an ICE facility in Newark, causing mass chaos, and
verbally and physically accosting members of Federal law enforcement in
the process. I would like to share a video.
[Video shown.]
I am embarrassed by what I saw and everyone should be. This
behavior is utterly unbecoming of a citizen, let alone a Member of
Congress. Democrats may talk a big game about law and order, but these
actions are a violation of the sacred principle. Not only have
Democrats excused these actions, but they have actually tried to blame
ICE for what happened. When you punch a law enforcement officer, that
is not the law enforcement officer's fault. This behavior demands a
swift and firm response, and I assure you, action will be taken.
Despite Democrats' best efforts to prevent it, the Trump
administration has ended the immediate crisis at our borders. However,
more work remains, particularly in removing the millions of individuals
who have no lawful basis to be in the United States. It is essential
that we swiftly fund enforcement efforts through the reconciliation
process. Congress must also codify President Trump's successful
policies to ensure they can withstand the schemes of open border
radicals.
Meanwhile, the open border is not the only threat our Nation faces.
While the Biden-Harris administration had its back turned, the Chinese
Communist Party executed brazen operations on U.S. soil, including
running secret police stations in our cities and conducting
surveillance operations. On top of that, Chinese-affiliated firms are
buying up U.S. farmland and commercial properties, including in areas
near sensitive government and military sites. More than 60,000 Chinese
nationals illegally crossed our Southwest Border between fiscal year
2021 and 2024. Most of them were released by the Biden administration
into the interior, despite us not having their true intentions or
backgrounds. The CCP is pushing the envelope harder than ever.
Consequently, we need a robust, innovative, and consistent effort to
push right back.
Our cyber borders also remain under assault, most notably,
malicious cyber actors associated with the Chinese government have
targeted us with some of the most sophisticated and sustained hacking
operations we have ever seen. The Salt and Volt Typhoon intrusions
revealed significant gaps in our cyber posture, compromising Americans'
private data and key sectors of our critical infrastructure. We have
not forgotten devastating attacks like the Colonial Pipeline in the
spring of 1921, which led to oil and gas shortages across our country
and lines at almost every gas station.
We cannot stay ahead of these evolving cyber threats if we do not
have the right people with the right skills to defend our Nation. Today
more than 500,000 cyber positions across this country in both public
and private sectors are currently unfilled. That is half a million
cyber professionals not on the front lines to defend us from the
malicious activity jeopardizing our national security.
That is why I introduced the Cyber Pivot Act, which would create an
ROTC-like scholarship program enabling men and women across this
country to gain hands-on experience in cybersecurity or related fields
and in exchange for a period of required government service across any
level of government. Earlier this year, the committee favorably
reported the act to the House Democrat, Senator Gary Peters, Ranking
Member of the Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee, and
Senator Mike Browns, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee
on Cybersecurity, introduced a companion legislation to this in the
Senate. It is time to bring this bill to the floor for a vote.
Madam Secretary, I look forward to working with you on finding
creative solutions to our cyber workforce shortage, as well as ensuring
that the agencies under DHS tasked with defending our cyber borders,
primarily CISA, remain focused on their task. As your budget rightly
indicates, the agency's censorship of millions of Americans will come
to an end. Instead, CISA's engagement with the private sector must
focus on protecting critical infrastructure and our Federal civilian
networks. This must include streamlining burdensome regulatory
requirements and ensuring CISA remains a trusted and reliable partner
to the public and private sectors. I trust that over the next 4 years
you will devote maximum effort to dismantling the censorship industrial
complex while ensuring that CISA is positioned to succeed at its core
mission. These are some of the most substantial challenges, but many
more await.
Madam Secretary, I expect continued progress on all of these
issues, and I am equally confident in your leadership and resolve to
get this job done. Together let's resecure our homeland.

Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
Madam Secretary, to the hearing.
Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I want to recognize National
Police Week and thank the officers who protect our communities,
this Capitol, and our country honorably and ably. We appreciate
their service.
As we observe National Police Week, I again call on the
Speaker to follow the law and finally hang the plaque honoring
those brave officers who defended the United States Capitol
from a violent mob on January 6. Over 140 law enforcement
officers were assaulted that day. Honoring their bravery and
sacrifice as promised is the least Congress can do.
Turning to today's hearing, I am glad Secretary Noem is
finally testifying before the committee. After all, it has been
3 months since I sent you a letter asking for her to testify on
the Trump administration's dismantling of the Department of
Homeland Security and its harmful effects on communities across
the country. Secretary Noem, I guess the Chairman didn't think
systematically dismantling the Department of Homeland Security,
firing the Federal workers who keep us safe, and violating the
Constitution of the United States justified your timely
appearance before this committee. But when Donald Trump
demanded that Congress hand him money to do more damage to our
homeland security, Republicans bent over backward to help him
and his billionaire friends at the expense of the American
people. Whatever got you here, Secretary Noem, I am glad you
found time among your many photo ops and costume changes to
testify about why President Trump is seeking more taxpayer
dollars and what you plan to do with that money if you get it.
It is a lot of money. We are talking about $176 billion.
That is how much President Trump has demanded that Congress
give you to spend next year. Never mind the fact that your
Department is spending taxpayers' money so fast this year you
are about to be broke. Now you are saying you need $44 billion
more, but all you have done is slash, burn, cut, dismantle, and
tear apart DHS since you got here.
You cut programs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency
that help Americans prepare for and recover from disasters. You
are unlawfully withholding grant money meant to prevent
terrorism and respond to emergencies from local communities
across the country. You cut programs at the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Agency, which prevents attacks on power lines,
water treatment plants, schools, hospitals, and other critical
infrastructure. You cut the number of transportation security
officers who protect our airports. You cut the Office of Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties, which keeps DHS from digging into
Americans' private lives and violating people's Constitutional
rights. You are making Americans less safe.
If you are cutting the things that help keep America safe,
why should we give you an extra $44 billion? Is it to deport
American citizen children with cancer? Is it to deport more
veterans of the United States military? Is it to ignore the
Supreme Court's order to facilitate the release of an lawful
permanent resident you mistakenly shipped off to a foreign
prison? Is it to punish people for exercising their First
Amendment right? Is it to disappear more people off our streets
with no due process and ship them to a foreign dictator's
prison? Is it to fire more military veterans who continue to
serve their country by working for DHS? Is it to slash efforts
to fight persistent threats from foreign terrorist
organizations and domestic terrorists? Is it to dismantle FEMA
as hurricane season is about to get under way? Is it to
decimate CISA and invite China, Russia, Iran, and other
adversaries into our cyber networks? Is it just to be mean,
threaten, and deny due process to vulnerable people?
These are not hypotheticals. These are things that DHS has
already done under your leadership or is trying to do.
Secretary Noem, your policies and actions are so bad that
Republican Members have been running and hiding from their own
constituents, refusing to hold town halls because they know
they cannot defend this administration. Republicans are
unwilling to defend the Trump administration with the folks
back home. So I guess it is down to you to try to do that here
today.
But you can't defend the indefensible, Secretary Noem. Your
Department is out of control. On your watch the Department is
breaking the law, it is hurting people, and it is making
America less safe. The Trump administration is outright lying
to the courts and the American people.
Just last week, 3 Members from New Jersey, all current
Members or former Members of this committee, tried to visit an
ICE detention center, which they are permitted to do, as you
know, by law, without notice, to conduct oversight after
reports of issues at the facility. Instead of following the
law, masked-out ICE personnel stopped and assaulted the
Members. Then, to make matters worse, instead of launching an
investigation into the incident, your Department lied to the
press about the situation and threatened to arrest Members of
Congress for doing their job. Absolutely outrageous.
It is a sad day for the Department of Homeland Security.
Frankly, I have never seen anything like it and I have served
as the lead Democrat on this committee from its start. Even
when the Secretary, my Republican colleagues, and I had strong
disagreements, we still had productive conversations and did
our duty to keep America safe. But that is not the case any
longer. My colleagues across the aisle have sold their souls,
or at least their spines, to Donald Trump. They try to cover
the administration lies and blame Democrats for doing the job
our constituents sent us here to do.
Republicans have forgotten that Congress is a co-equal
branch of Government and that the oath we take to the
Constitution is the same as the President. Republicans even
want to cut Medicaid to fund tax breaks for millionaires. They
put their billionaire buddies over the little guys every chance
they get. Now you are here, Secretary Noem, with your hand out,
looking for more taxpayer money to continue the slash-and-burn
activities of the Department of Homeland Security over the past
hundred or so days. Until the Trump administration starts
following the law, that is going to be a very, very hard sell.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
May 14, 2025
I am glad that Secretary Noem is finally testifying before the
committee. After all, it's been 3 months since I sent you a letter
asking for her to testify on the Trump administration's dismantling of
the Department of Homeland Security and its harmful effects on
communities across the country.
Secretary Noem, I guess the Chairman didn't think that
systematically dismantling the Department of Homeland Security, firing
the Federal workers who keep us safe, and violating the Constitution of
the United States justified your timely appearance before this
committee.
But when Donald Trump demanded that Congress hand him money to do
more damage to our homeland security, Republicans bent over backward to
help him and his billionaire friends at the expense of the American
people.
Whatever got you here, Secretary Noem, I am glad you found time
among your many photo ops and costume changes to testify about why
President Trump is seeking more taxpayer dollars and what you plan to
do with that money if you get it.
And it is A LOT of money. We are talking about $176 billion. That's
how much President Trump has demanded that Congress give you to spend
next year. Never mind the fact that your Department is spending
taxpayer money so fast this year you're about to be broke. Now you're
saying you need $44 billion MORE, but all you've done is slash, burn,
cut, dismantle, and tear apart DHS since you got there.
You cut programs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency
that help Americans prepare for and recover from disasters.
You are unlawfully withholding grant money meant to prevent
terrorism and respond to emergencies from local communities
across the country.
You cut programs at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency, which prevents attacks on power lines, water
treatment plants, schools, hospitals, and other critical
infrastructure.
You cut the number of transportation security officers who
protect our airports and airplanes.
You cut the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
which keeps DHS from digging into Americans' private lives and
violating people's Constitutional rights.
You are making Americans LESS SAFE. If you are CUTTING the things
that help keep America safe, why should we give you an EXTRA $44
billion?
Is it to deport more American citizen children with cancer?
Is it to deport more veterans of the United States military?
Is it to ignore the Supreme Court's order to facilitate the
release of a lawful permanent resident you mistakenly shipped
off to a foreign prison?
Is it to punish people for exercising their First Amendment
rights?
Is it to ``disappear'' more people off our streets with no
due process and ship them to foreign dictators' prisons?
Is it to fire more military veterans who were continuing to
serve their country by working at DHS?
Is it to slash efforts to fight persistent threats from
foreign terrorist organizations and domestic terrorists?
Is it to dismantle FEMA as hurricane season is about to get
under way?
Is it to decimate CISA and invite China, Russia, Iran, and
other adversaries into our cyber networks?
Is it to just be mean, threaten, and deny due process to
vulnerable people?
These are not hypotheticals. These are things that DHS has ALREADY
done under your leadership--or is trying to do, Secretary Noem. Your
policies and actions are so bad that Republican Members have been
running and hiding from their own constituents, refusing to hold town
halls--because they know they cannot defend this administration.
Republicans are unwilling to defend the Trump administration with
the folks back home, so I guess it is down to you to try here today.
But you can't defend the indefensible, Secretary Noem.
Your Department is out of control. On your watch, the Department is
breaking the law, it's hurting people, and it's making America less
safe. The Trump administration is outright lying to the courts and the
American people.
Just last week, 3 Members from New Jersey--all current or former
Members of this committee--tried to visit an ICE detention center,
which they are permitted to do by law without notice, to conduct
oversight after reports of issues at the facility. Instead of following
the law, masked ICE personnel stopped and assaulted the Members.
Then, to make matters worse, instead of launching an investigation
into the incident, your Department lied to the press about the
situation and threatened to arrest Members of Congress for doing their
jobs.
Absolutely outrageous. It's a sad day for the Department of
Homeland Security. Frankly, I've never seen anything like it, and I
have served as the lead Democrat on this committee from its start.
Even when the Secretary, my Republican colleagues, and I had strong
disagreements, we still had productive conversations and did our duty
to keep Americans safe. But that's not the case any longer. My
colleagues across the aisle have sold their souls--or at least their
spines--to Donald Trump.
They try to cover for the administration's lies and blame Democrats
for doing the job our constituents sent us here to do. Republicans have
forgotten that Congress is a coequal branch of government and that
their oaths are to the U.S. Constitution, not the President.
Republicans even want to cut Medicaid to fund tax breaks for
billionaires. They put their billionaire buddies over the little guys
every chance they get.
And now you're here, Secretary Noem, with your hand out, looking
for more taxpayer money to continue the slash-and-burn activities of
the Department of Homeland Security over the past hundred or so days.
Until the Trump administration starts following the law, that's going
to be a very, very hard sell.

Chairman Green. The gentlemen yields. Other Members of the
committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted
for the record.
I am pleased to have the Secretary of Homeland Security
before us today for the first time as Secretary. I ask that
Secretary Noem, you would please rise and raise your right
hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Chairman Green. Let the record reflect that the Secretary
has answered in the affirmative. Please take a seat, ma' am.
I would now like to formally introduce our witness. The
Honorable Kristi Noem currently serves as the eighth Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to her
appointment as Secretary, she served as Governor of South
Dakota, as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and
in the South Dakota State legislature. I thank the Secretary
for being here today.
I now recognize Secretary Noem for 5 minutes to summarize
her opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY

Secretary Noem. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also thank
you, Chairman McCaul. Good to see you again. I was very
privileged to serve with you when I served in this body. To
Ranking Member Thompson, I appreciate the invitation to be with
all of you today and talk about important matters, about
securing our homeland here in the United States of America.
Now, having previously served as a Member of Congress, it's
my honor to be on this side of the dais to present as the
Secretary of Homeland Security. Today, I'm proud to discuss the
accomplishments of President Trump and all that he has
accomplished since he's taken office in the White House. But
first, I would be remiss if I did not address the disturbing
actions that we saw last week.
There were Members of this very committee that took part in
an action at Delaney Hall on May 9 that need to be addressed. I
served as a Member of Congress in this body for 8 years, and I
understand the importance of Congressional oversight. What
happened on May 9 was not oversight. It was a political stunt
that put the safety of our law enforcement officers, our
agents, our staff, and our detainees at risk.
Here are the facts. As a vehicle approached the security
gate at Delaney Hall Detention Center, a mob of protesters,
including 3 Members of Congress, stormed the gate and they
trespassed into the detention facility. We have footage of
those Members of Congress slamming their bodies into our law
enforcement officers, shoving them, screaming profanities in
their faces, striking them with their fists, and otherwise
assaulting law enforcement. The behavior was lawlessness, and
it was beneath this body.
Members of Congress should not break into detention centers
or Federal facilities. Had these Members requested a tour, we
certainly would have facilitated a tour. As a body knows, there
are proper protocols and there are procedures that must be
abided by. These Congressional Members and staff visit our
facilities all of the time, and these Members could follow the
policies that have been in place, and they would have been
followed, we would have facilitated a tour of this important
facility.
However, even after these Members assaulted our Federal law
enforcement officers, we still provided them with a tour of
that facility. I'm glad that at their press conference
following the tour, these Members acknowledge that Delaney Hall
is in good condition and meets deferral standards. Charges made
by these politicians that Delaney does not have the proper
permitting is false. We have valid permits and inspections for
plumbing and electricity and fire codes that have been cleared.
Last, I'd like to remind Americans and everyone in this
body who is detained in this detention facility are murderers,
rapists, known terrorists, MS-13 gang members, drug
traffickers, and other heinous actors. I hope that those
Members of Congress will so passionately protest on behalf of
the American victims that they were elected to represent, and
not just violent criminals who are in this country illegally.
Now that I've addressed this issue, I want to return to the
reason why I'm in front of your committee today. I want to talk
about the first 3--or first 100 days under the Trump
administration. Under President Trump and his leadership, we
have already delivered for the American people a drastic
turnaround in homeland security from the Southern Border to our
Coast Guard to cyber space, and we're just getting started.
We've delivered the most secure border in American history.
At the Southern Border, we have obtained near-total control,
with daily encounters down 93 percent since President Trump has
been in office. March saw the lowest numbers in American
history of border encounters at just 7,200. Under the previous
administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection was at times
under Joe Biden encountering over 15,000 people per day. This
astonishing turnaround is a testament to the resolve and to the
leadership of President Trump to make America safe again. As
well, it is a testament to the incredible work done by the men
and women of the Department of Homeland Security.
The secure border has allowed Border Patrol to zero in on
fighting cartels and all of their illicit activities. Under
President Trump's leadership, 6 cartels, 4 dangerous and
criminal gangs have been designated as foreign terrorist
organizations. This has allowed us to take a whole-of-
Government approach to address the illegal activities that
these murderers and drug traffickers are taking on.
In March, fentanyl traffic at the border fell by 54 percent
compared to the previous year. We are enforcing immigration
laws to identify, arrest, detain, and remove dangerous illegal
criminals. We're prioritizing those who have committed crimes
and aliens who are a threat to public safety and national
security, especially those that are affiliated with terrorist
organizations like MS-13 and Tren de Aragua. This includes
those that already have final orders of removal.
We've also worked to enforce President Trump's America
First trade agenda, and Joe Biden's trade policies hollowed out
our industrial base, shipped our jobs overseas. Our tariffs
have been an effective negotiating tool.
We're also reforming emergency management in this country.
We have the FEMA Review Council, which will be doing its work
to make recommendations to the White House. We are also
addressing cybersecurity, making sure that CISA is back on
mission at protecting the homeland. The Coast Guard is the only
U.S. military branch under the umbrella of the Department of
Homeland Security. We're making sure they have the resources
and the vision to leave and be the point of the spear in the
future.
Since I took office, one of the responsibilities that I
have is in reforming the Secret Service. We've reassessed
Secret Service's needs, gotten recruitment away from Biden
administration's DEI objectives, and made sure that they are
equipped and ready to take on the task of protecting the more
powerful into the future. We are so grateful for their bravery,
their dedication, and their patriotism. It's our responsibility
to continue providing them with the resources that they need to
continue to do the important work that they do.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the time today. Thank
you for allowing me to be here to get the facts out to the
American people and to Members of this committee of all of the
good work that the people of the Department of Homeland
Security are doing to serve the American public.
With that, I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Noem follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kristi Noem
Wednesday, May 14, 2025
introduction
Chairman Green, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members
of this committee: It is a privilege to present to you the Department
of Homeland Security's critical work to keep our Nation safe and share
our priorities for fiscal year 2026. In the first 100 days under
President Trump's leadership, the Department has established the most
secure border in our Nation's history, kept dangerous criminals out of
America, and deported illegal aliens who threaten our people. We will
not stop until there are none left.
The President's fiscal year 2026 budget request for DHS will
establish a firm foundation upon which to surge resources in support of
the administration's border security and immigration enforcement
objectives. The administration has requested over $175 billion for DHS
as part of the reconciliation bill currently under consideration in
Congress. Reconciliation would empower the DHS to implement the
President's mass removal campaign and secure the border.
As we work to implement President Trump's policies, I am determined
to lead the over 270,000 men and women of the Department in the most
efficient and effective way possible to safeguard our Nation. While the
Department can seem disparate--23 component offices with broad-ranging
missions sets--we are united in our resolve to protect the homeland and
stand ready to defend these United States against threats by air, land,
sea or cyber space. From clearing the streets of terrorists to
deploying to disaster-ridden communities to help after a natural
disaster, the brave men and women serving on our front lines must be
fully equipped to perform their duty to keep America safe and secure.
Under President Trump's leadership, I am committed to securing our
Nation's borders, enforcing immigration laws, securing cyber space and
critical infrastructure, enabling transportation and trade, combating
exploitation, and ensuring American resilience and preparedness.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, for instance, is now focused on
critical border security front-line operations instead of serving as a
pass-through agency processing illegal aliens into our country like
under the last administration. The message has gotten out world-wide
that America is now enforcing our laws and the border is closed. The
issuing of Notices to Appear, Withdrawals, and Expedited Removals
decreased by 99 percent from January 21 through April 15 of 2025,
compared to the same time frame in fiscal year 2024. There has been a
93 percent decrease in inadmissibility encounters throughout the
Southwest Border since January 21, 2025. We have also seen a 94 percent
decrease in encounters of unaccompanied alien children.
America is witnessing a historic decrease in illicit drug traffic
due to the Trump administration's policy changes, swift repatriation
efforts, aggressive prosecutorial initiatives, and significant
messaging campaigns. In March 2025, illicit fentanyl traffic at the
Southwest Border fell by 54 percent compared to March 2024. The U.S.
Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have seized nearly
232,000 pounds of fentanyl and other illicit drugs--stopping them from
ever reaching American communities.
There has been a significant decline in the number of illegal
aliens coming over the border, as many are turning back before they
even get here. March 2025 saw the lowest number of border encounters in
recorded history, at just under 7,200. On February 25, 2025, Border
Patrol encountered a record low daily total of less than 160 illegal
aliens at the Southern Border. Overall, border encounters have fallen
by 99 percent, and there has been a 95 percent decrease in the number
of estimated gotaways--the biggest threat to public safety.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A gotaway is an illegal entry that was detected and that all
efforts to continue tracking the entry have stopped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Trump administration's designation of 6 cartels and 2
transnational gangs as foreign terrorist organizations, we have been
able to use a whole-of-Government approach to crack down on these
vicious groups, treating them like the terrorists they are.
Under President Trump, DHS is committed to complete construction of
the Southern Border wall, a common-sense solution to securing our
border. Currently, we have more than 85 miles of new border barrier, 17
miles of which are waterborne barriers, in various stages of
construction and planning. We are also working with DoD and the Texas
National Guard to deploy temporary barriers to include concertina wire,
razor wire, chain link fencing, and additional barriers. This is in
addition to the administration's request for billions of additional
dollars for border barrier like new primary and secondary border wall
systems, waterborne barrier systems, and technology where wall is
currently installed but lacks the completed systems needed.
We are committed to enforcing the United States' immigration laws.
Our priority is to identify, arrest, detain, and remove dangerous
criminal illegal aliens and those with final orders of removal. We are
giving illegal aliens the opportunity to voluntarily self-deport using
the CBP Home app, in response and contrast to the Biden
administration's utilization of the CBP One app, which allowed more
than 1 million aliens to illegally enter the United States. Self-
deportation is the best option for illegal aliens, while preserving our
law enforcement resources. It saves our taxpayer dollars and allows us
to focus valuable resources on dangerous criminal illegal aliens.
Our enforcement efforts prioritize illegal aliens who have
committed crimes and are a threat to public safety and national
security, including aliens who are affiliated with foreign terrorist
organizations like Tren De Aragua and MS-13. However, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement has the authority to deport anyone in the
country here illegally, which is a crime.
The number of suspected gang members U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement has arrested since January 20, 2025, represents a 105
percent increase compared to the same period in fiscal year 2024. The
number of known or suspected terrorists we have arrested from January
20 to mid-April this year represents a 700 percent increase compared to
the same period in fiscal year 2024.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ICE arrest data is current through April 16, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have secured the border, decreased drug trafficking, and
arrested criminal illegal aliens, but we need Congress to secure
investments in staffing, infrastructure, technology, information
sharing, and public-private partnerships to ensure these successes
continue.
Trade Enforcement
Our Homeland Security mission includes safeguarding the American
worker. We are committed to enforcing President Trump's America First
Trade Agenda. On April 2, 2025, Liberation Day, President Trump
announced new tariffs on 185 countries to address the national
emergency posed by the large and persistent goods trade deficits that
are driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships.
That day, he hammered home that the days of unilateral American
disarmament in trade policy are over.
As U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforces tariffs on imports
and Homeland Security Investigations performs criminal investigations
on illicit trade, travel, and finance, the Department of Homeland
Security stands on the front lines of America's economic defense. We
have been open and receptive to reasonable overtures made by our
trading partners, who have come to the negotiating table. This has
proven what we have known all along: tariffs work.
We've implemented automated systems, targeted inspections, and
field guidance in the hands of front-line officers to improve tariff
collections. In Antidumping and Countervailing Duty revenue collection,
we secured $1.1 billion in additional revenue as a result of targeted
reviews of 774 shipments that were detected as discrepant for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty payment. Since January 20, 2025, we
have collected over $30 billion in tariffs. With a 99 percent
collection rate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has consistently
shown to be an extremely reliable enforcement arm in collecting tariff
revenue.
We play a critical role in enforcing U.S. laws prohibiting imports
of goods made with forced labor, which is a form of human trafficking.
In enforcing these laws to include the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention
Act, we keep these illicit goods from entry into our markets,
preventing malign actors from profiting off human rights abuses and
undermining U.S. businesses and their workers with unfairly traded
goods. Eliminating goods made with forced labor from global supply
chains makes legitimate supply chains more resilient and allows
American-made products to compete on a level playing field.
Transportation Security Administration
Keeping American travelers safe requires that we safeguard our
inherently open and vulnerable transportation systems. The
Transportation Security Administration is directly responsible for
ensuring Americans can travel within the United States safely and
securely. In a single day, the United States sees over 45,000 flights
and 2.9 million airline passengers cross more than 29 million miles of
air space.\3\ In addition to mention maritime and land-based public
transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Air Traffic By The Numbers/Federal Aviation Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will do what other administrations failed to do--follow the law
and implement the REAL ID program to stop domestic air travel of
illegal aliens, criminals, and foreign nationals using fraudulent
identification. This law was passed over 20 years ago, and 81 percent
percent of American travelers are already REAL ID-compliant. We will
ensure compliance and security. REAL ID was created to help ensure that
no horrific attack like the one on 9/11 will ever happen again. To
prepare for implementation beginning May 7, 2025, we have been working
closely with States to ensure compliance and urge every American to
obtain a REAL ID for smoother and more secure air travel.
The Transportation Security Administration continues to improve
efficiency while enhancing security through growth of the TSA PreCheck
program, accounting for over one-third of all travel volume. Over 21
million travelers have seen how easy it is to enroll in TSA PreCheck,
with reduced pricing for enrollments and renewals, making it more
affordable for all eligible U.S. travelers.
Cybersecurity and Combatting Cyber Crime
In the hyper-connected 21st Century, securing the homeland now
includes protecting our cyber infrastructure. The threat environment to
our homeland through cyber space now changes by the nanosecond, and we
must keep up. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
proactively addresses a rapidly-evolving cyber threat environment and
thwarts cyber attacks from foreign adversaries and cyber criminals.
These attacks continue to grow in frequency, scope, and severity, as
demonstrated by the recent cyber espionage campaign by the threat actor
known as Salt Typhoon, which resulted in the compromise of private
communications of several high-profile individuals from adversaries and
criminals who seek to do us harm.
China has repeatedly demonstrated its capability and intent to
infiltrate and potentially disrupt critical systems within the United
States. Chinese-affiliated actors have compromised multiple
communications, energy, transportation, and water critical
infrastructure organizations across the country. Every day, the
Department of Homeland Security works with government, industry, and
international partners to prevent, detect, and respond to cyber
intrusions to U.S. critical infrastructure.
We have dramatically increased our cyber operations to prevent
threats and address vulnerabilities within the Federal Government. This
effort goes hand-in-hand with our critical infrastructure efforts, as
China and other nation-states are often leveraging the same tools and
tactics to weaken and spy on the United States. Our unique authorities
and positioning between the intelligence community, law enforcement,
industry, and international partners is critical to understanding cyber
adversary intent and applying critical protections domestically.
U.S. Secret Service
Since the beginning of the Trump administration, the men and women
of the U.S. Secret Service have ensured the safety of protectees during
more than 1,400 official visits and successfully secured the safety of
visiting world leaders at over 270 protective visits. At the same time,
Secret Service investigative operations have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars and bolstered the law enforcement partnerships that
enable these types of operations. In the first 2 months of this
administration, the agency's criminal and cyber investigations have
enabled the Secret Service to return over $226,000,000 in forfeited
assets to American people who were victims of crimes and incurred
financial loss.
Secret Service manpower needs have been reassessed in the wake of
the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on President Trump. We have
since implemented targeted recruiting for experience and training that
is transferable to specialty teams. We also created a talent pipeline
with military organizations whose missions align with the Secret
Service's technical requirements and have advanced digital platforms to
enhance job candidate outreach and engagement.
Secret Service has executed 2 nationwide advertising campaigns to
increase recruitment, which are already yielding incredible recruiting
results. Under President Trump, the Secret Service has had a 194
percent increase in applications since this period last year and have
hired the most Special Agents in the agency's history. We are on track
to almost double last year's law enforcement hiring.
U.S. Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard is a central pillar of American national
security and power projection. As a military service and law
enforcement organization, the Coast Guard faces a unique set of
operational challenges and opportunities, necessitating a unique
posture for rapid response to a variety of evolving missions with a
modernized fleet that supports these requirements. As the Arctic
increases in importance to American security, the Coast Guard is
uniquely positioned as the only military service possessing the fleet
necessary to break polar ice and maintain sea lanes.
The Coast Guard is facing the greatest readiness crisis since World
War II. We are acting now through Force Design 2028 to restore
capability and deter emerging threats. With Congress' help, we will
transform the Coast Guard and deliver a future-ready force. President
Trump and I are fully aligned in their directive: reinvigorate the
Coast Guard or risk strategic failure.
Focused on 4 campaigns--Force Design 2028 will reform the U.S.
Coast Guard's personnel, organization, contracting and acquisition, and
technology. Increased national demand for our Coast Guard requires a
larger, more capable military workforce. This campaign will improve
training systems, boost access to medical care, and modernize both the
Coast Guard Reserve and the civilian management system.
As global security threats, technological advancements, and
operational demands continue to evolve, the Coast Guard must adapt its
organizational construct and internal decision making and governance
processes to remain relevant, effective, and responsive. We will
develop a high-velocity acquisition and contracting system to rapidly
deliver the assets the Service needs to fulfill its commitment to the
American people. The Coast Guard will accelerate the adoption of
secure, state-of-the-market technologies to enhance data sharing,
situational awareness, and operational effectiveness.
The great men and women of our U.S. Coast Guard are excited to
support the efforts of the administration to secure our border and
strengthen our economy. The Coast Guard continues to conduct search-
and-rescue missions, and to detect, deter, and interdict illegal
migration, drug smuggling, and other malign activity before it reaches
our shores.
Emergency Management and Disaster Response
The Federal Government's role in emergency management and response
needs to be both reformed and reimagined. Under President Trump's
leadership, we are reorienting the Federal Emergency Management
agency's responsibilities and eliminate the dysfunction of the current
agency as it exists today. We need to enable preparedness against
global and dynamic threats and hazards, while providing expeditious,
effective, and impartial response to disasters. This alignment seeks to
empower State and local jurisdictions and individuals to engage more
actively in national resilience and preparedness.
Just 4 days after returning to office, President Trump directed
aggressive actions to expedite response and recovery in areas recently
devastated by hurricanes or wildfires. Within those first 4 days,
President Trump was on the ground meeting survivors in North Carolina
who endured Hurricane Helene and in California who endured preventable
wildfires around Los Angeles County. Within days of the President's
visit, we registered 2,600 families in North Carolina that desperately
needed help and reduced by nearly 80 percent the number of assistance
cases stuck in bureaucratic red tape. While taxpayer dollars continue
to subsidize the majority of disaster response and recovery costs, we
are identifying ways to preserve these tax dollars or use them more
responsibly.
The American people need action--not red tape, and the President
continues to identify opportunities to enhance efficiency while
expediting response to on-going natural disasters, including severe
weather, tornadoes, flooding, or wildfires across multiple States.
Thanks to President Trump's approval of Stafford Act declarations, we
provided over $58 million dollars in assistance directly to survivors
and enabled rapid deployment of Incident Management Assistance Teams,
emergency communication support, and Urban Search-and-Rescue teams,
bolstering State and local disaster response operations.
President Trump remains committed to saving American lives and
livelihoods, and we will institute common-sense approaches to achieve
national security and resilience while empowering State and local
governments and the strongest of all--American citizens.
conclusion
As the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, I can
proudly say that with honor and integrity, we will safeguard the
American people, our homeland, and our values. The achievements I share
are just a few examples of what we have accomplished in just 100 days.
With a job as big as the one the men and women of this Department take
on every day, it is impossible to list all of the things that its 23
components are doing to protect the American people and improve
operations to deliver a more responsive and efficient Government.
I am grateful to the men and women of the Department of Homeland
Security who exude bravery, dedication, and patriotism as they carry
out their sworn duties allowing the American people to sleep better at
night. We dutifully ask Congress to continue providing our men and
women with the resources that they need to do their jobs.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to your questions.

Chairman Green. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their
5 minutes of questioning. Because we have a restricted time
window for the Secretary today, just as we did with the last
Secretary, I will again limit to 5 minutes. So if you are going
to go over, you know, you are going to get a light tap, and
then eventually we will get a little heavier. But the goal here
is, and I will, as I always do, apply the standard equal lead
to both sides, 5 minutes is 5 minutes today.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Secretary Noem, in the first 100 days, President Trump made
border security a top priority by increasing immigration
enforcement, deploying additional DHS and DOD personnel to the
border, and restarting construction of the border wall.
President Trump's decisive strategy was a sharp departure from
his predecessor. Former President Biden refused to enforce
Federal immigration laws, sparking the most severe border
crisis in our Nation's history. Under President Trump's and
your leadership, the tide has turned.
Secretary Noem, which of the President's decisive actions
do you believe sent the strongest message to both the cartels
and would-be illegal border crossers that the United States is
no longer open to for exploitation?
Secretary Noem. You know, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the
strongest thing President Trump did was to make an announcement
that we would start following our Federal laws, that not only
would our border be secure, but that those who crossed it
illegally would be considered breaking the law, like it should
be, and that they would be prosecuted, they would be removed,
and that it would no longer be a facilitation of an invasion
like the Biden administration had put forward. He clearly sent
that message, and before I was even sworn into this job, told
me that I needed to be aggressive in going out there and
telling the world that America was under new leadership, that
we were a Nation of laws, and that they would be enforced going
forward, and that America and the people that lived here were
going to be put first.
Chairman Green. Secretary Noem, the President has secured
the border largely through Executive action. But as we know
from the Biden-Harris administration, those actions can be
undone by subsequent Presidents. What are the top 2 to 3
security, immigration enforcement policies that Congress must
act urgently to codify so they are no longer Executive Orders,
but Federal law?
Secretary Noem. We know President Trump has specifically
asked that the Executive Orders that he's put into place be
codified into law so they could be long-lasting. So I'd
encourage this body to look at everything that he has put
forward in an Executive Order to see if it could be permanently
enacted to secure our Nation. I would say enforcement and
clarity on what parole is, what asylum is, give us some clarity
to make sure that that is something that will be long-standing
interpreted as to how it was intended when the original law was
passed. Then ensuring that we have the ability to take action
when criminals are in this country, continue to focusing on
getting them out of their country and how those diplomatic
relations work with repatriating their citizens back home.
Chairman Green. Secretary Noem, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, you inherited an unprecedented border
crisis. In the last 4 years, a total of over 1,700 known or
suspected terrorists were apprehended at the border. In the 4
years prior to that, it was 11--11, 1,700. From your
perspective as DHS Secretary, can you highlight how the open-
border policies of the last administration increased the risk
to American families when it came to violent criminals and
terrorists entering the country?
Secretary Noem. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, we truly don't
have any idea how many dangerous individuals are still in the
United States of America. Since President Trump has been in
office just in these few short months, we have deported over
250 known terrorists out of the country. These are individuals
that were allowed to come into our country unchecked by the
previous administration. We have deported thousands of
criminals that have perpetuated the worst of the worst crimes
on our communities, murders, rapists, child pornographers,
traffickers, and we have returned them back to their home
countries.
The message that was sent by the last administration was
come to America. Send your worst of your worst. They're given
free reign to make a home here and given every opportunity. In
fact, we'll even facilitate their housing, their food, their
clothing, and take care of them, and treat them better than we
treat U.S. citizens. That was Joe Biden's policies. What
President Trump has done is follow the law. He has implemented
the law and said that American citizens should come first and
be prioritized as far as their safety, and that everybody
should be tweeted--treated equally, that the scales of justice
should treat everyone exactly the same. That's what he has
implemented.
So I'm grateful he's given us the ability to go after the
worst of the worst and to remove them from our country because
our communities overwhelmingly get safer every day as these
individuals are removed.
Chairman Green. Thank you. In keeping with my commitment to
be inside my 5 minutes, I will now yield to the Ranking Member
for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The
Department of Homeland Security has been the top target on
Donald Trump's revenge tour, and you, Madam Secretary, are the
chief accomplice. The Trump administration is hell-bent on
destroying the Department of Homeland Security, built through
bipartisan collaboration over the past 2 decades, and evading
any accountability for its actions. Let's start with what the
administration is doing to FEMA.
Madam Secretary, you said that you want to get rid of FEMA
and the administration plan is to shirk its disaster response
obligation and leave State and local governments to fend for
themselves. Emergency managers across the country are sounding
the alarm about the limited ability to respond when disasters
strike, but their calls are falling on deaf ears from the White
House.
What is the administration's plan to respond to
catastrophic disasters beyond shifting responsibilities to
States and local communities who are already telling you they
don't have the ability to respond?
Secretary Noem. Well, Congressman, President Trump has been
very clear that he believes that FEMA should be eliminated as
it exists today. He believes there's dramatic reforms that need
to happen to the agency in order for it to truly serve people
in a time of crisis. He wants to empower States and local
governments to respond to their people. The Federal Government
would be there for resources support, much like block grants,
but that we need to empower those locally to respond to their
people because they know what they need. So that is something
that every State is at a different position today to respond.
But he wants to give them the opportunity to build up the
infrastructure----
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. To respond to their emergency.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. Madam Secretary. Do you have
this plan in writing?
Secretary Noem. The White House is coming forward with the
participation of the FEMA Review Council, which we have members
from many States that are sitting on, that will be making
recommendations.
Mr. Thompson. So what you are doing now, there is nothing
in writing as a guidepost?
Secretary Noem. Well, sir, you certainly know that there
are reform bills here in the House side and in the Senate side
of how to address the failures of FEMA from the past.
Mr. Thompson. No, but you are the Secretary.
Secretary Noem. Those will be considered with the FEMA----
Mr. Thompson. No, no, no, you are the Secretary.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Review Council
recommendations.
Mr. Thompson. No, you are the Secretary. You say you are
doing all these things and I am just asking you, do you have a
written plan for what you are doing?
Secretary Noem. There is no formalized final plan for how
this goes forward because the input of Congress is----
Mr. Thompson. OK. Well----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Critically important. As you
know, there are statutory requirements of the agency.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I am glad you recognize----
Secretary Noem. That needs to be balanced----
Mr. Thompson. Madam Secretary, I am glad----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. With the recommendations.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. You recognize the statutory
requirements. Washington State, Mississippi, and a couple other
States already have requests in to you or to the President for
the last declaration. It has taken an inordinate amount of
time, more than normal. I just want to know if that inordinate
amount of time is based on some plan that you have knowledge
of? But if it's not in writing, I understand.
So you talked about the rule of law. Are you telling the
committee that due process for anybody that is picked up in
this country should not be followed?
Secretary Noem. Congressman, we have utilized due process
as it is laid out in the tools that Congress has given us. We
have followed the tools and the processes to which Congress has
given us to give due process to people appropriately as it is
due.
Mr. Thompson. So your testimony to this committee under
oath is that everybody that ICE has picked up in this country
has been given every opportunity as Section 5 under the
Constitution provides?
Secretary Noem. Correct. I believe everybody has gotten due
process and every person has been treated appropriately
according to the civil or the criminal action to which they
were encountering individuals and brought into our detainment
and then also removed from this country.
Mr. Thompson. So your answer is yes?
Secretary Noem. The tools that you have given us as this
body for due process----
Mr. Thompson. No, I am talking about the Constitution of
the United States. I am not talking about tools. The
Constitution is clear.
Secretary Noem. Correct. And----
Mr. Thompson. Your testimony under oath to this committee
is that everybody that ICE has picked up and any other agency
of DHS has conformed to those statutes.
Secretary Noem. For example, Congressman----
Mr. Thompson. No. Yes or no? No, I don't need an example.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Expedited removal is one of
the tools----
Mr. Thompson. Madam Secretary, I got 4 seconds.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. That you have given us to
utilize as due process.
Mr. Thompson. I just need a yes or no.
Secretary Noem. Sir, that is the due process tool that you
have given us to utilize that has been appropriately used.
Mr. Thompson. So obviously----
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired. I know
that----
Mr. Goldman. I have a unanimous consent request, Chairman.
Chairman Green. I am sorry?
Mr. Goldman. I have a unanimous consent request.
Chairman Green. Let's hear it.
Mr. Goldman. I would like to introduce Kristi Noem v.
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a 9-nothing Supreme Court case
where the Supreme Court found that Mr. Abrego Garcia did not
receive due process.
Chairman Green. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Chairman Green. I now recognize Mr. McCaul for his 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. McCaul. Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, it is great--it
was great to serve with you in Congress. It was an honor. It is
an honor to see you as Secretary of this important department.
Let me say on behalf of my State of Texas, thank you for
what you have done in a very short period of time. I have
worked on this issue as a Federal prosecutor, as Chairman of
this committee for over 25 years, I never saw the border more
broken, more chaotic than I did under the prior administration.
Yet within months, you have restored order to the border. The
stats speak for themselves. I want to commend you and President
Trump for that.
You know, on Day 1, they rescinded the Remain in Mexico
policy, which led to the chaos. It said, we are open for
business, come on in, and they did. Over 10 million encounters,
2 million gotaways, yet within months of your administration,
that number has gone down 93 percent. Catch and release, I have
been fighting that one for years. The Biden administration did
away with it. Now we are decreased to 99.99 percent, almost
zero catch and release. A very dangerous policy.
Remain in Mexico has been on the books for 30 years, yet I
marked it up on the Foreign Affairs Committee last year as part
of the Secure Border Act. Most offensively, and the reason I
was an impeachment manager against Mayorkas, was his
dereliction of duty to basically prioritize allowing aggravated
felons into the country, even though Congress by Federal law
said shall detain aggravated felons. Yet, what did he do? He
told his agents, that is discretionary. You can release these
dangerous criminals into our society. What have you done within
months, 50 days? You have 14,000 criminal aliens arrested, some
of the most brutal gang members like MS-13 and TDA. It is
making this country safer.
Fentanyl. Each year more Americans die from fentanyl than
the number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War over 20
years. You recently had the largest massive seizure of these
deadly drugs just this last couple weeks by the Sinaloa cartel.
Again, my State thanks you for that.
Terrorism. You said 250 known suspected terrorists have
been deported. We saw after Afghanistan, the debacle of the
collapse of Afghanistan. When Bagram was shut down, the prisons
were unleashed, ISIS-K went to the Khorasan region, crossed
into the United States, and 8 were found plotting in this
country. You are making this country safer by your actions. The
Biden administration made it dangerous. It didn't have to take
a bunch of new laws. It needed new leadership, which you have
provided and the President has provided as well.
My question to you is, as you know, reconciliation, you
need resources and nobody knows that better than I do. We
marked up a bill, about $70 billion that can be put into your
Department to start enforcing these laws already passed by the
Congress. The foreign terrorist organization designation was
huge. Let me just ask you this: How will this bill, the
reconciliation bill, assist you in your efforts to continue and
promote safety in the United States?
Secretary Noem. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
all of your leadership on our national security issues in the
past and still continue in the future to focus on that.
The reconciliation bill is imperative to our future in
securing our Nation. For years previous, the Department of
Homeland Security has been neglected. It's one of the larger
agencies in the Federal Government with one of the smallest
budgets. Certainly under the previous administration, the Coast
Guard was hollowed out. Border Patrol and ICE were not allowed
to do their jobs. They were not allowed to invest in new
technologies that they could utilize for interdiction.
Also, our borders need surveillance and technology to make
sure that we know who's coming into this country and why. Our
ports of entry need new scanners so that we're truly scanning
our shipping containers and much of our air freight. We don't
know what's coming in by air either. You know, those kinds of
adjustments and technology and software upgrades are needed to
compete, but also to secure our country with the threats that
we face.
We don't just face threats from gangs and cartels. It's
from China and PRC and Iran and hackers that come into our
system. Salt and Volt Typhoon have taught us that we're
extremely vulnerable to these kinds of attempts in the future.
In fact, one of the most alarming things I heard as soon as I
was nominated for this position was in a briefing from CISA
that told me that they knew with Salt Typhoon that we had been
hacked. But they also said they didn't know how it happened or
how to stop it in the future. Now, the main goal of CISA is to
hunt and to harden our systems, hunt bad actors and harden our
systems for our small- and medium-sized critical
infrastructure. Department of Homeland Security has 10 of the
16 components of critical infrastructure. That's what we need
to focus our resources on.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you.
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Swalwell for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. Madam Secretary, you have an
important job. I think you have one of the most important jobs
in the Cabinet. Thank you for doing it.
I want you to have credibility and be taken seriously as
you do the job. So I want to put to rest this question about
Mr. Garcia and this photo that the President posted on April
21. Madam Secretary, you agree that the letters MS and the
number 13 in Times Roman numeral font, that they are doctored
on this photo, right?
Secretary Noem. Congressman, Abrego Garcia is a known
member of MS-13.
Mr. Swalwell. No, no, I am just asking about this photo.
Secretary Noem. It wasn't based off of tattoos.
Mr. Swalwell. OK.
Secretary Noem. It was based off an entire case.
Mr. Swalwell. I will accept that----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. An entire case against him----
Mr. Swalwell [continuing]. For the purpose of this
question. You agree, though, that this is doctored, is that
right?
Secretary Noem. The same protocols that are applied to
every individual----
Mr. Swalwell. Madam Secretary, I want you to have
credibility----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Of law enforcement----
Mr. Swalwell [continuing]. And I want you to be taken
seriously. Is this doctored or is it not doctored?
Secretary Noem. I am taken quite serious because,
fortunately, a job----
Mr. Swalwell. Is it doctored or not?
Secretary Noem [continuing]. The importance that the
President has given me to do that job.
Mr. Swalwell. I understand. Is it doctored or not doctored?
Secretary Noem. The thing that's important to remember is
that every single time a case is built----
Mr. Swalwell. Madam Secretary, I have a 7-year-old, a 6-
year-old, and a 3-year-old. I have a bulls--t detector. I am
just asking you, is this doctored or not doctored?
Secretary Noem. Sir, the protocols in the case built
against Abrego Garcia----
Mr. Swalwell. Can you answer the question?
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Were exactly the same.
Mr. Swalwell. Madam Secretary----
Secretary Noem. I don't have any knowledge as to that photo
you're pointing to.
Mr. Swalwell. OK. Can you take her----
Secretary Noem. I don't, sir. I----
Mr. Swalwell. Can you show her the photo? Walk with the
photo down there. No, that one.
Please take a look at this photo. It was tweeted by the
President on April 21. It has been hanging out there for about
a month.
Secretary Noem. So what is your point?
Mr. Swalwell. My question is the numbers and the letter MS-
13, could you look at the photo, please? It is right in front
of me.
Secretary Noem. Are you saying Abrego Garcia is not a wife
beater?
Mr. Swalwell. No. No, ma' am.
Secretary Noem. That he's not a criminal.
Mr. Swalwell. I--ma'am.
Secretary Noem. He's not a human trafficker.
Mr. Swalwell. Ma'am, you----
Secretary Noem. He's not a member of MS-13.
Mr. Swalwell. You vouched for Mr. Garcia when your team
sat----
Secretary Noem. You're vouching for a man----
Mr. Swalwell. Ma'am, you vouched for him----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. That is a known violent
criminal, sir.
Mr. Swalwell [continuing]. When you said he was mistakenly
deported. I didn't vouch for him.
Secretary Noem. I did not say in that.
Mr. Swalwell. In that photo----
Secretary Noem. He should have been deported. Absolutely.
Mr. Swalwell. It is so telling----
Secretary Noem. It was never a mistake to deport him----
Mr. Swalwell [continuing]. That you won't look at the
photo.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And we will not be bringing
him back to this country----
Mr. Swalwell. Was it doctored or not?
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And staying here. If he comes
back to----
Mr. Swalwell. Can you look to your right----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. The country he will be
deported right away.
Mr. Swalwell [continuing]. At the photo in front of you?
Madam Secretary, can you look to the right at the photo in
front of you?
Secretary Noem. I have seen this photo----
Mr. Swalwell. OK.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. As you held it behind your
head, sir.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. The letters MS and the numbers 13,
are those doctored or not?
Secretary Noem. Is this the entire testimony today is on a
doctored photo? You don't want to talk about the facts----
Mr. Swalwell. OK. So you----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And the importance of our
national security?
Mr. Swalwell. You acknowledge it was doctored.
Secretary Noem. What would you do to make sure that the
United States is protected----
Mr. Swalwell. Madam Secretary, this is not a hard question.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. From violent criminals?
Mr. Swalwell. Are those doctored or not?
Secretary Noem. Sir, I----
Mr. Swalwell. Is that actually on his hand or not?
Secretary Noem. This is unbelievable to me that your
focus----
Mr. Swalwell. It's unbelievable to me----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. On a photo that you----
Mr. Swalwell [continuing]. That you can't look at the photo
and tell the American people.
Secretary Noem. I looked at the photo, but I don't have any
knowledge as to this photo.
Mr. Swalwell. OK. So it has been hanging out there for 4
weeks. You are one of the chief law enforcement officials in
the country. What have you done to investigate whether the
President misrepresented the reason that that person has been
detained? Have you----
Secretary Noem. Sir, we spend our time----
Mr. Swalwell. Have you done anything to try and figure out
whether that was doctored or not?
Secretary Noem. The mission of the Department of Homeland
Security is to secure our Nation and to make sure that we're
out there going after those that are the worst of the worst,
the criminals, the bad actors.
Mr. Swalwell. Yes.
Secretary Noem. Abrego Garcia is a known----
Mr. Swalwell. So the answer is you've done nothing----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Terrorist----
Mr. Swalwell [continuing]. To correct the President.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And a member of MS-13----
Mr. Swalwell. No.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. A wife beater, and a human
trafficker that should never have been in this country to begin
with.
Mr. Swalwell. So, Madam Secretary, thank you, Mr. Burnett,
2 weeks ago, your agency deported a 4-year-old American citizen
in a stage 4 cancer battle. What are you doing to get him back
to the country so he can get his treatment?
Secretary Noem. Congressman, this mother wished to keep her
family together and to take her child with her. So as every
single person is given the opportunity to medical care is given
throughout the process and----
Mr. Swalwell. OK. So it sounds like nothing.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And for this child, medical
care was confirmed in their home country so that it would
continue. Those treatments and whatever needs were needed to be
had into the future were confirmed to be provided there
before----
Mr. Swalwell. That child's home country is the United
States. Do you believe you have a right to deport a U.S.
citizen?
Secretary Noem. That mother chose to keep her family
together and that is what President Trump is focused on and
making sure----
Mr. Swalwell. That's not the facts of the case.
Secretary Noem. Yes, it is the facts. The mother----
Mr. Swalwell. Madam Secretary, moving on you----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Confirmed that she wanted to
keep her child----
Mr. Swalwell [continuing]. Do you have a right----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. With her. Our families and
parents are given that ability to keep their children with them
when they return to their home countries.
Mr. Swalwell. Madam Secretary, do you have a right to
deport a U.S. citizen?
Secretary Noem. No, we do not deport U.S. citizens and have
not deported U.S. citizens.
Mr. Swalwell. Except the 4-year-old that we just
referenced.
Secretary Noem. No, that mother chose to keep her child
with her and that is her prerogative and the law was followed
in allowing her the opportunity to do that.
Mr. Swalwell. So, Madam Secretary, I am a former
prosecutor. I have put people away for life sentences who are
gang members. I don't need to wear costumes to show how tough I
am. What makes me different from you is when I put those
individuals away, I did it with the weight of the law behind
me.
I yield back.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
Ms. Greene. I ask unanimous consent to enter an article
from Fox 45 that states, ``Documents reveal a single second
protective order filed by the wife against Kilmar Abrego
Garcia,'' that--whom also had 2 deportation orders.
Chairman Green. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Article Submitted by Honorable Majorie Taylor Greene
documents reveal second protective order filed by wife against kilmar
abrego garcia
by MIKENZIE FROST/FOX45 NEWS Thu, May 1st 2025 at 11:33 AM
Updated Fri, May 2nd 2025 at 6:48 AM
Another protective order filed against Kilmar Abrego Garcia has
surfaced, outlining alleged domestic violence as the legal situation
remains at an apparent standstill.
Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador from Maryland in March.
The Trump Administration originally said in court documents the
deportation was done in error, though Abrego Garcia was in the United
States illegally.
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Trump Administration to
``facilitate'' his return, though that has yet to happen. President
Trump and others in his administration maintain they believe Abrego
Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang.
The 2020 protective order was filed by Jennifer Vasquez, Abrego
Garcia's wife on August 3. She said Abrego Garcia verbally abused,
kicked, slapped, and shoved her.
Abrego Garcia took her phone and locked her out of the house with
her three kids inside, according to the handwritten court documents
filed by Vasquez. She called the police, and when she was able to get
inside, she told the court he slapped her.
``Police came and he acted violent broke my phone in front of the
officer,'' she wrote in the protective order that was filed in District
Court. This is not the first time I have photos of all the bruises his
[sic] left on my body.''
She told the court she and her kids were afraid, noting that Abrego
Garcia had kicked and slapped her before. She also said she had a
recording of Abrego Garcia saying ``that even if he kills me, no one
can do anything to him.''
About a week later, on Aug. 11, Vasquez filed to rescind the
protective order, telling the court that the son she shares with Abrego
Garcia was celebrating his first birthday, and that Abrego Garcia has
agreed to continue counseling.
``If not, his [sic] willing to sign divorce papers,'' Vasquez told
the court.
The 2020 protective order request was filed a year prior to the
2021 order that's already been uncovered. In documents obtained by
FOX45 News, Vasquez claimed Abrego Garcia punched and scratched her,
leaving her bleeding. Abrego Garcia later ripped her shorts and shirt,
according to the 2021 petition.
In that filing, Vasquez said Abrego Garcia hit her in August 2020
and left her with ``a purple eye.'' In November 2020, Vasquez Sura
claimed he hit her with his work boot. Vasquez dropped the 2021 order,
later stating the two worked out their differences.
``We have now found two petitions for protection against him, in
addition to the fact that he entered the country illegally and is a
confirmed member of MS-13. Our country is safer with him gone,''
Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.
When news first surfaced about the 2021 protective order, Vasquez
said she survived domestic violence in a previous relationship, and
field for the protective orders ``out of caution.''
``We were able to work through this situation privately as a
family, including by going to counseling,'' her statement said. ``Our
marriage only grew stronger in the years that followed. No one is
perfect, and no marriage is perfect.''
``That is not a justification for ICE's action of abducting him and
deporting him to a country where he was supposed to be protected from
deportation. Kilmar has always been a loving partner and father, and I
will continue to stand by him and demand justice for him,'' Vasquez
statement continued.
During an Oval Office interview with ABC News, President Donald
Trump said he could call the Salvadorian President and discuss Abrego
Garcia's return to the United States, but said hasn't happened. Based
on President Trump's views of Abrego Garcia, that's no expected.
``If he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,''
President Trump said during the interview with ABC News' Terry Moran.
``This is an MS-13 gang member, a tough cookie, been in lots of
skirmishes, beat the hell out of his wife and his wife is petrified to
even talk about him. He's not some innocent man from Maryland.''
Tuesday, the Federal judge in Maryland denied the Trump
Administration's request to extend the pause in expedited discovery in
the case and said the process will resume Monday.

Chairman Green. I now recognize Mr. Higgins for 5 minutes
of his of questioning.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My, my, my. Our
Democrat colleagues really love illegals in our country. It is
stunning for regular Americans like me to listen to this
passionate and contentious defense of the previous
administration's policies and the resultant millions upon
millions upon millions of illegals that entered our country
over the last 4 years.
I tell you where we are. I am not going to use my
colleague's--the same language because I don't think that kind
of language should be used in committee. But I tell you where
we heard loads of not necessarily genuine statements. It was
from Secretary Mayorkas for 4 years. We had to listen to his
testimony again and again how he needed more resources, he
needed more laws, and Congress had to pass more laws. Yet we
said for years what you need is to enforce the laws that we
currently have on the books. You need policies that would
actually control the border. We have Madam Secretary before us
representing an administration that has done just that.
You have the same 1,954 miles of border that you had a year
ago is now under control. You have the same men and women that
you had a year ago. The border is now under control. You have
the same equipment, the same all-weather roads, everything is
the same. The only thing that has changed is the policies
coming out of the White House and a Secretary of Homeland
Security that will actually execute the laws of our land and
protect the citizenry of our country. That is Madam Secretary
Noem who sits before us and she should be spoken to with some
modicum of respect from my Democrat colleagues.
It is amazing. Our border secured versus wide open and
wild. Democrats complain and they are angry and they protest.
Illegals are being deported rather than waved in and imported
and Democrats are angry and protesting. It is stunning to
Americans to witness this.
Madam Secretary, thank you, good lady, for the job that you
are doing securing our borders and protecting the citizenry
that we are elected to represent in this body. I work for the
American citizenry and every one of us has sworn that oath. The
difference between the parties has never been more stark. We
represent law and order and American citizens and American
enforcement of our laws.
My goodness gracious. Thank you, Madam, for so graciously
enduring the assault that you have. I would like to touch on
the 287(g) program. Thank you for partnering with our local and
State law enforcement to work together to secure our borders.
This is an excellent program. You have voiced support for it.
Can you speak, Madam Secretary Noem, can you speak to the
importance of the DHS partnering with local and State law
enforcement, including programs like 287?
Secretary Noem. Well, thank you, Congressman. Yes, 287 has
been a wonderful program for many years, but not utilized
during the previous administration. It's a partnership between
Federal, you know, law enforcement officers and also our State
and local law enforcement to give them the same authorities to
operate in a task force model to go out and to really make sure
that we're going after individuals that have broken our laws,
that have perpetuated violence in our communities, bring them
into incarceration and get them out of our country if they
don't belong here. It has been a fantastic partnership, one
that President Trump has encouraged us to pursue and to
continue to build out across the country.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, ma' am.
Secretary Noem. Today we have----
Mr. Higgins. That program and others like it are going to
be heavily supported by Republicans on this committee.
Finally, ma' am, in my remaining 25 seconds, we speak to
the efforts to locate the children, thousands and thousands and
thousands of children waved into our country during the last 4
years. They are lost to the interior. Many are being trafficked
and abused. Can you speak to the efforts to find these kids?
Secretary Noem. Yes. Up to 300,000 children were lost or
missing under the Biden administration. We have located and
returned over 5,000 of them to their homes and to their
families. But there's many, many more to be found and to be
returned and brought to safety. So we're continuing to work on
that every day. Our HSI officers spend a lot of time and are
the experts in the field at training local law enforcement to
identify and find them as well.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, ma'am.
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Higgins. You can expect full support there. Mr.
Chairman, I yield.
Chairman Green [continuing]. Has expired. I now recognize--
--
Mr. Magaziner. Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent
to introduce the article from PBS NewsHour entitled ``Children
Who are U.S. Citizens Deported Along with Foreign Born
Mothers,'' in which the attorney for that 4-year-old U.S.
citizen says that at no time did his mother consent to the
child U.S. citizen being removed from the country. I ask that
it be submitted.
Chairman Green. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Article Submitted by Honorable Seth Magaziner
children who are u.s. citizens deported along with foreign-born
mothers, attorneys say
Apr 28, 2025 6:50 PM EDT
By Laura Barron-Lopez, Ian Couzens, Shrai Popat
Nearing 100 days in office, the Trump administration continues to
push further on its immigration crackdown by deporting families and
targeting sanctuary cities. White House correspondent Laura Barron-
Lopez reports on three deported American citizens.
Amna Nawaz:
For more on the story of the three deported American citizens, we
turn now to our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez.
So, Laura, tell us more about these three U.S. citizens and what we
know about their cases so far.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
So, in one of the cases, it's two U.S. citizen siblings, a 4-year-
old and a 7-year-old, who were deported with their undocumented mother
to Honduras within 24 hours after being detained.
And that 4-year-old is a boy who has late-stage cancer and he had
no medication with him. The undocumented mother of these two children
had a removal order for not appearing at a hearing shortly after she
came to the United States as an unaccompanied minor years ago. She was
not aware of that removal order.
Now, in the other case, the third child is a 2-year-old girl who
was referred to in court filings with the initials VML. She was also
deported to Honduras with her mother. That 2-year-old is a U.S. citizen
and they were deported roughly 3 days--after being held for 3 days in
detention.
And in VML's case, a Federal judge said over the weekend it is
their--quote--``strong suspicion that the government just deported a
U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.'' In both cases, the
undocumented immigrant mothers were appearing for routine check-ins
with immigration officials with their children.
And we have previously reported that there were other U.S. citizen
children deported. So, in all, under the Trump administration, by our
count, there have been at least seven U.S. citizen children who have
been deported with their parents so far.
Amna Nawaz:
So you have heard the Trump administration say the children were
deported with their mothers. That's the mothers' request. You spoke to
lawyers for both of those families you just mentioned. Now, what are
they saying about the Trump administration's argument?
Laura Barron-Lopez:
I spoke to Sirine Shebaya, who is representing the 2-year-old known
as VML. And she's also the executive director of the National
Immigration Project.
And I asked Sirine about the comments that Trump's border czar, Tom
Homan, made, specifically that he said that the mothers wanted their
children to be deported with them. And Sirine refuted that account.
Sirine Shebaya, Executive Director, National Immigration Project:
That is willfully misleading. They did not request their children
to be deported with them. One of these children is 4 and has cancer and
is undergoing treatment. Neither of the moms felt like they had any
choice in the matter.
And if it was truly a choice situation, then why forbid them from
talking to their family members and attorneys? If this was a
transparent situation, where they could make a choice, then there would
have been no reason for immigration authorities to specifically prevent
them, despite many outreaches, from being able to talk to their family
members and their lawyer to actually make that choice.
And it is a form of family separation.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
Sirine told me that VML's mother, that's the 2-year-old, that that
undocumented mother had no criminal history and that had she been
allowed due process, she would have contested the removal.
Now, in both cases, there were legal custodians in the United
States that were willing and able to take care of these U.S. citizen
children. But in both cases, requests for legal visits, for legal calls
were either denied or ignored.
And I talked to the lawyer in the other case for the mother of the
4-year-old child with cancer, Erin Hebert. And that lawyer said that
the lack of due process is frightening and that in all her years
working in immigration she fails to see any good-faith interpretation
of the law for what happened to these U.S. citizen children.
Amna Nawaz:
Laura, I know you have also been reporting on the fact that
President Trump signed a number of executive orders today also focused
on immigration. What do those executive orders do?
Laura Barron-Lopez:
So Lisa highlighted that executive order targeting sanctuary
cities, which creates a list of jurisdictions that may not be fully
cooperating with immigration enforcement.
And the timing of that is striking because it comes about a week
after a Federal judge blocked the administration from withholding
Federal funding from sanctuary cities in California. That judge had
said that the president likely overstepped his authority.
But we're also expected--expecting the president to sign this
afternoon an order that requires truck drivers to be proficient in
English, to be proficient English speakers. This is already a Federal
regulation, but the White House is going to direct the Department of
Transportation to prioritize enforcement of this.
Now, I spoke to a truck driver for a grocery train. He transports
goods through the Northeast. His name is Carlos Diaz. And he said that,
yes, truck drivers absolutely should be proficient in English, so that
way that they can read the signs and drive safely on the roads. So he
agreed with the goal of this executive order, but he was worried about
the implementation and specifically the targeting of Latino truck
drivers and said that truckers should be given time to meet the
requirement.
Amna Nawaz:
All right, our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez.
Laura, thank you.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
Thank you.

Chairman Green. I recognize Mr. Correa for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
Secretary Noem, welcome to this committee. I had the honor of
hearing testimony from Secretary Kelly, Secretary Mayorkas, and
of course you. Welcome. We all have the same interests which
are protecting Americans, American taxpayers as we move forward
in our jobs.
I want to say that your testimony and my colleague from
Louisiana and myself have the same interests, which are to
protect Americans, especially to protect children, especially
to protect American citizen children. That is where my concern
is, Madam Secretary, that your administration, I believe, has
consistently violated the law by denying due process to U.S.-
born American children. Under your watch, you have deported
American children, U.S.-born children.
Some of the examples, I only have 5 minutes to talk about
it, but I will come back to the case that was described or
discussed a little while ago, which was 2 American children, 4
and 7, were put on a plane with their mother, sent to Honduras
within 24 hours of being detained. There was an attorney
involved and we are debating right now the issue, as you
stated, that the mother wanted the child to go with her, but
there was an attorney involved. That person was not consulted.
That family was denied the opportunity to talk to that
attorney. The attorney was there. What is wrong with asking the
attorney?
You have got a family that had been checking in, following
ICE direction. Check in, bring your family to check in. They
weren't let out. That happens in my district all the time.
Families check into ICE. If ICE determines they should be
deported, you know what we do? I call ICE and I say give them
30 days. Some of these families have been in this country 20,
30 years. Give them 30 days to get their situation in order.
Make sure that they figure out how to keep their American
children in the United States. Make them--give them the
opportunity to make an educated decision on the lives of
American citizens.
In this case and other cases, ma'am, you have split-second
decisions to make a decision on those children. You, Madam
Secretary, also make split-second decisions based on whatever
coerced discussion you are having with that mother. I say
coerced because when you are scared to death, your life is
about to change, and you have got attorney next door that you
will not permit that family to consult with that attorney, you
got an issue.
Case No. 2, 2-year-old American daughter, also deported to
Honduras. They were also denied access to their lawyers.
According to her lawyer, ICE prevented the mother from speaking
to the lawyer or anyone else in the family. Two-year-old
American citizen. Can't we slow it down and just take a moment
before they are deported in 24 hours? The mom did want the
daughter to stay in the United States. They may have had
relatives in the United States, family. Even the own Trump-
appointed Federal judge overseeing this case has said that he
had a strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S.
citizen with no meaningful due process.
Madam Secretary, I think we are all in agreement here.
Let's go after MS-13. Let's go after drug dealers. Let's go
after Tren de Aragua, the bad folks who hurt my community as
well as everybody else's community. But I fail to see where a
child, 2-year-old, 4-year-old, 7-year-old children could be on
your top of priorities for deportations. This is still America,
due process, the Fifth Amendment.
Madam Secretary, I know ICE agents. I deal with them all
the time. I have toured the Southern Border, blue uniforms,
green uniforms, talking to them about what they need to do the
job. More than happy to have that discussion with you publicly
or privately. But deporting U.S.-born children? Ignoring their
attorneys? Take a deep breath. They have been here 20, 30
years. A lot of the times back home, when I ask the ICE agents,
give them 30 days, you know what? Without fail, that person
comes back or self-deports. We can do better.
Madam Secretary, I am going to ask you one last question in
9 seconds. You are under oath. Have you fired, retired,
dismissed, any DSA agents that have not followed your policies?
Secretary Noem. What kind of agents, sir?
Mr. Correa. DHS, Homeland Security agents.
Secretary Noem. DHS agents?
Mr. Correa. Yes.
Secretary Noem. Specific law enforcement officers?
Mr. Correa. Yes, ma'am. Officers under your watch.
Secretary Noem. I haven't given any specific orders to any
law enforcement officers under the Department of Homeland
Security. So there are in within the Department of Homeland
Security, 280,000 employees, 47,000 of them are Coast Guard
individuals, so you know, 230,000 individuals are employees.
We're very proud of the work that they do.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for recognizing that it's Police
Week. We have many agencies that have law enforcement officers
in them that get up every single day to serve their communities
and to make sure that our laws matter and that they're enforced
appropriately and that no one is treated differently than
someone else.
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Guest----
Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent to enter for the record the Prince George's County
Police Department gang field interview sheet in Maryland
where--from 2019, where they interviewed Kilmar Abrego Garcia
and identified through his clothing that he--and in his
statements that he is indeed an MS-13 gang member.
Chairman Green. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Greene. I would also ask unanimous consent to enter for
the record an article that quotes Kilmar Abrego's wife stating,
``I am afraid, with another protective order filing against
deported Maryland man championed by the Democrats.'' Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Green. Without----
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
request.
Chairman Green. Without disagreement, we will put that one
in as unanimous consent. You are recognized.
[The information follows:]
Article Submitted by Honorable Majorie Taylor Greene
`i am afraid': another protective order filing against deported
`maryland man' championed by dems surfaces
By Cameron Arcand, Peter Pinedo--Fox News
Published April 30, 2025 3:15pm EDT
FIRST ON FOX: A 2020 protective order case filed against deported
``Maryland man'' Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the suspected MS-13 gang member
being held in El Salvador, sheds even more light on his violent past, a
Fox News Digital review of the document found.
Abrego Garcia, 29, is a Salvadoran illegal immigrant and suspected
MS-13 gang member who was living in Maryland until he was deported to
the high-security Terrorist Confinement Center (CECOT) in his home
country during the first 100 days of the Trump administration.
Though many Democrats, including Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen,
claim that Abrego Garcia is an innocent man who was ``wrongly
deported,'' the administration has pointed to considerable evidence
that he is a member of the infamous MS-13 gang. In April, the Supreme
Court upheld a lower court's decision ordering the Trump administration
to arrange Abrego Garcia's return.
DEM SENATOR SAYS ABREGO GARCIA SITUATION `NOT GOING TO END WELL' FOR
TRUMP, ARGUES HE'S `UNDERMINING' FREEDOM
The court required the ``government to `facilitate' Abrego Garcia's
release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is
handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El
Salvador.''
The Trump administration agreed to clear any administrative
obstacles keeping Abrego Garcia from returning to the U.S., but
Attorney General Pam Bondi has said that returning him is ``up to El
Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us.''
This has caused significant outrage among Democrats, several of
whom, despite mounting evidence against Abrego Garcia, have flown to El
Salvador to advocate for his release.
The latest document, which was obtained and reviewed by Fox News
Digital, adds to the mounting evidence against Abrego Garcia and
alleges that his wife accused him of verbal and physical abuse against
her and mental abuse against her children.
The petition for protection form filed in Maryland by Jennifer
Vasquez Sura has boxes checked for ``acts of abuse,'' including
kicking, slapping, shoving, mental injury of a child and detaining
against will.
On Aug. 11, 2020, Vasquez Sura asked for the petition to be
rescinded, saying her family wanted to take part in their son's
birthday, and Abrego Garcia ``also agreed to continue counseling and if
not [he's] willing to sign divorce papers.''
The original petition form lists their son and Abrego Garcia's
stepchildren needing protection.
WH SAYS `NO DISPUTE' DEPORTED SUSPECTED GANG MEMBER HAD MS-13 TATTOOS
DESPITE PHOTOS TO THE CONTRARY
It says on Aug. 3, 2020, that her ``husband took [her] phone around
1 o'clock a.m., and in the morning he wanted to take my car, but I told
him I was going to go out with my kids. He then got angry. I went
upstairs to make food for my kids but he turned off the stove.''
In addition, the form said Abrego Garcia had threatened her and
wrote that she has a recording in which he ``told [her] ex-mother-in-
law that even if he kills me no one can do anything to him.''
The document also alleges that his wife accused him of verbal and
physical abuse against her and mental abuse against her children. The
petition for protection form filed in Maryland by Jennifer Vasquez Sura
has boxes checked for ``acts of abuse,'' including kicking, slapping,
shoving, mental injury of a child and detaining against will.
VIOLENT MS-13 GANGBANGERS GETTING `DESPERATE'; DHS OFFICIAL CREDITS
EARLY TRUMP ACTION
The form goes on to describe an incident in November 2019 when he
grabbed her ``by the hair in the car.'' In December 2019, he allegedly
grabbed her hair in the car and ``dragged'' her ``out of car leaving
[her] in the street.'' She wrote that he also ``broke'' her son's
tablet, ``broke doors'' in the house, pushed her against a wall, broke
a phone and a television and damaged the walls that spring.
This comes after Fox News Digital reported on written domestic
violence allegations filed in court against Abrego Garcia by Vasquez
Sura in 2021, but the case was dismissed because she did not make it to
a court appearance, CBS News reported.
In the filing, written in Vasquez's handwriting, she alleges Abrego
Garcia repeatedly beat her, writing, ``At this point, I am afraid to be
close to him. I have multiple photos/videos of how violent he can be
and all the bruises he [has] left me.''
Vasquez alleged that Abrego Garcia punched and scratched her eye,
leaving her bleeding. He also allegedly threw her laptop on the floor.
She wrote that, on another day, Abrego Garcia got angry again, started
yelling and ripped her shirt and shorts off before grabbing her arm and
leaving marks.
In addition to this, according to police and court records shared
with Fox News Digital, Abrego Garcia was arrested in Hyattsville,
Maryland, in October 2019, at which point he was identified by the
Prince George's County Police Gang Unit as an MS-13 gang member.
FEDERAL JUDGE ALLEGES `WILLFUL AND BAD FAITH REFUSAL' TO COMPLY IN
ABREGO GARCIA DEPORTATION CASE
A Federal immigration court in Baltimore further determined Abrego
Garcia was not eligible for release because he ``failed to meet his
burden of demonstrating that his release from custody would not pose a
danger to others, as the evidence shows that he is a verified member of
MS-13.''
The court held that ``the fact that a `past, proven, and reliable
source of information' verified the Respondent's gang membership, rank,
and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang
member'' and that Abrego Garcia had ``failed to present evidence to
rebut that assertion.''
Several DHS sources have confirmed to Fox News Digital records
indicating that Abrego Garcia was previously pulled over by a Tennessee
highway patrol trooper while driving an SUV belonging to Jose Ramon
Hernandez Reyes, another illegal alien who in 2020 confessed to human
smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border.
The trooper noticed eight individuals in the car with Abrego
Garcia, who said he began driving 3 days prior from Houston, Texas, to
Temple Hills, Maryland, via St. Louis, Missouri, to ``perform
construction work.'' The report on the stop states that the trooper
suspected it was a human trafficking incident because there was no
luggage in the vehicle. Additionally, the individuals in the car
reportedly gave the same address as Abrego Garcia's home address.
DEMOCRAT FAULTS HIS OWN PARTY FOR PICKING WRONG BATTLE WITH CASE OF
DEPORTED MS-13 SUSPECT
When speaking with the trooper, Abrego Garcia allegedly ``pretended
to speak less English than he was capable of and attempted to put
encountering officer off-track by responding to questions with
questions.'' After the incident, the officer decided not to issue
Abrego Garcia a citation for the driving infractions. Instead, he gave
him a warning for driving with an expired license.
The new document further reveals that Abrego Garcia was driving a
black 2001 Chevrolet Suburban that he said belonged to his ``boss.''
The Suburban was identified by DHS as belonging to Hernandez Reyes, who
pleaded guilty to human smuggling after being caught in Mississippi in
a car with passengers from Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras.
According to another document also confirmed by DHS sources, the
Homeland Security Investigations Baltimore field office further flagged
the vehicle being driven by Abrego Garcia as belonging to a target they
suspected of human trafficking or smuggling.
The office said the ``vehicle is used by HSI Baltimore target in
human smuggling/trafficking operation. Vehicle makes trips to southern
border to pick up non-citizens.''
Cameron Arcand is a politics writer at Fox News Digital in Washington
D.C. Story tips can be sent to Cameron.Arcand@Fox.com and on Twitter:
@cameron_arcand.

Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, if you have it, I would like to
introduce by unanimous consent a court order establishing that
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13.
Chairman Green. You are submitting what for unanimous
consent?
Mr. Goldman. Well, there isn't one, so I am wondering if
you have it.
Chairman Green. I do not have that. Are we ready to go on
with the next testimony?
Mr. Guest, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank
you for being here. Thank you for your leadership. Please thank
the men and women that serve under you for the incredible job
that they do.
I want to particularly thank you for enforcing the law,
something that we did not see under the previous
administration. In the short time that you have been serving as
Secretary, we have seen a dramatic decrease, as much as 95
percent, along our Southern Border. I also want to thank you
for locating the 5,000-plus missing children that just in 3
months, you and your agency have been able to find and in some
cases, possibly rescue them from what could have been very
dangerous situations.
Echo what Congressman Higgins talked about a minute ago.
The law has not changed since you have become Secretary. The
budget has not changed since you have become Secretary. The
resources that you have, the number of agents have not changed
since you have become Secretary. But yet we have seen a
dramatic decrease in the number of border crossings because you
and the men and women who serve under you have chosen to
enforce the law. I want to push back a little bit on some of
the narratives that are being put out by my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle.
First is the allegations, the reckless allegations, which
are completely false and untrue, that you and your agency are
deporting American citizens. I heard you try to answer that
question. I don't know if you were able to be able to get that
answer out there. So I want to give you that opportunity. But
as I understand the situation, we were deporting an illegal
alien who was a parent, and that parent then decided to make
the decision to take their children with them. So I don't know
if my friends on the other side of the aisle would ask that we
separate those and say, no, those parents cannot do that, that
the Federal Government knows better and that these children are
going to have to stay in the United States. Or maybe they
believe that a parent who is an illegal, that has a child,
therefore, is going to be allowed to remain here indefinitely,
regardless of whether or not there is a final little removal,
regardless of whether there are any criminal charges or
anything pending against those individuals.
So in the instances that have been brought up, Madam
Secretary, where there have been allegations that you or your
agent has removed American citizens, I just want to give you a
brief opportunity to address that. Is that true? If it is not
true, please tell us and please share with this committee the
truth behind those situations.
Secretary Noem. Congressman, the children that were
referenced previously in the testimony of the gentleman, in
both of those cases, the mothers chose to keep their children
with them when they returned home to their home country. That
is a priority of President Trump, to keep families unified. We
have instances where mothers from other countries have decided
that their children should stay here in the United States and
left them with family members or someone else that they
trusted. But these 2 mothers that they were referencing earlier
decided to take their children home with them and wanted to
return to their home countries as a family.
Mr. Guest. So we are giving the parents the choice and then
we are honoring whatever their request. Is that what I
understand from you, Madam Secretary?
Secretary Noem. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Guest. Then I want to talk about one more issue in the
last minute-and-a-half that I have, this issue of due process
where you were asked earlier, are we giving individuals due
process? You talked about the fact that we are complying with
the law that Congress has given the Department. I think
specifically, and tell me if I am wrong, I think you are
talking about the Legal Immigration Reform and Immigration
Responsibility Act of 1996 that created this process known as
expedited removal. We know that that law in 1996, that it
passed Congress overwhelmingly at both the House and the
Senate.
I will tell you that I see here a comment that was made by
that time, President Clinton, and this is what President
Clinton said about that law. It said, ``President Clinton
asserted that the legislation strengthened the rule of law by
cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the
workplace, and in the criminal justice system without punishing
those living in the United States legally.''
So, as I understand, as it relates to the issue of due
process, you are following the law as Congress gave you almost
30 years ago. This Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration
Responsibility Act has been upheld repeatedly over the last 30
years by the court. You are enforcing final orders of removal.
So, Madam Secretary, in the last 10 seconds that I have,
are you following the law and are you giving these individuals
the due process that you are required to give them?
Secretary Noem. Yes, Congressman, we are using the due
process tools that Congress has afforded us in these instances
to ensure that everyone is treated the same and appropriately.
Mr. Guest. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Mr. Magaziner for 5 minutes.
Mr. Magaziner. Madam Secretary. On April 24, a woman in
Louisiana was deported along with her 7-year-old daughter and
4-year-old son, both of whom were U.S. citizens. The 4-year-old
son had stage 4 cancer. Now, you just stated under oath that
the mother consented to having her U.S. citizen children
removed. But I have spoken with the attorney for that U.S.
citizen child with stage 4 cancer. She has also made numerous
statements to the press in which she stated unequivocally that
at no time did the mother consent to her U.S. citizen children
being removed. What evidence do you have to support your claim
that she did consent?
Secretary Noem. Congressman, we followed the same policies
and procedures----
Mr. Magaziner. What evidence do you have----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And we have documentation.
Mr. Magaziner. What evidence do you have that she----
Secretary Noem. We have documentation that that mother----
Mr. Magaziner. What documentation do you have that mother
consented?
Secretary Noem. We'll get that to you sir. I don't have it
with me today.
Mr. Magaziner. Please do. I understand.
Secretary Noem. But that mother consented----
Mr. Magaziner. It is hard to keep them all straight----
Secretary Noem. To take her child with her.
Mr. Magaziner [continuing]. Because you deported multiple
U.S. citizen children. But I am asking specifically about the
4-year-old with cancer who was deported on April 25.
For the record, that family was also not given access to
legal counsel before they were deported, even though their
lawyer was in the same building at the time. I am holding in my
hands here a document called ICE Directive 11064, Interests of
Non-Citizen Parents and Legal Guardians of Minor Children. This
is the policy for how ICE agents should handle situations like
this. It states unequivocally that ``parents and legal
guardians should have the ability to make alternative care
arrangements for minor children prior to their arrest or
detention and that ICE must afford parents the opportunity to
consult with legal counsel.''
So did the ICE agents working on this case who deported
this 4-year-old with cancer of their own volition fail to
follow ICE policies or were they directed to by your office or
anyone else in DHS leadership?
Secretary Noem. Sir, this mother chose to keep her child
with her----
Mr. Magaziner. You have not produced any evidence to say
so.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And to return back to her home
country----
Mr. Magaziner. But I am asking again, have you directed----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And that is the priority of
President Trump----
Mr. Magaziner. Have you directed DHS officers to ignore----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Is to keep families unified
together.
Mr. Magaziner [continuing]. This policy?
Secretary Noem. It's very different than the previous
administration.
Mr. Magaziner. All right.
Secretary Noem. The previous administration----
Mr. Magaziner. On October----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Separated families over and
over again.
Mr. Magaziner. On March 15--reclaiming my time. On March
15----
Secretary Noem. This has changed.
Mr. Magaziner [continuing]. Your Department sent 3
airplanes to El Salvador. Those planes carried approximately
261 individuals who were imprisoned upon arrival. Did you
personally review and approve the names of those 261
individuals before they were sent?
Secretary Noem. Sir, we have deported and sent home----
Mr. Magaziner. Have you----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Thousands and thousands of
individuals.
Mr. Magaziner. Did you review the names of those
individuals?
Secretary Noem. We have individuals who have----
Mr. Magaziner. Why won't you answer the question?
Secretary Noem [continuing]. The responsibility within the
Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Magaziner. Are you aware of whether those 261
individuals were given the opportunity to speak with a lawyer
or appear before a judge before they were put on those planes?
Yes or no.
Secretary Noem. Sir, every single individual followed the
exact same process----
Mr. Magaziner. They were not all----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. We require of everyone who
is----
Mr. Magaziner. They were not all given the opportunity----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. In this country illegally.
Mr. Magaziner [continuing]. To appear before a judge or
speak with a lawyer. On April 7, the Supreme Court ruled that
detainees must have an opportunity to have a hearing before
they are deported. Are you familiar with the April 7 Supreme
Court ruling?
Secretary Noem. I am.
Mr. Magaziner. Can you assure us that in the future you
will abide by that Supreme Court ruling to provide detainees
with a hearing before they are deported?
Secretary Noem. We're following all judges' orders. Yes,
sir.
Mr. Magaziner. I have a photograph here of Andry Hernandez
Romero, a gay makeup artist from Venezuela. He fled Venezuela
fearing gang violence because of his opposition to the Maduro
dictatorship and his sexual orientation. He presented himself
at a port of entry and requested asylum. His claim was found to
be credible and he was placed in detention to await a full
hearing. But he never received a full hearing because you put
him on one of those planes to El Salvador, where he still is
today.
Listen to me. He had no criminal record in the United
States or in any other country. He did not even enter the
country illegally. He presented at a port of entry. He tried to
do it the legal way. To this date, the only evidence your
Department has presented to justify his imprisonment is that he
had 2 tattoos: 1 that said Mom and 1 that said Dad. Do you have
any other evidence to present for why this individual should be
locked up in El Salvador?
Secretary Noem. Sir, every case has used----
Mr. Magaziner. Do you have any----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Same protocols and the same
processes and inputs----
Mr. Magaziner. Do you have any evidence other than the
tattoos----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. That other law enforcement
officers----
Mr. Magaziner [continuing]. That say Mom or Dad----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Using for more cases.
Mr. Magaziner [continuing]. For why this individual----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. So it's not just on tattoos.
Mr. Magaziner [continuing]. Should be locked up?
Secretary Noem. It's who they're affiliated with, their
communication----
Mr. Magaziner. You have not presented any other evidence--
--
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Who they're spending time
with----
Mr. Magaziner [continuing]. Nor has your Department----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Criminal activities.
Mr. Magaziner. Reclaiming my time.
Secretary Noem. The cases are----
Mr. Magaziner. During your confirmation hearing, you said
your focus would be on deporting immigrants who have been
convicted of crimes and those who have received removal orders,
but that is not what you have been doing. Instead, you have
been deporting children with cancer, children who are U.S.
citizens, a gay makeup artist who committed no crime and didn't
even enter the country illegally. You have been sloppy. Your
Department has been sloppy. Instead of focusing on real
criminals, you have allowed innocent children to be deported
while you fly around the country playing dress-up for the
cameras.
Instead of enforcing the laws, you have repeatedly broken
them. You need to change course immediately before more
innocent people are hurt on your watch.
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize----
Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman. Sorry. I asked unanimous consent
to enter for the record one of our colleagues had asked if
there was evidence if the so-called Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego
Garcia, was MS-13. According to the Attorney General of the
United States, she posted that the evidence shows Kilmar Abrego
Garcia has repeatedly been identified as a member of MS-13 by a
Maryland county police gang unit, which I introduced for the
record, a reliable confidential informant, ICE officers, an
immigration judge agreed, and an appellate board agreed.
Chairman Green. Without objection----
Mr. Goldman. So you have--sorry, is that a court order?
Chairman Green. Without objection.
Mr. Goldman. Well, I object. Is that----
Chairman Green. No. She can put anything she wants in the
record. She is not complying to your request, Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman. She asked for unanimous consent.
Chairman Green. OK. So you are objecting to her putting
that into the record?
Mr. Goldman. I am objecting, subject to a clarification. Is
that a court order that establishes that he is a member of MS-
13?
Ms. Greene. An immigration judge agreed----
Mr. Goldman. For bail----
Ms. Greene [continuing]. That he was MS-13.
Mr. Goldman. For bail purposes----
Ms. Greene. An appellate board agreed.
Chairman Green. Hold on, we are not going to take----
Mr. Goldman. Don't misrepresent.
Chairman Green. Hold on, hold on.
Ms. Greene. A judge.
Chairman Green. Everybody pause. We are going to let one
person talk at the time. You asked a question. Answer the
question, please.
Ms. Greene. According to the Attorney General of the United
States, she informed the country that an immigration judge
agreed that your Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is MS-13.
An appellate board agreed. ICE officers agreed.
Mr. Goldman. You are misstating what the----
Ms. Greene. A reliable----
Chairman Green. Mr. Goldman----
Ms. Greene [continuing]. Informant----
Chairman Green [continuing]. The clock is not your yours
right now. She has the floor. Please continue answering the
question.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A Maryland county
police----
Mr. Goldman. She is not answering the question, sir.
Chairman Green. No, she is going to answer the question and
then you can object to her answer.
Mr. Goldman. Can you make sure that she answers the
question?
Chairman Green. Finish answering--you just said--please,
finish your answer.
Ms. Greene. A Maryland county police gang unit agreed that
he is MS-13. A reliable confidential informant agreed that he
is MS-13. ICE officers agreed that he is MS-13. An immigration
judge agreed that he is MS-13. An appellate board agreed that
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, your Maryland man, is MS-13.
Mr. Goldman. OK, I object.
Chairman Green. You have the floor. What do you want to
say?
Mr. Goldman. I object because she is misstating the record
and the facts. That is not accurate and, therefore, I object to
that being introduced.
Chairman Green. No.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goldman. Can I explain? You let her go on.
Chairman Green. Go ahead.
Mr. Goldman. There is no final court order establishing
that he is a member. Maybe he is. So you should put all that
evidence before a judge. If he is MS-13, he should be deported.
That is what we are talking about. But you are misstating what
all of that evidence is.
Chairman Green. No, I think I am going to make it a point
here. You basically just read what the Attorney General said,
correct?
Ms. Greene. Yes, sir.
Chairman Green. You didn't assert that this was a court
order, did you? Did you assert that this was a court order?
Ms. Greene. I read the Attorney General of the United
States.
Chairman Green. You have a right on our committee to submit
for unanimous consent, or a vote if we want to put it to a
vote, this for the record. Correct? Is that----
Ms. Greene. Yes.
Chairman Green. That is correct. OK. She has a right----
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, can I review? Can I review what
she is submitting?
Chairman Green. No. She can submit something to this
committee.
Mr. Goldman. But it matters that she--she just said she
represented exactly what the Attorney General said. She has a
document there. I would like to see that document----
Chairman Green. Let's make a copy. Let's make a copy for
everybody and----
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. To see if her representation----
Chairman Green [continuing]. We will vote on--hold on, hold
on just a second. We are going to hold----
Mr. Ogles. Let's vote.
Chairman Green. You are calling for the question?
Mr. Ogles. Let's vote.
Chairman Green. We are calling for the question. The clerk,
we are going to need to set--hold on just a second. A brief
recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Green. All right, there is a----
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Higgins, I am just asking----
Chairman Green. Hold on.
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. To see the document.
Chairman Green. I have the floor. All right. So we have a
motion to vote on the submission of this for the record. That
is all that has been stated and----
Mr. Goldman. I would like a parliamentary inquiry, sir.
Chairman Green. Do not interrupt me again. We are on the
vote on whether or not this can be entered into the record. A
motion has been made and we will vote on that motion.
All of those in favor----
Mr. Goldman. I have a parliamentary inquiry before we vote,
sir.
Chairman Green. Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. Thompson. It is our request that we object. In the
middle of the objection, you consider a motion which----
Chairman Green. He was done talking about----
Mr. Thompson. No, he wasn't. No, he wasn't. You stopped him
from talking.
Mr. Goldman. I just have a parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Green. A parliamentary inquiry. OK, go ahead. You
have the floor.
Mr. Goldman. Is it the procedure of this committee that
someone who is making an objection to the admission of evidence
cannot review that evidence before we vote on it?
Chairman Green. The content is irrelevant to the motion,
and the motion has been made to vote on the submission for the
record.
Mr. Goldman. The content is irrelevant? I mean, that is
what I am objecting to. If she is accurate in what her
representation is, I will withdraw my objection. I just need to
see the document.
Chairman Green. Somebody walk the thing over there and let
him read it. I mean, get to the bottom of this quickly. We will
hold on your vote, Mr. Ogles.
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, given that this is a tweet from
the Attorney General that is effectively, I believe, consistent
with what Ms. Taylor Greene says, I withdraw my objection.
Chairman Green. The gentleman withdraws his objection.
The information follows:

Chairman Green. I now recognize, who is up, Mr. Gimenez for
his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for the fine work that you have done. I also want to
thank you for proving the Members on this side of the aisle and
myself included in our assertion through the last 4 years that
what happened at the Southern Border was done willfully and
purposely by the Biden administration because nobody could be
that dumb. Do you share that opinion?
Secretary Noem. Sir, I believe it was a decision made by
the previous President to not enforce our laws and to allow an
invasion of our country.
Mr. Gimenez. So all the claims by the other side of the
aisle that we needed more money for the Biden administration,
we needed more people, et cetera, do you believe that was
accurate or do you believe that was inaccurate?
Secretary Noem. No, sir, that was not true.
Mr. Gimenez. Absolutely, because the numbers speak for
themselves.
Secretary Noem. That's true.
Mr. Gimenez. Simply by enforcing our laws and having the
will to enforce our laws, we have seen a dramatic fall in the
number of crossings. So I want to thank you for that.
Now I want to switch over to FEMA. I used to be the mayor
of Miami-Dade County. I used to represent and really it was my
job to protect 2.8 million people in one of the most hurricane-
prone areas of the United States. I was also a city manager of
the city and I was a fire chief for the city of Miami. At the
time, I was also on a FEMA advisory panel. I can tell you that
FEMA needs many, many reforms.
I remember as mayor of Miami-Dade County in 2015, we were
still processing claims through FEMA for Hurricane Katrina,
which happened 10 years earlier. So while I do support the
efforts to reform FEMA, there are certain States and cities and
counties that actually can respond a heck of a lot better than
others. We can't leave those that can't fend for themselves,
you know, to fend for themselves. So I would hope that that is
part of your review and the reform of FEMA. Is that what you
plan to do?
Secretary Noem. Yes, sir. We know that every single State
is not prepared today to take over their emergency operations.
That's why the President has been clear that he wants to
empower States, give them the opportunity to build out their
response, to also sign MOUs with surrounding States, and other
resources they can use to best serve their people. He just
doesn't believe that FEMA has been successful in being there in
a time of crisis for people.
Mr. Gimenez. I can tell you, ma'am, as mayor of Miami-Dade
County, that they haven't. OK. And that I never, ever--when I
talked to my people, I said, hey, we are going to have to do
this ourselves. There is no calvary coming from the Federal
Government. We have to take care of ourselves. All we need from
the Federal Government, really, is the money to reimburse us,
and you are not even good at doing that. OK? So, hopefully, you
can speed that process up.
There are some people in my community that are a little bit
concerned about the TPS rules and the suspension of TPS. I
would hope--I would request that you can meet with myself,
Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, and Maria Salazar. So maybe
we can do a little nuance to this so that we can put those
concerns at rest.
I also sent a letter to you concerning 100 Cuban
oppressors. They are actually living in the United States that
were granted either asylum or entry into the United States that
should have never been here. We need to deport those. Have you
received that letter? What is your Department doing about
looking into and vetting those hundred names that I gave you?
Secretary Noem. Yes, sir. I received your letter and read
it this week, and we'll be responding to you. That is something
that President Trump is focused on, is adding integrity back to
the programs that we have, our immigration programs, our
strength services like TPS, like the Visa Waiver program, our
parole, our asylum programs. A lot of those got perverted and
changed and misused and abused during the last administration.
Adding integrity back to them is incredibly important for this
administration. TPS was always meant to be a temporary
program----
Mr. Gimenez. I agree.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. That built on giving people an
opportunity to be safe from violence or environmental crisis
that may be happening in their home country. Those individuals
were working with them. We'll have a chance to meet with you
and the other Congressmen to address their needs and see what
their options are. They do have 60 days from the time it is
published. Those individuals that you spoke to me about, that
still has not been published in the Federal Register. So they
have several months here that we can work on the solutions to
make sure that they're in a program that's appropriate for
their situation.
Mr. Gimenez. Fair enough, ma'am. I appreciate that, and I
hope we can have that meeting soon.
Finally, I am going to give you another example. When I was
mayor of Miami-Dade County, there was then Senator Kamala
Harris and a lot of other Democrats were demonstrating outside
a homestead facility that was meant for children, saying how
bad the conditions were, et cetera, et cetera. Well, as mayor
of Miami-Dade County, I asked to actually go in there. I viewed
it. I went in there. Since I speak Spanish, I actually spoke to
the children. They were all being treated great. There was
nothing happening there that would make me ashamed to be an
American. So what was great about that was that we were
actually taking care of those children, unlike what happened
under the Biden administration when we lost about 300,000 of
them.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Mr. Goldman for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to go back to Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case,
Madam Secretary. But my first question for you is a pretty
simple one. It is basic civics. Which branch of Government does
the Constitution give the authority to interpret what the law
is, the Judiciary or the Executive branch?
Secretary Noem. Sir, going forward, the interpretation of
the law, you make the laws in this body, the Judicial branch
makes sure that they are--have integrity and they're applied
properly to individuals.
Mr. Goldman. So that--OK. So I am just going to take that
as the Judiciary branch. Now, let's focus for a second on what
the Judiciary branch has said about this case. We know the
Supreme Court has said, 9 to nothing, that notwithstanding your
statements under oath here today that Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia
was afforded due process, he was, in fact, not afforded due
process because then if he were, you would have seen the
withholding order that did not permit him to be deported to El
Salvador.
Now, you allege, and I guess the Attorney General alleges,
that he is a member of MS-13. That may very well be----
Secretary Noem. It's not just----
Mr. Goldman. That very well may be the case. If he is, now
that that is a foreign terrorist organization, certainly the
immigration laws would allow him and, in fact, require him to
be deported. I certainly would support that.
But the problem that we have here is what you allege, what
Ms. Greene alleges, what the Attorney General alleges, is not
the Judiciary. You don't get to decide whether or not he is an
MS-13 member. You don't have to take my word for it because
Judge Wilkinson, a Fourth Circuit judge, very conservative,
addressed this argument. He says, ``The Government asserts that
Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps,
but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due
process. If the Government is confident in its position, it
should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to
terminate the withholding of removal order.''
Will you commit right now to give Mr. Abrego Garcia that
process where you can prove your allegation that he is a member
of MS-13?
Secretary Noem. Congressman, that judge that you just
quoted did not say he was not a member of MS-13. Who did say
that he was a member of MS-13 was law enforcement officers that
encountered this individual.
Mr. Goldman. Yes. He knows that. He is a Fourth Circuit
judge.
Secretary Noem. We had a judge in----
Mr. Goldman. He knows all of what the evidence is. He's
saying if that evidence----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. A case that was built against
him----
Mr. Goldman. So you are not going to commit to----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Before he was deported, sir.
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. Follow this order.
Secretary Noem. It said he was MS-13.
Mr. Goldman. You won't commit to follow this court order.
Secretary Noem. By the way, he identified himself----
Mr. Goldman. Madam Secretary, I am----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Who he surrounded----
Mr. Goldman. I reclaim my time. Stop filibustering.
Secretary Noem. He was surrounded----
Mr. Goldman. Stop filibustering.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. By gang members of MS-13.
Mr. Goldman. Will you give Mr. Abrego Garcia the due
process that the Supreme Court and Judge Wilkinson has required
you to give him?
Secretary Noem. Abrego Garcia is an El Salvador resident
who is in his home country. If he were to come back to this
country, he would be immediately removed again.
Mr. Goldman. How do you know?
Secretary Noem. He has received and been treated
appropriately, sir.
Mr. Goldman. So he----
Secretary Noem. He is not----
Mr. Goldman. How can you say he has been treated
appropriately----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. In this country any longer.
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. If the Supreme Court has ruled 9-
nothing, 9-nothing, that he hasn't been treated appropriately?
Why is your opinion better----
Secretary Noem. We had 2----
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. And have more authority than the
Supreme Court?
Secretary Noem. Investigators, 2 judges, an immigration
court that all said he was MS-13 and was removed to the--from
this country.
Mr. Goldman. But you understand, that is you saying that.
That is you saying that.
Secretary Noem. It is them saying that.
Mr. Goldman. No, no, no, no.
Secretary Noem. This is investigators and law enforcement
officers----
Mr. Goldman. That is you making that determination.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And the case they built
against him. If you don't trust----
Mr. Goldman. The court----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Law enforcement officers----
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. Has considered all that.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And investigators----
Mr. Goldman. The judge has considered all that, Madam
Secretary.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Then who do you trust if you--
--
Mr. Goldman. And if you would be quiet because----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Don't trust judges and
investigators?
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. I am reclaiming my time. You are
not following this court order. But let's focus on the court
order because this opinion also says that to facilitate, which
the Supreme Court is requiring, is an active verb. It requires
that steps be taken.
What steps have you taken to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to
allow him to get due process?
Secretary Noem. Abrego Garcia is in his home country.
Mr. Goldman. What steps have----
Secretary Noem. If he were to come back here----
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. You taken?
Secretary Noem. If your continued advocacy for him were
to----
Mr. Goldman. I am not advocating for him.
Secretary Noem. Yes, you are.
Mr. Goldman. I am advocating----
Secretary Noem. Absolutely.
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. For a court order, Madam
Secretary.
Secretary Noem. You've gone simple mad for this man----
Mr. Goldman. The court order----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Who has terrorized----
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. Says that you----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And trafficked human beings.
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. Must take steps to follow the
court order. You are here under oath. What steps have you taken
to return Mr. Abrego Garcia pursuant to this court order?
Secretary Noem. It's got to be extremely discouraging to be
one of your constituents. To see you fight for a terrorist like
this and not fight for them is extremely alarming to me----
Mr. Goldman. I am fighting for due process----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And I'm sure it is for your
constituents as well.
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. And that is under the
Constitution.
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Goldman. You should fight, too, for due process.
Secretary Noem. I do.
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Ms. Greene for 5 minutes' questioning.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Democrats have
spent the last 4 years terrorizing Americans with their open
border policies. They flooded our communities with over 13
million illegals from over 170 countries and territories who
invaded our borders, raped our women and children, and murdered
our own people. It is shocking to hear them to continue to
defend cartels, MS-13, and terrorists today.
Democrats claimed over and over again that legislation was
needed to fix the problems, the problems that they created. Yet
to this day, no new border legislation has been enacted and
border crossings are down 93 percent. It was just reported that
according to CBP, only 5 aliens were temporarily released into
the United States in all of April. Only 5. This is compared to
the 68,000 released in April 2024 under the Biden
administration.
Thank you, Secretary Noem, for your great work and your
leadership. This is truly saving America. There is nothing
Democrats love more than defending the cartels, the criminals,
and the rapists. Now we finally have a President in the White
House and an administration that defends the American people.
As you are aware, Secretary Noem, CISA previously developed
a censorship-laundering scheme through its counter mis-, dis-,
and malinformation, MDM, efforts that suppressed conservative
opinions and went after President Trump's supporters. Members
of Congress, Senators, including myself, were permanently
banned. I was permanently banned on Twitter under this. What
started as an election interference campaign eventually
developed into censoring issues well beyond the election and
COVID and climate change. Through their NGO partnerships
tickets were created on posts they thought were misinformation
and subsequently sent to social media platforms with
recommendations for them to be censored.
Would you please provide an update on your efforts to
investigate the severity of MDM efforts during the Biden
regime? What steps are you taking to ensure CISA will never
again serve as the United States Government's Ministry of
Truth?
Secretary Noem. Thank you, Congressman. The CISA definitely
was so far off mission that they forgot what their purpose
clearly was. CISA was created to hunt down bad actors and to
harden our systems to support local infrastructure, critical
infrastructure that makes this country run, and those small-
and medium-sized businesses that don't have the resources to
make sure that their software programs, their technology was
secure from hackers and from bad actors around the world.
Instead, what they were doing by out there deciding what
was truth, what wasn't truth, censoring what people could say
was not their mission whatsoever. So we have stopped those
activities. We have refocused our resources back onto the
cybersecurity mission and ensured that CISA is cooperating with
our local and State individuals and businesses to make sure
that we're truly being proactive at not just hardening our
systems, but stopping the attacks that we have from countries
that hate us.
So the Ministry of Truth, as what CISA was operating
before, was wrongful actions that were taken by employees of
this administration--the last administration to go after
political targets to manipulate the information that Americans
were receiving. That has stopped.
We have fallen far behind in what we've been able to do as
far as cooperating with other intelligence agencies and with
those at the State level to make sure that we're being
proactive. That's one thing that we have focused extremely hard
on in the last several months, is ensuring that those
relationships are built back up, that we're partnering with
private businesses to get the support that we need to make sure
that we are hardening America's systems. Because we're
vulnerable to our weakest link. Oftentimes our weakest link is
that small business or individual that ties into our largest
systems.
Ms. Greene. Yes. Thank you. No American should be censored
by their Government for their political beliefs----
Secretary Noem. Absolutely.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. And their statements. Thank you
for that.
Also, the Trump administration has committed to reuniting
unaccompanied alien children lost or trafficked under the
Biden-Harris administration back to their families and
guardians. What efforts is DHS taking to ensure that these
vulnerable children are safely reunited with their loved ones?
Because the Biden administration lost hundreds of thousands of
children.
Secretary Noem. Yes, absolutely. We know that there was
upwards to over 300,000 children that were lost during the last
administration. So President Trump has made it a priority of
every Cabinet Secretary and agency to make sure those children
are located, that they are returned to safety. As you know, the
refugee program and sponsors were greatly abused under the
previous administration. The Department of HHS is bringing some
integrity back to that program and making sure that these
children are cared for appropriately and that someone is
watching over them that truly has their best interests at
heart, that really, truly cares for them as a family member. I
would say over 5,000 have been found and our HSI individuals
and law enforcement officers are continuing to identify them.
Chairman Green. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize Mrs. Ramirez for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you, Chairman. Secretary, it is good to
see you. I am going to go straight to the questions because I
have a lot of them.
Let me start just following up with Congressman Goldman
about Judiciary. Do you agree that the Judiciary is a co-equal
branch of Government and it is your obligation as a member of
the Executive branch to honor decisions made by the highest
court of the land? Yes or no, Secretary?
Secretary Noem. We are abiding by all Federal Judges'
orders. Absolutely.
Mrs. Ramirez. So, yes, it is a co-equal branch of
Government. OK. Well, let me ask you a follow-up question to
that. Do you agree that Congress is a co-equal branch of
Government and it is your obligation as a member of the
Executive branch to honor legislation and appropriations duly
authorized by Congress? Yes or no?
Secretary Noem. Yes, that's why I'm thrilled to work----
Mrs. Ramirez. Thank you. Well, let me ask you the follow-
up----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. So closely with----
Mrs. Ramirez [continuing]. Question here because I have a
lot of them. Do you agree that Article I of the Constitution
gives Congress the power of the purse? Yes or no?
Secretary Noem. Yes, it is the duty of Congress----
Mrs. Ramirez. Do you believe that----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. To be able to appropriate
funds.
Mrs. Ramirez. Let me ask you another follow-up. It is just
yes or no. Do you believe you have the power to disregard
Congressional appropriations and unilaterally repurpose funds
that have been duly appropriated by Congress? Yes or no?
Secretary Noem. Ma'am, we are not doing that.
Mrs. Ramirez. So the answer to you is no.
Secretary Noem. We are using dollars as----
Mrs. Ramirez. All right. Well, let me----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. To how they----
Mrs. Ramirez. It was a yes or no, Secretary.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Were appropriated--have
continued.
Mrs. Ramirez. Let me continue. Interestingly, you said no,
but since you have been Secretary, you have repeatedly
disregarded the law. You have illegally impounded funds that
Congress appropriated and that your branch of Government must
implement pursuant to the law. Yet you, you have closed offices
established in law, including the Office for Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties, the Office of the Immigration Detention
Ombudsman, the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration
Services, and you have canceled contracts for programs
authorized in law, including shelter and service programs and
citizenship and integration grants.
You, you have obstructed and roughed up Members of this
committee as they attempted to conduct Congressional oversight,
and then you vilified them. But my question is, if they were so
bad, why were they allowed to go in after to conduct oversight?
Let me just continue. You redirected funds to terrorize our
communities. You created taxpayer-funded political propaganda
campaigns to terrorize families and children who don't sleep at
night because of the terror of those commercials that you are
putting out there. You hold sick, disrespectful press
conferences in my State, where, let me be clear, you are not
welcome. You corruptly used emergency authority to avoid
procurement to make Trump's private prison donors richer by
directing $45 billion for them to expand ICE detention centers.
You defunded work to address real threats to the homeland,
all while you pursued college newspaper editors, labor leaders,
and even a Harvard scientist who failed to declare frog embryos
at the airport.
Clearly, we don't have time for all my questions, so I have
13 pages' worth of questions that I will be submitting to the
record that I expect you and the administration to answer. But
here is my final question to you. When you took your oath, did
you swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States of America? Yes or no?
Secretary Noem. Yes, I did.
Mrs. Ramirez. So I find that laughable. You don't behave
like someone who takes that oath seriously. Let me tell you
why. We don't live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. Trump's
will is not the guiding doctrine of this Nation and our country
is not a playground for his or your twisted authoritarian
fantasies. We are a democracy. We defend the Constitution and
we affirm the rule of law. We respect the co-equal branches of
Government, and we uphold our rights even when we disagree. The
foundation of our Nation is based on a core set of
Constitutional rights upon which our prosperity, our pluralism,
and our peace depend on it.
You, however, have been leading this work for 116 days. In
that time, you have profiled and dehumanized our neighbors. You
have betrayed our Constitutional commitment to due process. You
have deported United States citizens, you have undermined the
courts, you have broken the law, you have engaged in
corruption, and you have weaponized the immigration system to
violate civil rights.
As Senator Murphy perfectly stated, your Department is out
of control. But you, you are responsible. You have betrayed the
sacred fundamentals of your oath. I believe to my core that you
are not fit to hold the office. I, again, to your face, demand
your immediate resignation. I put it and place it on the record
for all of us to see.
With that, Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Green. The gentlelady yields.
Mr. Garbarino is recognized.
Mr. Garbarino. Thank you, Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank
you so much for being here today. I am the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity Infrastructure Protection, so I
work with CISA a lot. I have a few quick questions for you.
Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 provides the
modern basis for information sharing between the private sector
and Federal Government. My subcommittee tomorrow will be having
a hearing on CISA, the renewal of CISA 2015 since it expires in
September. I am just wondering, do you support the
reauthorization of CISA 2015 ahead of its expiration?
Secretary Noem. Yes, I do, sir. It's an incredibly
important piece of legislation.
Mr. Garbarino. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Another
hearing that we had this year, we dealt with the proposed
CIRCIA rulemaking process, and it started under the Biden
administration. We heard from industry. They were not happy the
way it went. I am not happy with the way--I am sure a lot of
people aren't happy the way it went. I still remain concerned
that the scope of the proposed rules have strayed from
Congressional intent.
One of the things that came up at our hearing was whether
or not CISA would consider to provide an ex parte process so we
could get more comments from industry and, hopefully, get this
back on track instead of starting over from scratch because it
has to be done. Is that something that the Department would
consider?
Secretary Noem. Yes, we would support that, sir. I think
that more input from the private sector is important to make
sure we're doing the appropriate actions.
Mr. Garbarino. I mean, information sharing and making sure
that people are actually responding to incidents instead of
talking to their attorneys, I think is very, very important. We
want to make sure that this is the response rule, not just one
of many other rules that are out there.
I sent a letter back on February 19 regarding work force
reductions. It was about CISA staff that was fired and their
responsibilities and titles. I have not yet received a
response. Given the growing number of cybersecurity--the
growing cybersecurity threat landscape and the administration's
stated interest, which they have in addressing these threats, I
am concerned that reducing CISA's staff will not help CISA
accomplish the mission of protecting cybersecurity, providing
cybersecurity to the people that need it or helping. The letter
asks for the number of staff, the responsibilities of those
staff, and the impacts on CISA's ability to fulfill its
mission. I know you can't provide that answer now, but can I
get a commitment to get that response to that letter----
Secretary Noem. Absolutely.
Mr. Garbarino [continuing]. Sometime soon?
Secretary Noem. Absolutely.
Mr. Garbarino. I appreciate that as well. I know we are
here about the budget, so I do want to ask some questions.
In the administration's skinny budget request it is seeking
a $491 million reduction for CISA. I am all on board with
getting rid of disinformation and misinformation and I was
supportive of that cut. But that was in fiscal year 2023, that
was only $20 million. Only $20 million of its budget went. So
getting rid of that, that still leaves about $471 million of
cuts, which is about a 17 percent cut to its total budget. What
is--why such a large cut?
In addition to that, there was also, I believe, a program
request moving $130 million around. What is that? What programs
are going to be affected with that request?
Secretary Noem. Well, Congressman, the focus within CISA
needs to be on ensuring that it's fulfilling why it was
created. It was created to support critical infrastructure and
to make sure that we're out there addressing the cybersecurity
concerns that we have. The reductions that you see are in the
areas where it got off mission, where it was involved in mis-,
dis-, and malinformation and also the censorship activities.
That's where the reflection is.
But the cybersecurity side of CISA is strengthened and
emboldened under President Trump's leadership and will be into
the future and making sure that we're giving them the tools
that they need to create new partnerships. Those plans to
partner with private industries will make us much more
efficient and accountable to taxpayers, while making sure that
we actually have answers to some of the threats that we have in
front of us.
That's the thing that has alarmed me the most about CISA is
the lack of information that they have, the lack of solutions
that they have, and how they protect our critical
infrastructure. When you look at Volt Typhoon, it wasn't just
that we're vulnerable. It's that the Chinese have proven, PRC
has proven with bad actors that they can shut down our water
plants, our electrical grid, that they have the ability to do
that. If we think something in the past, like a pandemic or a
crisis like that was scary, wait until people's electricity is
gone or their water system shuts down. So that is one of the
reasons why CISA needs to be laser-focused on truly what its
mission is.
Mr. Garbarino. Yes, I appreciate that and I am out of time,
but I also just want to say I hope we can work together on
this. I am very excited for Mr. Plankey's nomination.
Secretary Noem. Yes.
Mr. Garbarino. I think he is going to do a great job and,
hopefully, they can confirm him sometime soon. But I would like
to talk to you more about the budget when we have chance.
Mr. McCaul [presiding]. Time has expired.
The Chair recognizes----
Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous
consent to enter for the record an article from the Oversight
Project that quotes the Supreme Court case Gojek v. the United
States, that talks about Congress' power of oversight, stating
that ``no committee of either the House or Senate, and no
Senator and no representative is free on its or his or her own
to conduct investigations unless authorized.'' That was a
Supreme Court case.
I would also ask----
Mr. McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Submitted by Honorable Marjorie Taylor Greene
oversight project: it's your government
DATE: May 13, 2025
TO: U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba, Speaker
Mike Johnson, Chairman Mark Green, and members of the public
FROM: Oversight Project: It's Your Government
SUBJECT: Invalid Oversight Defense to Alleged Criminal Activity in
Newark, New Jersey by Members of Congress

The Democrat Members of Congress that are on camera committing
potential Federal offenses during the events at the Delaney Hall
Detention Center on May 9, 2025 in Newark, New Jersey are not protected
by their false assertion that their ``oversight duties'' put them above
the law.
A number of Democrat Members of Congress and their commentators
have advanced the position that Section 527 of the Further Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2024, 138 Stat. 506, Pub. Law. 118-4 7 (the
``Act''), provides an absolute right of access for Members of Congress
to DHS detention facilities.\1\ This view is wrong. Section 527 only
applies to congressional oversight. And the conduct in question clearly
was not undertaken pursuant to Congress' oversight authority as it was
neither authorized by the House, Committees, nor Chainnen. Therefore,
it cannot be official oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., @Rep Menendez, X (May 10, 2025). https://x.com/
RepMenendez/status/1921236538429472805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start with the text, which provides in full:

SEC. 527. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Homeland Security by this Act may be
used to prevent any of the following persons from entering, for the
purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the
Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house
aliens, or to make any temporary modification at any such facility that
in any way alters what is observed by a visiting Member of Congress or
such designated employee, compared to what would be observed in the
absence of such modification:
(1) A Member of Congress.
(2) An employee of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate
designated by such a Member for the purposes of this section.
(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of
Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility
described in subsection (a) for the purpose of conducting oversight.
(c) With respect to individuals described in subsection (a)(2), the
Department of Homeland Security may require that a request be made at
least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility described in
subsection (a).

138 Stat. at 619. There is no dispute that the Members of Congress
at issue here are in fact Members of Congress. Thus, the appropriations
rider applies--but only to the extent their actions were ``for the
purpose ofconducting oversight.'' That is the key operative phrase--the
modifier of entering. See, e.g., BedRoc. Ltd. LLC v. United States, 541
U.S. 176, 183 (2004) (plurality op.) (court must construe broad
statutory term per limiting statutory modifier).
The phrase ``conducting oversight'' appears in only one other
location in the Act:

SEC. 233. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to
prevent a United States Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight,
any facility in the United States used for the purpose of maintaining
custody of, or otherwise housing, unaccompanied alien children (as
defined in section 462(g)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 279(g)(2))), provided that such Senator or Member has
coordinated the oversight visit with the Office of Refugee Resettlement
not less than two business days in advance to ensure that such visit
would not interfere with the operations (including child welfare and
child safety operations) of such facility. Again, ``conducting
oversight'' directly links to Congressional power.

In common usage ``conducting oversight'' in the Congressional
context refers to Congress' power of oversight. See, e.g., Comm. on Jud
v. McGahn, 968 F.3d 755, 764 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (The power of each House
of Congress to compel witnesses to appear before it to testify and to
produce documentary evidence has a pedigree predating the Founding and
has long been employed in Congress' discharge of its primary
constitutional responsibilities: legislating, conclucting oversight of
the Federal Government, and, when necessary, checking the President
through the power of impeachment. (emphases added).
This of course makes sense. While Congress undoubtedly has a broad
power of oversight inherent in its functions (see, e.g., McGrain v.
Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927)) that power necessarily inheres in
the full House. See U.S. Const. Art. 1 1. See United States v.
Rumely, 42-43, 47-48, (1952) (authority of the Committee stems from
delegation by the full House). Thus, [n]o Committee of either the House
or the Senate, and no Senator and no Representative, is free on its or
his own to conduct investigations unless authorized. Thus, it must
appear that Congress empowered the Committee to act, and further that
at the time the witness allegedly defied its authority the Committee
was acting within the power granted to it.'' Gojack v. United States,
384 U.S. 702, 716 (1966) (quotation and citation omitted); accord
Requests by Individual Members of Congress for Executive Branch
Information, 43 Op. O.L.C. 42, 43-46 (2019) (``Individual Member
Requests''); Authority of Individual Members of Congress to Conduct
Oversight of the Executive Branch, 41 Op. O.L.C. 76, 77-78 (2017). That
is not to say that the power of individual Member is merely limited to
their vote. They assuredly do have authority to request additional
information and access from the Executive branch, but that
discretionary request is not oversight and deals purely in the power of
comity. See, e.g., Individual Member Requests, 43 Op. O.LC. at 47-49.
Here, there is no delegation of any of Congress' oversight powers
to random Members or Staff wishing to conduct an ``inspection'' of ICE
detention facilities. To start, the Act itself is no such delegation.
It merely restricts the expenditure of funds; it pointedly does not
convey jurisdiction or authority. No Rule to the full House speaks to
the matter either. Committee Rules do not address the issue either.
Accordingly, it would appear that there is no general authorization for
Minority Members (or staff) to engage in individualized oversight of
ICE detention facilities. Thus, the language of the Act simply does not
apply to inspections of ICE detention centers by random Members like
that which occurred here.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Of course, the Government may always exercise its discretion to
provide Members of Congress or Staff with increased access to ICE
detention faci lities (or any other Government facility for that
matter). but that would merely be said to be engaged in some official
duty 1101 in conducting oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, the Act must be interpreted so that ``no clause,
sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant'' and
therefore Section 527 of the Act must have some impact. Duncan v.
Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001). And it clearly does. As a general
proposition, a Chairman's letter acts to discharge the House's
Oversight power delegated to a Committee. See, e.g., Ashland Oil, Inc.
v. FTC, 548 F.2d 977, 980-8 I (D.C. Cir. 1976) (Subcommittee Chairman's
letter request an official act of oversight). Thus, a letter
authorization from the Chairman requesting (or merely authorizing a
Member to request) an inspection of an ICE detention facility is by
operation of the Act is made in effect mandatory--the authorized Member
or Staff cannot be barred from conducting the requested inspection.
Multiple Committees' jurisdiction (delegated by the House) reaches
DHS detention facilities. See House Rule X. It would seem that this
general delegation is broad enough to permit the Chairman to designate
Members or Staff to inspect DHS detention facilities. Accordingly, the
Act does a great deal of work by making such requests effectively
mandatory. After all, the full House has never delegated its power to
utilize coercive force against a person or property or to assert
authority in the nature of an inspection pursuant to a bill of
discovery.
Three Members of Congress claim their rights under this statute
have been violated: Representatives Bonnie Watson Coleman, Robert
Menendez, and LaMonica McIver. Representative Menendez sits on the
House Energy and Commerce Committee, which does not have any
jurisdiction over DHS detention facilities. Representative Watson
Coleman sits on the House Appropriations Committee and Representative
McIver sits on the House Homeland Security Committee. Those Committees
do have jurisdiction over DHS detention facilities, however there is no
evidence that the Chairmen of those Committees designated those Members
to conduct oversight of ICE detention facilities. Absent a clear
delegation by the Chairman of the House Appropriations or Homeland
Security Committees, Representatives Watson Coleman and McIver were not
conducting ``oversight'' within the meaning of Section 527 of the Pub.
Law 118-47.
recommendations
1. Federal prosecution of these Members of Congress should be based
on the facts and the law alone and not be hindered by the false
assertion of ``oversight authority'' being advanced by other
politicians and social media.
2. Congress has a range of disciplinary options at their disposal:
a. Expulsion is subject to a two-thirds vote of the House of
Representatives. It has been used in limited instances
historically, including three times since 1980 when Members
have either been convicted of a Federal crime or have had
significant findings to support a conviction. Before that
it was almost exclusively used for Members who supplied the
Confederacy.
b. Removal from committee assignments.
c. The lowest form of punishment is a censure resolution. Given
that Members of Congress are asserting that they intend to
continue such ``surprise inspections'' of ICE facilities
and assert this false oversight authority to subvert
immigration enforcement, a censure resolution would not
adequately deter future similar conduct.

Ms. Greene. Thank you. I also ask unanimous consent to
enter for the record that the ICE facility that Democrats and
one of our own Members here stormed, according to the
Secretary--assistant secretary of Homeland, categorized these
detainees in ICE as ``murderers, terrorists, child rapists, and
MS-13 gang members.''
Mr. McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]

Ms. Greene asked for Tricia McLaughlin's (DHS Assistant Secretary)
quote to Fox News about the May 10, 2025 incident at Delaney Hall
involving DHS, Newark Mayor Raz Baraka, and several Democratic Members
of Congress to be entered into the record.
Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin categorized
individuals held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
facilities as ``murderers, terrorists, child rapists and MS-13 gang
members''. (Quoted portion is what Ms. Greene entered into the
record).--https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ice-facility-democrats-
stormed-holds-child-rapists-murderers-officials.

Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goldman. I have a unanimous consent question as well.
Mr. McCaul. Mr. Goldman is recognized.
Mr. Goldman. I would like to introduce an article just
published by Bloomberg Government in which the acting director
of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement acknowledges that any
Member of Congress has the right to show up at any detention
facility with or without appointments, and that he will follow
that law.
Mr. McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Article Submitted by Honorable Daniel S. Goldman
ice chief commits to opening doors to lawmakers after skirmish
By Ellen M. Gilmer
May 14, 2025 11:13 AM ET, Bloomberg Government
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement will allow Members of
Congress to inspect detention facilities with or without appointments,
the head of the agency pledged to a House panel following a fracas
involving three Democrats and ICE personnel at a New Jersey site.
Acting Director Todd Lyons on Wednesday said he and his team are
committed to allowing lawmakers to conduct oversight at immigrant
jails, as laid out in Federal law.
``We do acknowledge that any Member of Congress does have the right
to show up,'' Lyons testified before the House Appropriations
Committee's homeland security panel.
Lawmaker visits to ICE sites sparked a whirlwind of controversy
Friday when New Jersey Democratic Reps. Rob Menendez, Bonnie Watson
Coleman, and LaMonica McIver entered the Delaney Hall Detention Center
in Newark, N.J. The Department of Homeland Security accused them of
``storming'' the facility; the lawmakers alleged that ICE officers
manhandled them and initially refused to let them conduct oversight.
Rep. Lauren Underwood (Ill.), the top Democrat on the
Appropriations panel, pressed Lyons on provisions of Federal law that
allow lawmakers to visit sites without advance notice.
Yet Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem blamed the Democrats
for not first requesting a visit and passing through the facility gate
while a vehicle entered.
``Had these members requested a tour, we certainly would have
facilitated a tour,'' Noem said during a separate hearing Wednesday
before the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Goldman. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman. I have unanimous consent, also.
Mr. McCaul. Yes, yes. Mr.--the gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I just want to also enter for the
record Section 527A of the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act of 2024, that it says explicitly that
``Members of Congress have the right to access ICE detention
facilities with no prior notice at any time.''
Mr. McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Submitted by Honorable Robert Garcia
Section 527(a) of the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-47) says:

Members of Congress have the right to access ICE detention facilities,
with no prior notice, at any time.
It is illegal for ICE to obstruct them.

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department of Homeland Security by this Act may be used to prevent . .
. a Member of Congress . . . from entering, for the purpose of
conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of
Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens . . . [nor]
to make any temporary modification at any such facility that in any way
alters what is observed by a visiting Member of Congress . . . compared
to what would be observed in the absence of such modification.
Furthermore, subsection (b) clarifies that nothing in this section
requires a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of intent to
enter such a facility for oversight purposes.
The Department itself has affirmed the oversight duties of Members
of Congress in guidance posted by ICE dated to February 2025.

Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Mr. McCaul. Mrs. McIver is recognized.
Mrs. McIver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. A
lot has been said, and I expect a lot more will be said, about
the Department's interaction with Members of this body when it
comes to oversight, but this is not about me.
Madam Secretary, it is not every day we have a Cabinet
Member before this committee. As you know, the Members of this
committee have Constitutional oversight responsibility for your
Department. There are many things regarding this
administration's Homeland Security policies that require our
immediate attention. That is the work I am here to do today and
every day.
Secretary, this committee and the American people deserve
answers for the actions of the Department of Homeland Security
under this administration and the policies that have been put
into place. The Department has overseen a regime of cruelty,
chaos, and deep disregard for human dignity, all under the
pretense of security. The Department is being mismanaged and
its policies undermine our Nation's values. This does not make
us safer. The exact opposite exactly.
Secretary, we need answers about your Department's union
busting at TSA, deporting U.S. citizens, terminating the legal
status of international students for no apparent reason, and
disregarding the rule of law. None of these issues at your
Department exist in the vacuum. In fact, they are all
fundamentally connected to the administration's overarching
cruelty. We want to hear from you because we are hoping you can
make it make sense for us. Because with all due respect, we are
all trying to understand why in the world this is taking place.
In my district and around this Nation, countless
international students had their visas revoked without due
process, without warning, and without any regard for how this
would devastate their lives. These are students who came here
to learn, to build their futures, and join our work force, only
to have the rug pulled out from under them by this Department's
actions. How can we expect international students to trust our
institutions and contribute to our economy when we treat them
like they have done something wrong just because they are here?
Are we no longer the home of the American dream?
I also want you to understand DHS's impact on our entire
work force. I proudly represent over 1,000 dedicated TSA
workers who had the right to unionize. But that right has been
stripped away by your Department. This is an attack on the
people who safeguard our skies and whose dedication we rely on
now more than ever.
The destruction doesn't stop there. I represent communities
that live in constant fear each and every day. Families too
terrified to step outside and send their kids to school, go
grocery shopping, or take a trip to the doctor because of the
harassment of ICE and Homeland Security. This isn't public
safety. It is state-sponsored fear.
I understand that this administration believes that it is
its business to scare people into submission and act alone,
with no regard for the law, to decide who is worthy to live in
this country or not. However, it is this committee's business
to make sure your Department is held accountable and to get the
American people the answers they have been looking for.
So, with that, Madam Secretary, I have a few yes-or-no
questions. Do you agree that revoking student visas without
notice can cause fear and confusion among international
students? Yes or no?
Secretary Noem. Congressman, I do not----
Mrs. McIver. Congresswoman. But yes or no?
Secretary Noem. Congresswoman, I do not decide legal status
or visa programs----
Mrs. McIver. I will take that as----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. For the State Department. The
State does.
Mrs. McIver. I will take that as a yes. Do you support
restoring full collective bargaining rights for TSA employees?
Yes or no?
Secretary Noem. Ma'am, currently today, TSA does not have
the----
Mrs. McIver. Yes or no?
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Ability to unionize.
Mrs. McIver. OK. Take that as a no. Do you believe that TSA
workers should make a livable wage? Yes or no?
Secretary Noem. Yes. TSA workers are critically important--
--
Mrs. McIver. Thank you for that. Are you aware----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. To oversee the security of our
airlines.
Mrs. McIver. Are you aware that recent student visa
revocations occur without due process or proper notification?
Secretary Noem. Ma'am, I don't make a determination of
status.
Mrs. McIver. Yes or no?
Secretary Noem. The Department of State does that.
Mrs. McIver. I am guessing you don't know. OK. Do you
believe that TSA workers have the right to better workplace
conditions?
Secretary Noem. Yes. Absolutely. TSA workers are----
Mrs. McIver. OK, great. Thank you for that.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Incredibly important.
Mrs. McIver. Do you believe that students should have an
opportunity to appeal before their visas are revoked? Yes or
no?
Secretary Noem. All processes are followed and that are set
out as to----
Mrs. McIver. I am guessing it is a no.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Processes in this Congress.
Mrs. McIver. OK, one more last question in 9 seconds. Do
you believe that revoking collective bargaining rights for TSA
workers affects their morale and job performance? Yes or no?
Secretary Noem. I believe TSA is critically important to
the future----
Mrs. McIver. OK. I will take that as maybe you don't know.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. As they have been----
Mrs. McIver. Maybe it is yes or no.
Chairman Green [presiding]. The gentlelady's time has
expired.
Mrs. McIver. With that, I will yield.
Chairman Green. All right. I now recognize Mr. Gonzalez for
5 minutes of his questioning.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for doing a wonderful job and it has been a breath
of fresh air. A lot of people like to talk about the border. I
represent a large part of the border. The places that are on TV
are the places that you have visited, the places that I
represent, like Del Rio, like Eagle Pass, like El Paso, other
places. Y'all have done a fantastic job.
I want to start with BORTAC. BORTAC has been--when we talk
about how do we go out and apprehend these hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of convicted criminal illegal
aliens that are a threat to all our communities, BORTAC is
always the answer. I recently met with them. They are based out
of Fort Bliss. They are in El Paso. They are always the ones
that go out and are doing the heavy lifting.
I would love to put this on your radar. I know you are
making a lot of budgetary decisions, and the administration is.
That facility is way, way outdated for the work that they do.
They need a new facility. I know it is on Fort Bliss. If there
is a way that we can work either through this committee or
through the Appropriations Committee to find a way to give them
the proper housing, just the proper headquarters that they
need, I think this would be very critical in going out there. I
would love to hear your thoughts on BORTAC.
Secretary Noem. Yes, I spent some time with them as well
down at Fort Bliss, and they do incredible work. They don't
just operate within their own agency, but also partner with
other law enforcement agencies and meet needs around the
country at a moment's notice. So their skill set is unique.
Their specialty training is needed, and, in fact, it needs to
be expanded. We could use more teams like they have and give
them more opportunities to continue to serve, because the skill
set they bring to the table keeps people safer and helps us
meet the challenges with what we need to protect our officers
out in the field and to make sure citizens are protected as
well. So we'll certainly look at their facilities and see what
we can do to strengthen the resources that they have.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you for that. They are just doing
incredible work. Once again, every time there is a problem
solved, BORTAC has a role to play, whether it is, you know, on
the back of the--you know, the intelligence piece to it,
helping with some of these task forces, or actually going out
and apprehending folks.
On that note, you know, Uvalde is in my district. We had, a
couple years ago, we had one of the worst school shootings in
history, certainly in Texas' history. You know, it was BORTAC
that neutralized that shooter. So I want to talk about school
safety a little bit.
You know, you have got children, you have got
grandchildren, I have got children. That is one thing that I
think can bring us all together is just the safety of our
children. One area that I think goes unlooked is the Secret
Service's role. As I have dived into school safety, Secret
Service is at the heart of a lot of these solutions, and
usually they don't--nobody thinks it in that manner.
I would love to get your thoughts. When it comes to school
safety, what role do you think the Secret Service can--is
currently playing or can it play in helping solve some of these
problems?
Secretary Noem. Well, right now, Secret Service is
underutilized and they also are under-resourced. If you look
through our reconciliation request and also fiscal year 2026
budget request, there are additional dollars that are needed to
really give Secret Service the tools, the training, and the
resources that they need to meet every single situation that
they are involved in right now. Obviously, they have the
protectee units and agents that are out there on the ground
protecting individuals and the most powerful in the world. But
also they have an investigative side that is a skill set that
many other agencies like to tap into and ask them for insight
into.
So working to protect our kids, our kids are our future.
They really are what America is going to be and is today for
many, many years. So I--it's incredibly important that we use
that skill set to give advice, wisdom, but also training to
those individuals that secure our schools.
You know, the Department of Education has a partnership
with us and how we train school security officers, but also how
we go out and support local law enforcement to respond to
situations like you experienced in your home district. It's a
tragedy that we can be better equipped for and prepared for in
the future and making sure that we're taking care of people
ahead of time----
Mr. Gonzales. That's it.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And addressing the concerns
and the flags that happen before we end up in a situation like
you experienced.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, I appreciate that response. I am really
trying to get ahead of a problem, not wait for the problem to
occur and then blame somebody else for why the problem was
there. Like, let's just make sure our kids are safe as we
harden schools, as we look for ideas to strengthen family units
and do those different things. Once again, the Secret Service
constantly continues to come up. So I look forward to working
with you on that.
Secretary Noem. One thing I would say is, in the last
several months, Secret Service recruitment has been up over 200
percent.
Mr. Gonzales. Amazing.
Secretary Noem. Under President Trump and the recruitment
efforts that we've had for that agency, overwhelmingly people
want to be a part of their mission in the future.
Mr. Gonzales. You know, part of my schools, and I have just
a little time, so part of my district, you know, the Guardian
program, where teachers are armed, is what works for that
community. Other communities, they don't want to have their
teachers armed. That in my eyes, that is something for them to
decide. But as far as the Federal Government response, I think
the Secret Service can add to whatever local ideas they have.
So I look forward to working with you on strengthening that and
others.
Thank you again and I yield back, Chairman.
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Ms. Johnson for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Madam Secretary, for appearing before committee today.
I want to address several issues. I am going to try not to
repeat a lot of issues that have been addressed, but I do have
some substantial concerns over how ICE agents present
themselves to the public. Oftentimes we have seen many videos
out there where they are masked and not properly identified. I
have a lot of real personal concern about that.
I just put myself in the situation of that woman from
Tufts, for example. You are just walking down the street and
all of a sudden, out of nowhere, 3 masked men, not properly
identified, attack you and try to take you away. I find that to
be reprehensible and not the values of this country.
What steps are you taking to make sure that your ICE agents
are not masked and properly identified when they approach
someone?
Secretary Noem. Well, ICE agents always identify themselves
to individuals that they're encountering or that they're
working with. What I would say, as far as if they are wearing
something over their faces, it's oftentimes because that agent
has been involved in undercover operations or needs to be able
to continue the investigative work that they do on a day-to-day
basis.
Ms. Johnson. But don't you think, Madam Secretary, that
people have a right to see whoever is trying to apprehend them?
I think it is creating this unrealistic vigilante system.
Are you aware that your materials, ICE agents' jackets and
the sorts, are available on Etsy for 20 bucks? Anybody can do
that, throw a mask on and run around and terrorizing people of
color without any regard for the law, without any regard
because your agency does not have proper protocols to make sure
their agents are clearly identified and marked when they are
executing their jobs.
Secretary Noem. Our agents do identify themselves. They
verbally do that and then also by the clothing that they're
wearing. If they do have something that is covering some of
their facial features, it's for their investigative work or
their undercover work that they do as a part of their job
duties as well. What I would say is that it is important that
we follow the procedures and protocols for every encounter that
we have. They have done that in every situation to the best of
my knowledge.
Ms. Johnson. I would suggest that your protocols need to be
revised because I don't think it is reasonable for masked men
to be apprehending people on the streets. I think that instills
a lot of fear. It doesn't instill security in the process. In
States like Texas, that is open carry, when any jackadoo can be
walking around with a gun, I think some tragic circumstances
are at bay.
I would like to switch gears to due process. I have a lot
of concerns about the lack of due process that your agency has
been affording people in this country. In Texas, for example,
you had rounded up 171 individuals, were preparing to deport
them, and it wasn't until the Supreme Court issued an opinion
that that was unconstitutional and that their due process
rights were being violated did your agency actually stop and
adhere to the Supreme Court's opinion.
My question to you is, has those efforts ceased in your
agency? Are you going to cease trying to deport people without
access to due process in the courts of law in compliance with
the U.S. Supreme Court?
Secretary Noem. Well, Congresswoman, we are following due
process and using it as to how Congress has laid out to us in
statute and we are complying with all Federal judges' orders as
well.
Ms. Johnson. Well, you didn't--you weren't complying at
that time. It took the U.S. Supreme Court to order you to
comply. So you hadn't proactively complied on your own. You
were intending to wrongfully deport people without access to a
court hearing, without access to the rule of law. That is why
it was necessary for the U.S. Supreme Court----
Secretary Noem. Due process does not guarantee a hearing.
Ms. Johnson [continuing]. Who issued an opinion ordering
you and your agency to comply with the due process rights of
the people in this country. That is what separates--that is
what makes our country great, is we do have access to due
process.
So my comment to you is I am hoping as you move forward,
because initially as you were proceeding through these
deportation processes, you were not affording people due
process and the Supreme Court has now ordered you to do so. So
I am assuming by your testimony that you do intend to comply
with the Supreme Court's order moving forward and we are not
going to have any more instances of wrongful deportation
without proper access to due process. Is that correct?
Secretary Noem. We are following Federal judges' orders
and----
Ms. Johnson. Good.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. We are complying with due
process----
Ms. Johnson. Well, we look forward to that.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. As they are laid out as
Congress has given us those tools to do that.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I have one other
question about FEMA. I am very concerned about the destruction
of FEMA. You know, Texas is a State that has a lot of
hurricanes, tornadoes, and natural disasters. We rely upon FEMA
extensively and I am very worried about that. When you are
Governor, though, you actually utilized FEMA for your own
State. So you did recognize at the time when you were serving
as a Governor that FEMA played an important role in natural
disasters within South Dakota, is that correct?
Secretary Noem. Yes. We had 12 FEMA-related disasters
during the 6 years I served as Governor of the State of South
Dakota.
Ms. Johnson. But I just find it----
Secretary Noem. The agencies----
Ms. Johnson. I am running out of time, but I just find it
ironic.
Chairman Green. I now recognize Mr. Pfluger, the gentleman
from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, thank you
for being here. What a difference an election makes. What a
difference a Congress makes. What a difference having you here
instead of asking thousands of questions and getting no
answers.
I will start with the first question that I left off with.
I know that may be funny to my colleagues, but it is not funny
to me because of the known and suspected terrorists, the KSTs
that came into this country. I will basically lead off with the
last question that I asked your predecessor, which was the
policy of the Department of Homeland Security and this
administration when it comes to KSTs and talk to us about the
successes that we have had and kind-of where we stand. Because
they left us with a real mess with 40-plus people that were in
this country. You know, I would like to hear what your
Department has done and tell us kind-of the path forward.
Secretary Noem. Yes, absolutely, Congressman. The previous
administration let a lot of dangerous individuals into this
country and get a foothold, and then not only just allowing
them to perpetuate terrorist activities in our country, but
also recruit new members and to build out their systems and to
gain access to our infrastructure. So I'm very proud of the
fact that President Trump has aggressively enforced the law.
Let us use the tools that are afforded to us under the
Department of Homeland Security to address these threats, bring
them to justice, and face consequences, and to get them out of
our country.
So he has removed over 250 known terrorists, suspected
terrorists on the watch list, thousands and thousands of
individuals that were affiliated with them, but also
individuals that committed crimes, that are members of MS-13,
Tren de Aragua, but also cartels and their members and
affiliates in this country. So, overwhelmingly, the safety of
our communities is in a much better spot than it was just 6
short months ago.
Even the message that President Trump has been bold enough
to send around the world. He specifically told me, Kristi, if
you're given this job, I want you to tell the world that
America has new leadership, that we are enforcing our laws now,
and that Americans get to be prioritized and their safety comes
first. If you want to break our laws and come to this country,
don't even try it. That has sent an overwhelming message to the
world that they're adhering to. That's one of the reasons you
see less encounters at the border, is because people are
staying home in their home countries, because now they know we
follow our laws.
The Mexican president and her team told me that they
believe they've stopped over 600,000 people in Mexico before
they even reached our border because they got the message they
could no longer cross into the United States. So we don't even
know the hundreds of thousands of people that simply were in
the process and turned around because President Trump has been
very vocal at sending the message to the world, don't come here
if you want to break our laws and victimize our people.
Mr. Pfluger. Well, the deterrent value of the policy, just
enforcing the laws, has certainly been noticeable. I represent
a district that includes part of your air and marine operations
that flies drones out of San Angelo, Texas, and flies into the
Gulf of Mexico, but also along the border. One of the issues
that we faced in the previous administration was this huge
number of known gotaways. Talk to us about the coordination
with the State and local level.
I also represent a piece of Fort Cavazos and we have, you
know, military personnel who have a designated area along the
border. How is that process working for deterrence, but also to
ensure there are no gotaways like we had?
Secretary Noem. Well, there are known gotaways, and then
there's probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions of
people that we don't necessarily know how many of them are in
this country, that because we had Border Patrol and assets and
Coast Guard and ICE agents diverted into processing paperwork
and facilitating illegal entry into our country, they weren't
doing their security operations. They weren't allowed to do
their jobs.
People have talked about me being out in the front lines
with all of our components and agencies. I'll tell you why I'm
there. The reason I'm walking alongside them is because I want
to understand their jobs, where they don't have the equipment
that they need, what authorizations and authorities they need
to do their jobs. Overwhelmingly, they appreciate the fact that
they finally have a Secretary that shows up to walk alongside
them, one that rides with them and doesn't ride over them and
doesn't listen to them and has never been out in the field.
They want me to be with them. They're proud of the fact that I
don't mind representing them and their agency to the rest of
the world, saying, I'm proud of the work that they do.
We have a lot of gotaways. We also have some we don't even
know that are in this country yet. That's probably what keeps
me up at night the most, is the fact that we don't really know
the dangerous individuals that may be in this country, that we
have to get out before something happens that jeopardizes our
national security.
Mr. Pfluger. Secretary, thank you for being here and for
your service. Our country is safer having you at the helm.
I yield back.
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Hernandez for 5 minutes questioning.
Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
hi. I represent Puerto Rico in Congress. Although we may
disagree as to how, I do agree that disaster response in this
country needs to be reimagined and made more effective. I
sincerely look forward to and hope to be a constructive partner
in that respect.
You know, nearly 8 years after Hurricane Maria struck the
island, we have around $27 billion that have been obligated for
Puerto Rico, yet only $4.4 billion have been dispersed. In the
interest of time, I would appreciate brief answers because
there is a lot of anxiety in the island as to the future of
these funds. Can you assure the people of Puerto Rico that
these obligated funds are safe regardless of any FEMA
restructuring?
Secretary Noem. That is the biggest concern that we have
within FEMA right now is outstanding claims. The worst thing
the Federal Government can do is to say that there is a claim
here, it is valid that we are committed to fulfilling that
responsibility----
Mr. Hernandez. Sorry, in the interest of time----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Rather than not.
Mr. Hernandez [continuing]. Could you say yes or no?
Secretary Noem. So those claims are something my team is
going through right now and evaluating and President Trump is
committed----
Mr. Hernandez. I will assume that the answer is no----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. To following through and
making sure that people have it.
Mr. Hernandez [continuing]. And I will proceed to the next
question. I hope that we can work to make sure that those funds
get to the people.
Is it your Department's view that the Puerto Rico
government has done everything in its power to expedite the
reconstruction process?
Secretary Noem. Oh, I believe that Puerto Rico has been
working hard to reconstruct and to put itself back together and
partnering with the Federal Government as well. Your Government
has been----
Mr. Hernandez. So is the obstacle in the disbursements
FEMA's fault?
Secretary Noem. The what?
Mr. Hernandez. Is the obstacle in these disbursements
FEMA's responsibility?
Secretary Noem. I don't have the knowledge to know
specifically where all the problems are with the response in
Puerto Rico, although I do know that FEMA has not fulfilled the
obligations that previously promised to the effort.
Mr. Hernandez. Thank you. I am going to shift to
immigration in the interest of time. So you served as Governor
of South Dakota. Would you advise Governors to give public
assurances that Federal immigration enforcement will not take
place in their State?
Secretary Noem. Would I advise to Governors that they not?
Mr. Hernandez. That they give public assurances that
immigration enforcement will not occur in their States?
Secretary Noem. No, I prefer that Governors partner with us
to make their States safer. I believe that the relationships
that we have on the ground in many States is absolutely
critical to making sure----
Mr. Hernandez. So the answer is no. You would not advise
them to tell their constituents, no, there will not be any
enforcement in this State. Would you have publicly told
immigrants as Governor in your State not to worry about
deportations because your State wasn't a border State, like
Texas or California?
Secretary Noem. I felt as though my State was a border
State because we were every day impacted by the drug
trafficking and the human trafficking that was coming over the
border and had put a foothold in the State of South Dakota.
Every State was dramatically impacted----
Mr. Hernandez. OK. So, you----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. By the open border policies of
the Biden administration.
Mr. Hernandez. So you would not have told immigrants in
your State, don't worry about deportation? You would not have
said that?
Secretary Noem. I think the laws need to apply equally to
everybody. That's what is so discouraging about the previous
administration, is they picked winners and losers.
Mr. Hernandez. OK. So that is----
Secretary Noem. They decided who it applies to----
Mr. Hernandez. The question has been answered.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And who it didn't.
Mr. Hernandez. That's fine. You will not----
Secretary Noem. That doesn't happen anymore.
Mr. Hernandez. You will not say that. You will not----
Secretary Noem. Now the laws----
Mr. Hernandez. You will tell your constituents immigration
laws will be enforced in this State whether or not we are a
border State, like California or Texas.
Secretary Noem. Laws will be enforced, absolutely.
Mr. Hernandez. In January, the Governor of Puerto Rico made
an opposite claim. She told immigrants not to worry about
deportations because we are not Texas or California. Days
later, ICE conducted enforcement operations in immigrant
neighborhoods in San Juan. Was that a responsible thing to say?
Secretary Noem. I didn't hear her say that and haven't
heard this before, but I believe that the partnerships we have
with Governors is extremely powerful in keeping their
communities safe.
Mr. Hernandez. That is a no answer. Was she aware, was she
briefed by DHS about the immigrant raids that would happen in
the ensuring days?
Secretary Noem. I have no knowledge to that situation. What
I will tell you is that every Governor that I know of feels the
responsibility of protecting their State, and they should be
making the best decisions to secure their communities and their
families that live there.
Mr. Hernandez. That includes telling people in their States
or jurisdictions the administration's policy is that there will
be raids to detain people who were undocumented in their
jurisdictions. Not to tell them don't worry, this will not
happen here.
Secretary Noem. I am not certain as to the situation you're
speaking to. I'll get more information so that I can respond to
you appropriately.
Mr. Hernandez. Yes, but, hypothetically, as Governor----
Secretary Noem. I'm not certain what----
Mr. Hernandez [continuing]. Would you have told the people
of your State the laws will be enforced here as in any other
State?
Secretary Noem. What I would tell my people of South Dakota
is that my job is to work for them and to represent them and to
be their leader and protect their best interests. That includes
making sure that citizens of South Dakota are my No. 1 priority
every day.
Mr. Hernandez. I understand that, and I thank you for your
time. Like I said at the beginning of my turn, I do look
forward to working constructively on ways to reimagine FEMA and
disaster response and to make sure that those funds, which
today you have told us are not guaranteed for the people of
Puerto Rico, are guaranteed and delivered on time. Thank you.
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Luttrell for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, how
are you today? I would like to talk about the health and
wellness of our operators, our DHS and immigration, everyone
that is underneath your portfolio.
I think the one thing that is often lost is that--and you
have military veterans in the room with you. And our role and
responsibility was to put on a uniform and our body armor. We
deployed globally to fight terrorism, and we had to leave the
country to do that. The men and women under DHS, they put on
their uniforms every day and deploy right out their front door.
That is challenging. That is an unforgivable, you know, kind of
space. My focus in the veteran community and active-duty
service, as well as your Department, is the health of wellness
of our operators currently and after they leave the career. Can
you shed some light on it?
To make another point, you know, one of my lovely
colleagues from Texas was concerned about they cover their
faces up and the kits that they wear. I can understand that is
aggressive. That is a posturing. It is not--we don't get in
gunfights every day. But the day that that happens, you will
appreciate the fact that you are wearing that uniform.
I will also add, you know, if you are presenting with
somebody that has got their face covered, that can be scary. I
got it. But when you are dealing with terrorist organizations
that are internal and on our borders, it is not the operator
that they are going to go after. They will take a picture of
that face and go after the families. So it is anonymity for the
operators, too, which needs to be said because it is important
to protect our--the men and women that work under your
Department.
So if you will, please, can you kind-of shed some light on
me where we currently are now that you are the Secretary for
our health and wellness, cognitively and physically, and where
we are going, please?
Secretary Noem. Well, it is a concern for me, especially
since we've seen an escalation in violence against our law
enforcement officers and specifically those even within the
Department of Homeland Security. The aggression that they face
every single day as a part of their job duties is something
that we have to make sure that we recognize and that we have
the tools to help them and their family be successful. So going
forward and making sure that we're providing health care, but
also mental health care is a priority of the Department and
this administration. Recognizing that the previous
administration led a lot of dangerous individuals, terrorists
and gang members and known cartel members, into this country.
Now--and they've recruited new members and they've recruited
home-grown terrorists that are citizens of the United States,
that are members of TDA now and MS-13 that present new and
unique challenges.
That is something that we have made a priority to make sure
that we're equipping them to prepare them for situations
they're going to face with training and giving them the right
equipment to protect themselves. But also when they step back
from that line of duty, how we can help them be whole and go
back and, and live a successful life with their family.
What I would say is that it's difficult in areas of this
country that were neglected for too long, especially in our
Coast Guard. They're often very remote and isolated. They don't
have access to specialty care to mental health care. It's my
commitment to all of our departments and components and the
Coast Guard that I get them that kind of care where they're
located. Because sometimes where they're stationed is not an
area where that is available to them readily.
Mr. Luttrell. Yes, ma'am. My office, and myself included,
look forward to working with you and your team on this. I would
hate for it, for that to be lost in translation. As hard as
Coast Guard, Secret Service, our agents, as hard as they work,
it is not--and I can't say I disagree, but it is just something
that is happening. We don't do baseline assessments on these
operators, which we should absolutely do. We should track the
health and wellness from start to finish. Then when we hand
them off back to the their families, we have the--in comfort
knowing that they are going to be fine once we--once they move
on to the next chapter of their life. So I look forward to
further conversations with you and your team.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Mr. Kennedy from New York for 5 minutes'
questioning.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Noem, thank
you for your time before this committee.
Today is a solemn day for my community in Buffalo, New
York. Three years ago, on May 14, 2022, a gunman motivated by
racism and hatred drove 2\1/2\ hours from his home to the east
side of Buffalo to carry out an act of domestic terrorism.
Equipped with enhanced body armor, a tactical helmet, and a
semiautomatic rifle, the gunman opened fire at a local grocery
store in a predominantly Black community. In just 123 seconds,
he took 10 innocent souls that day, severely injured 3, and
traumatized countless other individuals. Because of this act of
domestic terrorism, radicalized and indoctrinated on-line and
carried out in the name of White supremacy, families in my
community will never be whole again. Buffalo now joins a
growing list of communities impacted by mass shootings carried
out by lone wolf, home-grown, domestically radicalized,
disturbed individuals.
Secretary Noem, in your written testimony today, there is
not one mention of this kind of threat to the homeland. You
refer to foreign terrorist organizations. You refer to aliens
who are affiliated with foreign terrorism. You refer to arrests
of suspected gang members. Not once do you mention the term
``domestic terrorism, domestic terrorist,'' or `` lone wolf.''
There is a gaping hole in your testimony today. You fail to
reassure this committee or the American people that you will
protect the homeland from bad actors radicalized right here in
the United States, like the gunman who opened fire on my
community 3 years ago today.
There has been a systematic, intentional effort by your
Department and this administration since January 20 to ignore
the very real threat posed by domestic terrorism. This is a
blatant negligence made abundantly clear by the
administration's budget and by President Trump's broader
actions to defund the Department of Homeland Security
initiatives that track and prevent domestic terrorism.
The Trump administration's budget proposal for the
Department of Homeland Security completely eliminates the
Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Grant Program, a
critical DHS program dedicated to helping local communities,
including law enforcement, to develop and strengthen efforts to
counter attacks of targeted violence and terrorism, just like
the racist Buffalo attack. This exact grant program awarded
nearly $1 million in the aftermath of the 5-14 shooting in
Western New York to help close research gaps about the
radicalization of domestic terrorists, develop violence
prevention modules, and improve bystander intervention. This
program was also used to harden safety and prevention efforts
in other communities that experienced targeted domestic
terrorism, including a school shooting in Oakland County,
Michigan, and a pattern of other domestic terrorist incidents.
The budget proposal you are defending today justifies the
elimination of this funding by arguing it was ``weaponized to
target Americans exercising their First Amendment rights''. If
the suggestion that an act of domestic terrorism which took the
lives of 10 innocent people and forever changed my community
qualifies as protected First Amendment speech, then explain
that to the families of the victims who were killed that day.
Under this administration, we have a Department of Homeland
Security that is making excuses for domestic terrorists under
the guise of free speech and insulting communities like mine,
especially on a day like today, as we mark the anniversary of
unimaginable violence and loss. We can do better and we must do
better.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Strong, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Noem, thank
you for aiding President Trump in securing our border after
years of negligence and mismanagement. No new laws were needed.
New leadership was the only piece of the puzzle missing. I
would also like to thank the hard-working men and women of DHS
for their tireless dedication to safeguarding our Nation.
Last week, I spoke to the FBI Director Patel about a recent
visit he had to Huntsville, Alabama, and Redstone Arsenal. We
discussed the cost-effective location, distinct partnership
opportunities, high quality of life for personnel, the
remarkable talent pool, and available room to grow. As you may
know, I am proud to host HSI EXCOM-South and the National
Academy for Advanced Training and Leadership in my district,
along with many companies and organizations that support DHS. I
would like to invite you to come see for yourself the
phenomenal work occurring in North Alabama.
Secretary Noem, I am curious, are there plans to move DHS
personnel and programs out of the Beltway and closer to the
citizens they serve?
Secretary Noem. Well, thank you for the question,
Congressman. Currently there aren't plans to move agencies or
components outside of their offices, although we do believe
that we need to be accountable to taxpayers and are evaluating
every single mission set that each agency is tasked with and
the individuals, how they are fulfilling it. So that is areas
where you'll see reflected in our reconciliation ask and in our
fiscal year 2026 budget request that reflects where those needs
are, but also our ability to reprogram dollars that--where the
Department got off mission and was perpetuating activities that
were not a part of Homeland Security's reason for why it was
created.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. I would also be remiss if I didn't
mention my role as Chairman of the Emergency Management
Technology Subcommittee. I want to thank you for meeting with
us in New Orleans. You made your schedule available to meet
that committee right after you were confirmed and we really
appreciate that.
As you can imagine, I have an interest in the work of FEMA
Review Council and was pleased to see the announcement of 13
new members. Secretary Noem, the President's Executive Order
said the council would have up to 20 members. Will additional
members be added and how are you coordinating with the White
House on the council?
Secretary Noem. Yes, absolutely. There is the potential for
new members to be added, and that is a current evaluation
that's on-going with me and my team and the White House as
well. So if you have recommendations, we certainly would
continue to receive those.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. We are excited about those
recommendations. What do you anticipate the priorities of the
council will be and how can we support that work?
Secretary Noem. Well, the priorities of the council is to
evaluate FEMA as it stands today and how it can better be
reformed and replaced to respond to people's needs in a time of
crisis; what we can do to strengthen States, to give them more
tools and resources to take care of their people and empower
them to make decisions in a critical response period.
Many times you've seen over the years where the Federal
Government has not shown up when they were expected to, and
then even after a crisis was over, had committed to being there
to help people restructure and to rebuild and never followed
through on it. We still have claims outstanding in FEMA from
Hurricane Katrina, wildfire claims from out West that are 10
years old where people said, you know, we have this claim that
is lost. FEMA committed to pay it and still has not followed
through on that. We saw political targeting that happened in
North Carolina where individuals within FEMA decided who could
get help and who didn't get help. So that needs to end and this
needs some integrity to it and making sure the Federal
Government's there for support. But the States are empowered to
do the emergency response is very important to President Trump.
Mr. Strong. That support was determined based on the
political sign they had in the front yards at home.
Secretary Noem. That is correct.
Mr. Strong. That is totally unacceptable. Switching gears,
I would also like to highlight the great work of CISA to
protect our infrastructure and mass gathering events. Their
training and exercises help States and localities respond
quickly and effectively to evolving threats. In Huntsville,
Alabama, collaboration among the FBI, ATF, CISA Office for
Bombing Prevention represents a national hub of expertise
focused on countering bomb threats and the use of explosives by
adversaries.
Secretary Noem, can you speak to how CISA is working with
interagency partners to secure infrastructure, particularly
ahead of the World Cup and Olympics?
Secretary Noem. Yes. You know, CISA is the Federal
cybersecurity agency. It is the priority point for all agencies
to interact with and their connections to State and local
governments. Many times CISA got siloed and our CIA, FBI,
intelligence agencies were siloed and not sharing information.
So we're building out a cooperation that has never existed
before and where we're bringing them to the table, sharing
information that we may have as far as vulnerabilities, but
also in how we can partner with private industry. The fact of
the matter is that's a resource that was neglected for much too
long. So bringing private industry to the table to tell us and
help us go out there and find those bad actors, oftentimes they
know, but they don't have a protection of letting us know
without some kind of liability that they expose themselves to.
So we're committed to building those kinds of partnerships so
that they can flag threats to us without worried about
retribution from those bad actors into the their own companies.
Mr. Strong. Secretary Noem, it is an honor to have you
before us today. We will see you in Alabama soon.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Guest [presiding]. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes
the gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. Pou.
Ms. Pou. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, good
afternoon. I wish we could have heard from you before ramming
through a $70 billion reconciliation bill. But nevertheless, I
am really happy and glad that we have a chance to speak with
you today.
Like many of my colleagues, I am deeply concerned that your
Department is blatantly ignoring our laws. The law is very,
very clear. Members of Congress can show up unannounced to
facilities, and ICE must accommodate a tour of their detention
centers. The fact that your spokesperson suggested arresting
Members of Congress who were given a tour of the facility is
disturbing and certainly dangerous. We will not accept threats
or intimidation by anyone at your Department or across the
administration for exercising our Constitutional oversight
authority.
Now, let me just refer now to my questions. The Trump
administration's funding freeze has created chaos and
unpredictability for State and local governments to respond to
threats. Reportedly, $100 billion has been canceled or is being
unlawfully withheld. You stated today that we are a Nation of
laws, yet you are actually violating the law. In our recent
mark-up, I offered an amendment to prohibit DHS from delaying
or withholding FEMA grant funding. Unfortunately, it was
rejected by my GOP colleagues.
As my district ramps up for the World Cup, our first
responders and municipalities require resources today. By
delaying and withholding grants like the Homeland Security
Grant Program, you do not just create uncertainty, you
undermine the ability of State and local governments to begin
security planning for one of the world's largest sporting
events. Right now, you are a month behind issuing guidance on
this critical funding. Similarly, guidance has not been issued
for the Nonprofit Grant Security Program, which protects
synagogues, churches, and mosques from threats. These delays
harm our national security.
Madam Secretary, when does your Department plan for the
Homeland Security Grant Program and the Nonprofit Security
Grant Program funding to be made available?
Secretary Noem. Congresswoman, every grant under the
Department of Homeland Security is being evaluated to make sure
that it's following statute as required by Congress as to how
it should be allocated and obligated to local States and
communities. So as many of those grants were paused and
evaluated, you've seen that they've been continued and put out.
But if they were misappropriated into things that were off of
the guidance of how the grant should be utilized, then it was
changed. But these grants that have been obligated and should
go forward have been continued.
Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you. Let me just real quickly
because I know our time is very--it is nearing to a close. As
you know, New Jersey is 1 of 11 American citizens that will--
cities, I am sorry--that will host the FIFA World Cup matches
next year. The final match will be held in my district in New
Jersey. There will be tens of thousands of spectators at the
final match and hundreds of thousands more attending fan fests
throughout the Northern New Jersey area. The World Cup is a
time of international competition and celebration. But I worry
about the chilling effect of the Trump administration's anti-
immigrant rhetoric and America's ability to serve as a
welcoming host. To add, the Trump administration is looking to
reinstate and expand a travel ban targeting 43 countries for
restrictions on entering the United States.
Can you please tell us how you will ensure that fans
traveling legally to the United States are not targeted for the
immigration--for immigration raids?
Secretary Noem. We are already working as an administration
with the team from all the countries that will come and be
competing and their fans as well, to process their paperwork
and to help facilitate their travel to the United States. As
you've seen, the President has formulated a task force that
will focus on holding this unprecedented event and doing it in
the safest manner possible while adding hospitality to it and
having people enjoy the matches and enjoy interacting with each
other. As you know, over 10 million people will attend the
matches over that month-long period of time. Over 22 million
people will interact through activities.
You mentioned FanFest and that is something that the
Department of Homeland Security is tasked with. It's our
responsibility to partner with local communities and cities
that are the hosts and we'll be working with your city as well
to ensure that we're prepared for it, that we have the needs
met, and that we are doing all that we can to secure each
location.
Ms. Pou. Thank you. I look forward to working with you in
that regard. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Guest. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Oklahoma, Mr. Brecheen.
Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, it
is so nice to see chaos and confusion and lawlessness being
replaced by law and order. I am thankful to you serving on this
administration and implementing common sense.
I don't know today that it was discussed and if it has
been, I missed it. The Colombian entity that was picked up in
the last several days in Houston, facing--not facing, convicted
of--murder that came across the border during the Biden
administration, 21-year murder conviction sentence. The very
same ICE agents that were shoved and yelled and cursed at are
the same ICE agents that, you know, are responsible for
detaining and picking up this individual that was in the
streets of Texas.
You said earlier today in your testimony discussing what
happened in the last several days with colleagues, even on this
committee on the Democrat side, trying to go to a detention
center. This is the same type of place, Delaney Hall, where you
would find murderers and rapists and, like this Colombian
entity, convicted of murder and is now in your custody. It is
just madness that lawlessness is being perpetrated by even
Members of Congress.
I want to switch gears, FEMA. There is great excitement
even as I am talking to officials in Oklahoma, who would love
the opportunity to be able to make sure that the decisions for
efficient use of taxpayer monies are implemented on the State
level, knowing that the dollars will go farther and knowing
that you all--as you are discussing block granting. Can you
elaborate on current conditions, current status? There are
people all over the country, even, you know, there is a
Democrat Member that is former emergency management. He talks
about the efficiencies that can be picked up on the State
level. Can you talk about where you all are at, where we are
headed on FEMA reform that can make the taxpayer dollar go
farther?
Secretary Noem. Yes, we've got some incredible work ahead
of us to do on FEMA and our response as a Federal Government
and how we support States in this. There's certainly a lot of
people weighing in. We've got Members of Congress on the House
and the Senate side that have bills and legislation that they
want to propose. But also I think it's important to have
Governors at the table because they're the ones who lead the
response many times and know where the downfalls are.
In many cases, there's hardworking FEMA employees that do
their very best to deliver for those individuals in those
communities. But what's happened in the past is that even under
the previous administration, some of those FEMA employees were
given the opportunity to not respond to a disaster if they
didn't want to or if it wasn't convenient. So recognizing the
importance of this agency and prioritizing it and making sure
it's there to support the local response is incredibly
important to the success for those families that get impacted
by unprecedented events.
So we're taking input. This Review Council is going to be
continuing to give insight to the White House as well. Then the
President certainly has ideas. He's traveled and been there for
people on their worst days and he's heard their stories of how
they thought FEMA would be there, FEMA promised they would be
there, and then they never showed up. They had a claim that
they couldn't do the paperwork themselves. They had to get
people to help them fill out this complicated paperwork
process. Then the claim was never paid or there was some
problem, they had to appeal and appealing was normal. That just
doesn't serve people. We need to make sure that it's a
predictable process that's timely. The best way to do that is
to empower the local supporters.
Mr. Brecheen. Well, I have told this story often, given I
have got a minute, I will relay it to you. I will never forget
in 2012, in Oklahoma, a friend of mine, we are helping do some
clean-up work on machinery. I was on a dozer, he was on a skid
steer for people that didn't have insurance. Little rural area
required to push things into vegetative and nonvegetative brush
piles. I am on a dozer and watched--I come from the dirt works
world and I watched us not be able to light on fire in a rural
area with every rancher you know from your background does on
an every-day basis when they are cleaning up their property. We
had to at State, local, and Federal expense, reimbursed, bring
in 18-wheelers with half rounds, take an excavator track hoe to
load that non-vegetative timber in the back of that, haul it
off ground somewhere to bury it with another dozer or track
hoe. Between the trucking, the dozer, the excavator, 4 times
the cost because, and I ran as a State senator, a new law
trying to get State control of that and we could not get the
agency heads in Oklahoma to agree because they were concerned
we would lose FEMA reimbursement if we had State control over
it. Loss of efficiency.
Grateful to you all for your leadership. Common sense
returning, not chaos, which was the former state before you got
in this position. Thank you.
Mr. Guest. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Crane, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crane. I want to thank you, Ms. Noem, for coming here
today and giving us your testimony. I also want to thank you
for the amazing work that yourself and everybody at Homeland
Security have done to not only secure our border within just a
couple weeks, but also to start deporting folks that aren't
supposed to be here in the first place.
Secretary Noem, I am very concerned about the behavior of
one of my colleagues on this very committee who we saw
assaulting both verbally and physically Federal law
enforcement's officers just last week on national television.
Ms. Noem, what kind of message do you think it sends to the
country and radical political agitators that she sits here
today, not being charged for a crime to participate in today's
hearing?
Secretary Noem. Well, Congressman, I believe that what you
saw last Friday at Delaney Hall was not oversight. I believe
that it was breaking into a Federal facility and assaulting law
enforcement officers. This Congresswoman is surrounded by
people who were criminals that were taking criminal actions. So
we need to be honest about what happened there.
We also need to talk about the fact that we have always
facilitated visits and tours of Federal facilities. We would
continue to do that as well, and we would encourage that they
work with us to do that in the future rather than to do the
unprecedented, destructive actions that the Congresswoman and
her colleagues engaged in last Friday.
Mr. Crane. Ms. Noem, do you think her presence here today
emboldens others to behave in the very same way?
Secretary Noem. I think it would be sad if that's the
testimony of what happened last Friday, that it gets
perpetuated. I was shocked when I watched it and saw it and was
extremely discouraged to see that the colleagues that surround
those 3 defend them because those actions, we wouldn't want our
kids to act that way, our children, our grandchildren to act
that way. That's not the America that we dreamed and envisioned
for our country. America should be a land of opportunity and
where laws are enforced and there's consequences for breaking
the law.
Mr. Crane. Thank you. Ms. Noem, are you familiar with
Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution that covers
the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus?
Secretary Noem. Yes.
Mr. Crane. It says that the writ of habeas corpus shall not
be suspended unless, when cases of rebellion or invasion, the
public safety may require it. Are you aware of which Presidents
have suspended the writ of habeas corpus?
Secretary Noem. I know that President Lincoln did.
Mr. Crane. Yes. Also Roosevelt and President Grant. You
testified under oath, I believe, that the Biden administration
allowed an invasion into our country. Is that correct?
Secretary Noem. That is correct.
Mr. Crane. So do you think it falls under the
Constitutional guidelines that I just read to you?
Secretary Noem. I think I'm not a Constitutional lawyer,
but I believe it does.
Mr. Crane. You have also witnessed that the Democrats here
today, and also radical activist judges, are trying to halt and
deny the President's agenda to carry out his Constitutional
duties to keep Americans safe and carry out his promise to the
American people to secure the border and carry out mass
deportations of those who have entered the country illegally.
Knowing this, are you open and supportive of this
Constitutional option to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to
keep Americans safe and carry out the President's agenda?
Secretary Noem. Well, this is something that's not in my
purview to weigh in on. This is the President's prerogative to
pursue, and he has not indicated to me that he will or will not
be taking that action.
Mr. Crane. I want to thank Rogan O'Handley for his efforts
to bring this Constitutional solution into the national
conversation.
Now, I want to shift gears real quick, Ms. Noem. On May 5,
2025, I joined Congressman Zinke and 8 of my fellow Republican
colleagues in asking why it was appropriate for DOD and DHS to
require Real IDs for entry into Arlington National Cemetery.
Secretary Noem. I did see that letter this week, sir.
Mr. Crane. My question, what information can you share on
the security posture of Arlington Cemetery that require Real
ID?
Secretary Noem. Well, sir, I'm not certain as to the
procedures and the requirements at Arlington Cemetery. I do
know that Real ID at our airports for travel was required by
statute and law change over 20 years ago. So that has been
implemented on May 7 and we have over 90 percent compliance
that has happened at our airport since then. Overwhelmingly,
the vast majority of travelers have had a Real ID and have
utilized that or a Federally-recognized ID going forward. But
as far as what is required at Arlington Cemetery, I have not
been in the knowledge of--to what those requirements are.
Secretary Noem. In that case, would you consider taking a
look at that and also consider recommending appealing--
repealing that requirement?
Secretary Noem. I can certainly take a look at that and
follow up with the conversation with you. Absolutely.
Mr. Crane. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Guest. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Ogles, for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Ogles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being here.
You know, Mr. Chairman, you know, we have spent the last
few hours with some of our colleagues defending rapists,
murderers, individuals who committed a variety of crimes. Yet I
don't believe a single one has asked about the 300,000 children
that have been lost in our Nation. I don't think a single one
of them asked about Laken Riley's family or the young girls
that recently have been reported between the ages of 12 and 14
that have been raped in Louisiana, Iowa, New York, and other
States. So as we sit here and have this conversation, let's
level set about who we are really talking about. We are talking
about criminals and thugs. So let's get back to the reality of
who these people are, not to mention the fact if they come here
illegally, their first action when they come into this country
is, in fact, a criminal act.
Now, Madam Secretary, we have heard a lot of misinformation
on rapid fire. Let's see if we can't set the record straight on
a few things. When it comes to detention centers and oversight
provided to Congress, does that oversight provision allow
Members of Congress to break into detention centers?
Secretary Noem. No, sir, I don't believe.
Mr. Ogles. Does that oversight authority give Members of
Congress the right to assault members of law enforcement?
Secretary Noem. No, sir.
Mr. Ogles. Madam Secretary, is assaulting a member of law
enforcement a crime?
Secretary Noem. Yes.
Mr. Ogles. I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that this committee
look into anyone in Congress who has assaulted a member of law
enforcement and the respective actions be taken as necessary,
looking at the totality of the circumstances.
With regards to FEMA, it is my understanding, you can
correct me if I am wrong, upon taking the helm, you discovered
that there were a variety of unpaid claims, some of those going
back 10 to 20 years.
Secretary Noem. Absolutely.
Mr. Ogles. It is also my understanding that under the
vision of President Donald Trump and your leadership, you plan
to change the response time from 10 to 20 years to 6 months.
Secretary Noem. That is true.
Mr. Ogles. Madam Secretary, as someone who was formerly a
county executive, whose one of my departments was, in fact,
emergency management, I can tell you that will be a necessary
and very useful as States and communities look to be
reimbursed.
Let's turn to Nashville, which is part of my district.
Under your leadership, Homeland Security and ICE has conducted
a variety of raids recently, 95, I do believe, of which were
arrested, who had previous criminal charges, 31 of which were
previously deported and snuck back into this country. One of
those was a sexual predator. So again, let's level set as to
who we are talking about. We are talking about criminals and
thugs who have no business being in our country.
That being said, instead of thanking you and your
leadership and thanking the President, the mayor of Nashville
criticized and attacked law enforcement verbally. He then
instructed members of law enforcement to report any
communication with Federal authorities. He then directed the
Police Community Oversight Board to direct citizens to file
complaints against law enforcement if they cooperate with
Federal law enforcement. Considering we have seen a 400 percent
increase against Federal law enforcement, do these types of
statements and actions by a municipal leader concern you?
Secretary Noem. Yes, absolutely. They perpetuate the
violence against law enforcement officers. What happens many
times then is that our agents within the Department of Homeland
Security go into situations with no back-up, with no local
response of people who know the communities, know the routes,
the roads, or the needs to emergency services that may be
there. So it absolutely makes them much more vulnerable to a
situation to which their lives could be in jeopardy.
Mr. Ogles. Yes, ma'am. If a municipal leader is found to be
aiding and abetting illegal immigrants to evade Federal law
enforcement, would that be a criminal act?
Secretary Noem. Yes, I believe it would, sir.
Mr. Ogles. If elected officials impede ICE or Homeland
Security in doing their job in pursuing illegal immigrants,
would that be a criminal, criminal act?
Secretary Noem. I believe so.
Mr. Ogles. Madam Secretary and Mr. Chairman, I will be
asking the Committee of Homeland Security and Judiciary to be
looking into the mayor of Nashville and any collusion or
impeding of Federal authorities and conducting their work in
the city of Nashville. I would also encourage this committee
and Judiciary to look at other leaders, municipal leaders
across the country, as they obstruct this administration, this
Madam Secretary, and her employees and doing their
Constitutional job, which is uphold the rule of law.
Madam Secretary, I thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Thompson. Is the gentleman trying to offer a motion or
what?
Mr. Ogles. I am not.
Mr. Guest. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
South Carolina, Mrs. Biggs, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
Secretary Noem for being here.
So I represent the Third District of South Carolina and we
are happy about the work that you and your team have done and
continue to do to secure our border. It is very important. I
mean, we could sit here all day and talk about the fentanyl
crisis and the trafficking, and it does affect each and every
one of us.
So you have made it clear that securing the border is not
just a national security issue, but it is a financial one. Can
you speak to how these enforcement gains translate into
tangible cost savings for American taxpayers and counties in
middle America where local law enforcement have had to bear the
strain of dealing with these cartel-fueled crime and just as
the fentanyl and the trafficking that I mentioned as well?
Secretary Noem. Yes. The partnerships we've been able to
build as a Federal agency with local law enforcement and with
State law enforcement has been key to helping make communities
much safer in the last several months. Those State officials
are so grateful to have someone come alongside them and help
them address the public safety concerns and threats that they
have and that they've been living with for the last several
years. So we have created through the 287(g) program, there's
also other programs out there, to where we operate in a task
force model to go out and do enforcement operations, but also
to bring consequences for those that are criminally breaking
our laws.
Many times you have in areas where these people have
committed multiple crimes and been rereleased. In fact, in some
sanctuary cities, that's still happening where people have
committed acts of murder or rape that are still out on the
loose. But because local law enforcement isn't addressing the
issue, we haven't been able to capture those individuals yet.
So we're always grateful for law enforcement that cares about
their community and will step up and help protect them from
these violent criminals.
Mrs. Biggs. Well, great. Thank you. I know you have worked
hard with Governor McMaster and he appreciates your efforts as
well.
My next question, as part of your broader effort to return
DHS to its core mission, are there specific TSA programs or
administrative functions under review for potential reforms or
streamlining or maybe even consolidation? Can you talk about
that?
Secretary Noem. Yes. We're working to make--to help TSA get
the technology it needs to do better screening at airports and
to make it much more streamlined for passengers. I think
everybody that I meet has some story of frustration that
they've had at an airport or while traveling or in security
lines. I would say just a few. But I would say that the
technology needs that TSA has have been neglected for far too
long. So having exit lanes covered by gates instead of
individuals would streamline it and help us secure the systems
faster. Making sure that we have the processes in place to
streamline luggage and passengers without the need to take
things out of bags and to take off shoes are things that are
possible, but we need to invest in them. That would not only
help our transportation security officers be able to focus on
their responsibilities, but it also would make it a much better
experience for families that are trying to use our Federal air
system.
Mrs. Biggs. Well, thank you. I also serve on the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee, and I look forward to hearing
about what is around the corner as well with that committee.
Secretary Noem. Yes.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you for being here. Thanks again today. I
yield back.
Chairman Green [presiding]. The gentlelady yields.
I now recognize Mr. Mackenzie from Pennsylvania for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mackenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for joining us here today. I would first like to
start by thanking you for the incredible job that you have done
securing our Southern Border. In just the first hundred days of
the Trump administration, seeing a 90 percent decrease in
encounters and apprehensions is an incredible job and is a
testimony to your leadership and the leadership that we are
seeing in this administration.
There are 2 things that I would like to talk about today.
First, sanctuary cities and, second, protecting American
workers. What we see and hear in this committee today is the
defense of violent, illegal immigrant criminals in our local
communities. They are more focused on defending these violent
criminals from deportation than they are on protecting American
citizens in our local communities. This plays out all across
the country.
In my local community in Northampton County, they have
signed an executive order, executive order 2028, which bans ICE
from arresting illegal immigrants when they are going through
processing for a separate crime. What this means in practice is
that when ICE wants to go arrest a violent member of Tren de
Aragua or a domestic abuser who is going through the processing
in our local community, they cannot go inside that courthouse
and actually arrest that person. They have to stake out the
courthouse outside, taking up hours of resources from law
enforcement, potentially leaving our community more vulnerable.
If that person were to go out a different exit of the
courthouse and escape into our local community, they would be
free to rain terror all across our beautiful Lehigh Valley.
So when we see people talking about due process and when we
hear about upholding the rule of law, there are people all
across this country who want to defend sanctuary city status in
violation of Federal law. In violation of Federal law. Yet they
want to stand here as hypocrites and say that they are doing
the defense of due process and upholding the rule of law.
So my question to you, Madam Secretary, is what can we do
to hold these people accountable, elected officials, which are
placing Americans in jeopardy all across our country?
Secretary Noem. Yes, in sanctuary cities and States across
the country, they tie the hands of us to respond to the needs
of the local community members. In many of them, even our law
enforcement agents can't do their jobs because they're not
allowing them into State-run facilities or to courthouses or to
areas where they could interdict these criminals that at times
are often violent criminals. We had an instance just recently
where a murderer that committed a murder has been on the loose
in a community and that is a sanctuary city. We're not able to
find this individual yet because we have a lack of cooperation
from local law enforcement.
It not only endangers the public, but it endangers those
officers. They go out there every day and they live in those
communities, too. This is where their kids go to school and
they go to church and where they live, and they're demonized
because of the defense that these individuals and Members of
this committee on the Democrat side perpetuate by defending
criminals over their constituents.
So it's disheartening. But the responsibility of
immigration laws and enforcement lies with the Federal
Government and we will continue to pursue law and order as long
as President Trump is in the White House.
Mr. Mackenzie. Well, I appreciate that and I look forward
to working with you to figure out how we can hold these local
elected officials accountable to their actions which endanger
the safety of people all across our communities. Because,
ultimately, when we see bad policy like this, somebody is going
to get hurt on the other end and there needs to be
accountability at the end of the day.
The second thing I would like to talk about is protecting
American workers. There have been numerous reports about how
visas are being abused by foreign workers, who come into our
country and then through things like the H-1B visa, for
instance, are here doing short-term work as nonlegal citizens,
taking away jobs from American workers in places like the
trucking industry. We have also heard about the hundreds of
thousands of children that the Biden administration lost track
of during their administration. Many of them were placed into
forced labor and child labor situations in dangerous situations
like meatpacking.
So I would like to hear what the Department is doing to
crack down on these terrible behaviors and practices that went
unchecked for many years during the Biden administration.
Secretary Noem. Absolutely. Well, we're partnering with all
of our other Federal agencies in a way that's really
unprecedented, to go after individuals that trafficked our
children, that were involved in those operations, and then also
to gather up their affiliates as well. You know, the Department
of Health and Human Services is responsible for our refugee
program. So adding integrity to that is very important. And
make sure that when children come into our system, they may
come in illegally or were trafficked in the past, that we're
caring for them and returning them back to their families into
safe situations is very important.
When you look at our visa programs, it's the Department of
State that decides if a visa should be allocated to someone.
It's the Department of Homeland Security that enforces that,
that takes action on that. We will continue to make sure that
these programs are on-task to why they were created, that
they're being utilized for individuals who truly do love our
country and recognize the opportunities our country provides
them.
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Thanedar for 5 minutes questioning.
Mr. Thanedar. Thank you, Chair and Ranking Member.
Secretary Noem, the Constitution of the United States
establishes a Federal Government divided into 3 branches. It is
Congress that makes the laws, the President who takes care that
the laws are faithfully executed, and it is the Judicial
Department that says what the law is. The Constitutional
separation of powers and system of checks and balances is
necessary for the protection of liberty, and any violation
undermines the rights and liberties of everyone in the United
States.
The Trump administration has repeatedly ignored the Federal
courts, including the Supreme Court. President Trump has even
said that ``doesn't know'' whether he has to uphold the
Constitution. The President of the United States said doesn't
know.
Secretary Noem, is it the policy of the Department of
Homeland Security to follow orders issued by Federal courts?
Secretary Noem. Yes, we are following all Federal court
orders.
Mr. Thanedar. So the answer is yes?
Secretary Noem. We are following all Federal court orders,
yes.
Mr. Thanedar. Well, as just one of the many examples, a
Federal judge required FEMA ``immediately cease'' efforts to
withhold disbursement of Federal grant funding appropriated by
Congress. The court later found evidence that FEMA, an agency
under your preview, was in direct violation of the court
orders. So court orders were not followed, as you see. Yes or
no?
Secretary Noem. We are following court orders. Grants are
being reevaluated, but they are being obligated and
appropriated according to how Congress has laid out.
Mr. Thanedar. Well, Secretary Noem, we all took an oath to
uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States. It is a
sad day that I have to sit here and issue a reminder you and
the Department of Homeland Security must respect the
Constitution and the courts.
Mr. Chairman, I want to yield the rest of my time to the
gentleman from New York.
Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Goldman is recognized.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Thanedar.
Secretary Noem, your opening statement includes a lot of
data and numbers, but it doesn't mention asylum. How many
people have claimed asylum since January 21 of this year?
Secretary Noem. I don't have that number readily available
to me right now, but I can get that for you.
Mr. Goldman. Do you have a sense?
Secretary Noem. I don't.
Mr. Goldman. Is it dozens, hundreds, thousands?
Secretary Noem. I don't.
Mr. Goldman. You are aware, are you not, that asylum is a
lawful pathway into the country?
Secretary Noem. I am.
Mr. Goldman. Are you aware of how and why the United States
implemented our asylum laws?
Secretary Noem. We grant asylum to individuals who are
feeling threatened, specifically by their government, through
violence activities that are perpetuated in their own home
countries.
Mr. Goldman. Right. It was originally implemented because
Jews fleeing from the Holocaust were not allowed to seek refuge
in this country, even though they clearly had no country to go
to and had nowhere else to go. Those Jews in the Holocaust were
rounded up frequently by the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. A secret
undercover police unit that we know rounded up the Jews and
sent them to the gas chambers.
One of the things that I want to address with you briefly
is I think you said your testimony was that agents who are
wearing masks do so as part of their undercover disguise. Is
that right?
Secretary Noem. So if the need arises to where they have
activities that require them to be undercover at times or to
prevent protect their identity to continue their work and their
duties----
Mr. Goldman. So if an agent is----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And that may be required.
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. Conducting an arrest and
approaches an individual without their mask on, and then when
alerted to being videotaped, puts their mask on, that is not to
protect their identity from the individual who is being
arrested, right?
Secretary Noem. It could be. Congressman, I'm not--I don't
know the specifics of the situation you're referencing.
Mr. Goldman. Is it the policy of the Department of Homeland
Security now that undercover ICE agents are permitted to wear
face masks when executing their official duties?
Secretary Noem. Sir, it is allowed that they can if
protecting their----
Mr. Goldman. Is it in the policies?
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Identity is an imperative
part----
Mr. Goldman. Do you address face masks in the policies?
Secretary Noem. I'll have to look and see if it's in our
written policies. I'm not certain, but it's----
Mr. Goldman. Because it is quite ironic and I agree with
the administration that is trying to ban face masks from anti-
Semitic protests on campus, and yet our own law enforcement are
wearing face masks to hide their identities.
Secretary Noem. We are implementing the exact same
policies----
Mr. Goldman. That is----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. That Joe Biden----
Mr. Goldman. That is not----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. Had in place for his----
Mr. Goldman. That is not any policy that I was aware of----
Secretary Noem. We did not change any of the policies.
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. When I worked with the Department
of Homeland Security.
Chairman Green. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman's time has expired.
I recognize Mr. Knott for 5 minutes questioning.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Secretary, thank you
for your testimony today. As someone who worked with law
enforcement at every level, I know the dangers that they face
and I know the reasons why they wear those masks. Equating ICE
agents to anti-Semitic mobs is a disgusting analogy. I am sorry
this committee just asked you those questions.
But in regards to the threat that our country faces
relating to the open border and the ill effects from it, I
can't help but hear the silence when we hear the other side of
the aisle. There is no protest to the open border. There is no
protest to, at minimum, 10 million, up to maybe 15 or 20
million people who came to the country. I worry in some ways
that we are becoming desensitized to all of the problems
because there are so many, you know, surges in overdose deaths
from fentanyl, surges in violence. We see compounding numbers
of people who are terrorists coming into the country.
I have heard testimony from this very committee that there
were dozens, if not hundreds of miles of border that were
ordered to not be enforced over the last administration. So we
don't know who is here. Whether it is hostile actors from
China, Cuba, Venezuela, other hostile countries, whether in the
Middle East or all over the world, we know that they sent
people to exploit the open border policies of the last
administration. Yes, drug trafficking. Yes, human trafficking.
Yes, violence is all part of that. But so are threats that go
well beyond that, you know, terrorists, national security
threats, et cetera. If we made perfect border policy from this
point forward, we would still have a huge problem because of
what the Biden administration did in your position.
How can we, as a committee, help you get ahead of this
problem and to make sure that the solutions continue to unfold
years into the future, which is what will be required?
Secretary Noem. Well, a couple of things. One of the things
that I think was most tragic of the last administration is they
even prevented us from having data to start with.
Mr. Knott. Yep.
Secretary Noem. For instance, President Trump, in his first
administration, opened the VOICEs office at ICE, which gave
victims of illegal immigrant crime an opportunity to get
information, to help have support systems, to get case
information, to know when that individual was in court, when
they were going to be released. When President Biden became
President, he shut that office down, which means that because
it didn't exist, we don't truly know how many victims of
illegal immigrant crime there are out there. We don't have the
data. So continuing to have systems in place where you're
bringing light to the fact that there are victims still out
there and that people are still enduring criminal activity by
illegal immigrants and that they shouldn't be prioritized over
American citizens is very important.
I would also say that making sure we have an opportunity to
have the resources we need in order to do due diligence on
enforcement operations and secure our border into the future is
important. Then continue to highlight sanctuary cities and the
danger that they are to our country, what they do to their
families that live in them, that we aren't able to take
enforcement actions that are efficient to really bring them
justice.
Mr. Knott. In terms of the task force officers, ma'am, that
is obviously a program that I, as a Federal prosecutor, used.
It is a force multiplier----
Secretary Noem. Right.
Mr. Knott [continuing]. In a very profound way. In terms of
the numbers that are allocated to the Department that you lead,
do we need more task force officers? Is it fine where it is? Is
there room to grow? What would you say?
Secretary Noem. No, we're always looking for more
partnerships. We have over 600 agreements in place now with
State and local law enforcement agencies, which goes into over
6,000 officers out there that have been added to our ranks to
help us out there with enforcement operations in States across
the country. So now there is 6 States that this kind of
partnership is not allowed. It's banned by the State
government. So it would be helpful to have those addressed in
those States so that we could form a partnership like this to
compound our resources to really make sure we're bringing
safety.
Mr. Knott. It might be worth reaching out to individual
counties at some point.
Secretary Noem. Yes.
Mr. Knott. Because I know within those States there are
numerous counties who are furious about those prohibitions from
the Governors' mansions.
Secretary Noem. Yes.
Mr. Knott. So that would be something that we would love to
talk to you about.
I will close with this, ma'am. Thank you for the work you
are doing. I worked under the Biden administration. It was
overwhelming. Again, we have a serious problem for years to
come just because of that one 4-year term. If we can be of
service to this committee. Please reach out to us. Again, thank
you for the work that you and President Trump are doing.
Secretary Noem. Appreciate it.
Mr. Knott. I yield back.
Secretary Noem. Thank you.
Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
I now, I think, recognize our last Member making comments
today. Mr. Garcia, you are recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here, Madam Secretary.
You said that you are committed to complying with the
Constitution, which we, of course, all appreciate and think is
important.
Now, we all know that the Fifth Amendment states, and I
just want to be very clear, that no person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The
Fifth Amendment. Just to be clear, in a simple yes or no, this
actually says ``person.'' Is that correct, Madam Secretary?
Secretary Noem. Correct.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. You are aware that ``person'' has
been defined by the Supreme Court repeatedly, multiple times,
means citizens and noncitizens. Simple yes or no, is that
correct?
Secretary Noem. Correct, I believe.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. In an April 7 ruling just recently,
the Supreme Court has reaffirmed and I'll quote: ``It is well
established the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process
under the law in the context of removal proceedings.'' But, of
course, the Department deported 230 people to be imprisoned
indefinitely and deported U.S. citizens. We learned today
children [inaudible] protections. We have illegally arrested
students. We know that just one of these students was released
just last week and you were mandated to do so.
Now, the Fifth Amendment is clear, Madam Secretary, you
committed to uphold the Constitution. Is that correct?
Secretary Noem. Yes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. You now, of course, commit to
following the Fifth Amendment. Is that correct?
Secretary Noem. Yes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Now, Madam Secretary, you are
violating that amendment as we speak and you are breaking your
oath. You are deporting people and the Department is deporting
people without due process. We cannot deport U.S. citizens.
Without due process, there is nothing that Donald Trump could
essentially be stopped in grabbing people off the street. That
is happening today.
Now, maybe someone in Government may not like your tattoos.
Maybe they don't like how somebody votes. Maybe they don't want
to see how someone represents your constituents in Congress.
But if you can't see a judge, no one can protect you. I hope
that you and I and everyone here can agree with that.
Apparently not even the Supreme Court actually matters when it
comes to the case, of course, of Kilmar Garcia.
But let's remember that we are not just deporting people.
We are sending some of them to be locked up in one of the most
dangerous prisons in the world.
Now, Madam Secretary, you have heard this case today, but I
have to speak about it one more time. I think it is really
important. This is Andry Romero. He had an appointment to come
to this country to claim asylum. We gave him that appointment.
The U.S. Government gave him his asylum appointment. He comes
for his appointment. He passes a credible fear interview. He is
a gentle person as described by his family. He is openly gay.
He was leaving his country for persecution of being gay. He did
everything right, claimed asylum that was legal. Then we sent
him to a dangerous prison at the border with no due process.
There are claims about his tattoos. He has his parents
names on his tattoos and two crowns that relate to a festival
back in his hometown. We are paying to lock this young
gentleman up forever. What I would ask is the Ambassador in El
Salvador, we have asked for proof of life of Andry. He has had
no access to lawyers or family since he has been taken over a
month now. No one knows if he is even alive. His mother just
wants to know if he is alive.
So my ask to you, Madam Secretary, is the same that I asked
the Ambassador. Can we do a proof-of-life check on Andry just
to see if he is alive?
Secretary Noem. Congressman, we are utilizing the tools
that Congress has given us to apply due process to individuals.
We are doing that for every person, and we are making sure that
we're following----
Mr. Garcia. Madam----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. What you have given us----
Mr. Garcia. I appreciate that.
Secretary Noem [continuing]. As far as findings----
Mr. Garcia. Madam Secretary----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And how things should be
implemented.
Mr. Garcia [continuing]. Would you commit to just letting
his mother know, as a mother to mother, if Andry is alive? He
was given an asylum appointment by the U.S. Government. We gave
him an appointment. We said, Andry, come to the border at this
time to claim asylum. He was taken to a foreign prison in El
Salvador. His mother just wants to know if he is alive. Can we
check and do a wellness check on him?
Secretary Noem. Our asylum applications are different than
the granting of asylum. I don't know the specifics of this
individual case. If this individual is in El Salvador, then the
appeal would be best made to the president and to the
government of El Salvador on this.
Mr. Garcia. We did that.
Secretary Noem. This is not under my jurisdiction----
Mr. Garcia. Madam Secretary----
Secretary Noem [continuing]. And I don't have----
Mr. Garcia [continuing]. You have said that you--that CECOT
in El Salvador is one of the tools in the toolbox that you
have. You have said that and been quoted as saying that. You
and the President have the ability to check if Andry is alive
and he is not being harmed. Would you commit at least into
looking and asking El Salvador if he is alive?
Secretary Noem. This is a question that's best asked to the
president and the government of El Salvador.
Mr. Garcia. I think you know very well that you could ask
that question. What you are choosing to do, Madam Secretary, is
disregard this young man's life, this young man's family, who
was given an appointment by the United States. I think it is
shameful that you won't even request to see if this young man
is alive. His family has no idea, has no access to lawyers. I
would hope that we would have the humanity, the humanity, to
just check if this young man is OK.
With that, I yield back. It is shameful.
Chairman Green. The gentleman yields. I think we have
covered everyone.
Mr. Ranking Member, you are recognized for a closing
statement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to associate myself with Mr. Garcia's statement. I can't
believe that we would send somebody or anyone from our country
somewhere else and say, well, we cut off all communication. We
are a better country than that. I just thank Mr. Garcia for
raising that question.
Secretary Noem, at the start of this hearing, you stood
here and took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God. Then you sat down and
dodged the truth over and over and over for a little more than
3 hours, so help you God. You repeatedly testified that you and
the Department of Homeland Security will follow the
Constitution, the laws, and the order of the Supreme Court.
Well, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution
says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law. Yet, a Federal court found
that the Department of Homeland Security, under your watch,
believes that it has a right to stash away residents of this
country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due
process. So you did not tell the truth to this committee today
when you said you would follow the Constitution and comply with
due process.
You also testified that you follow orders of the Supreme
Court of the United States and all courts. But the Supreme
Court unanimously directed the Government to facilitate the
return of Kilmar Garcia to the United States. But you just
testified before this committee that Kilmar Garcia will never
return to the United States. So you didn't tell the truth to
this committee again when you said that you comply with court
orders and decisions.
You have overseen the deportation of U.S. citizen children
and have claimed that their parents chose to take their
children with them. But you produce no evidence that the
mother, let alone both parents, of those children freely gave
consent to have their children deported from the United States.
In fact, everyone involved in those cases say that the mothers,
in fact, did not want their children, especially their sick
American children, deported. In fact, your agency lured
families to ICE appointments under false pretenses, lied to
them, refused to let them speak with an attorney or children's
father, and deported them before a court had time to even hear
the case.
You have given yourself the unilateral right to deport
anyone you deem a threat. You refuse to comply with court
orders that try to stop you. That puts all of us at risk.
Beyond your false testimony about the administration's
deportation policies, you falsely stated that the
administration is focused on a full range of DHS missions.
Instead, your budget request appears to reflect a view that
DHS's sole purpose is to be a border wall construction agency
that deports U.S. citizen children with cancer.
Your budget proposed cuts to cybersecurity, emergency
preparedness, and aviation security. Even before asking
Congress for these budget cuts, you have overseen mass
reductions in the work force at CISA and FEMA. Despite repeated
requests from this committee on how many people have been fired
or have been bullied into quitting before their tenure, DHS has
refused to share that information. So it should worry every
American that we do not know how many people are left at FEMA
to respond to disasters and how many cyber defenders still work
at CISA as China and other adversaries attack our systems every
day. You made clear in response to my questioning, you have no
plan, written plans for FEMA.
It is very apparent that also is no plan for CISA, where
you are trying to gut the agency's funding and falsely claiming
that CISA is a censorship agency since CISA never censored
anyone. But now we are all paying the price for you buying into
a baseless conspiracy theory.
Secretary Noem, I am glad that you finally came to testify
before this committee. But I am disappointed, along with a lot
of my Democratic colleagues, that you stood here and took an
oath to tell the truth, then repeatedly failed to do so to this
committee.
Let me just say, if you dance with the devil long enough,
he is liable to follow you home. I hope that you will stop
dancing around the truth and start telling the truth so this
committee can do its work helping to defend DHS from the
attacks you have launched against it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Green. The gentleman yields.
I want to make a clarification here because there has been
so many incredibly false and misleading things said today. Once
a deportation order has been issued, the due process is over.
The due process occurs prior to that, where the judge makes a
decision with the information, oftentimes with the help of
NGO's, sometimes in the past funded by the Federal Government.
But the judge makes--issues an order, and there is well over a
million people in this situation that are being deported
appropriately. No lawyer is offered at that point, the judge
has made a decision. The due process has already occurred. It
is really important to make that point.
People are not inhuman or violating the law. They are
following the law. They are executing an order that has been
presented by a judge.
I saw a meme somewhere this week that said, a society that
makes war on its law enforcement better learn how to make
friends with its criminals. I have said this before, the left
has this incredible heart for the criminal. They defend the
criminal, a full-throated defense of criminals over the safety
of Americans and the following of the rule of law. We have even
seen the defense of a Congressman--Congresswoman who threw a
punch at a police officer. I mean, that is unconscionable.
You know, if I was 100 percent politician, and I am not,
but if I was 100 percent politician, I would be happy with
that. Why? Because that is exactly the reason they lost every
single swing State in the recent election: the border. This
full-throated defense of criminals and the punching of law
enforcement in the face, it is why they lost every single swing
State and Republicans gained in almost every State more votes
than we had ever gotten before. Because the American people
recognize who the good guy really is. It ain't Tren de Aragua
or a guy who was driving 8 women, young women, through my State
and the Biden administration said, do not detain him.
As I have said before, the left doesn't know a good guy
from a bad guy. They street violent criminals and they want to
defund ICE. That has been their mantra since I have been in
this position. It is ridiculous, it is heinous. Yes, if I were
pure politician, I would say keep going, guys. But what it does
is it breaks my heart.
I am a combat veteran and I have a kindred connection to
those law enforcement agencies and agents who put their ass on
the line, their lives on the line for our safety. We are
fussing about whether or not the guy has a mask on to protect
his identity when he is an undercover agent. I don't know how
many people made an issue out of that. Give me a break.
Want to cut a deal with Iran, destabilize the Middle East,
punch Saudi Arabia in the face, we get an imbalance, and what
happens? An invasion of Israel. They don't know a good person
from a bad person. That is why the American people said we
don't want them in charge. Again, if I were a pure politician,
I would say, keep going, guys, but it is a spit in the face to
the men who wear that uniform. It is a charade. That is what it
is. It is a charade to say something about law enforcement and
then turn around and be OK with a U.S. Congresswoman punching a
police officer in the back. It is infuriating.
Madam Secretary, you have done a remarkable job. What is
happening now is the criminals and the cartels have stopped
making billions of dollars trafficking human beings into our
country. Thank you for that. The texts and tweets that I have
gotten from Border Patrol and the texts and tweets I have
gotten from law enforcement all across this country during this
hearing support everything I am saying. Thank you.
I charge you to keep going. Keep doing it. That judge
executes that removal order, get them out of here. They have
had their due process. You will have our full-throated support
as you continue to do so. We will work very hard to get
reconciliation passed so you have the resources and we can
codify the common-sense policies that this President has
enacted with your leadership.
Thank you for being here. Thank the staff for all the work
they do to put these on.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X I

----------

Questions From Honorable Gabe Evans for Honorable Kristi Noem
Question 1a. Last year in Denver there were 6,400 violent crimes
including 689 sexual assaults, 1,212 robberies, 4,434 aggravated
assaults, and 65 murders. As a cop of over a decade in the Denver Metro
Area, I know first-hand that crime in Denver rarely stays contained to
the city limits, and communities in my district end up paying the
price. Thousands of families in my district have asked me to help them
feel safe again, which is why public safety has been top of mind for me
in my work in Congress and especially on this committee.
Unfortunately, due to harmful sanctuary policies in Denver and
across the State of Colorado, illegal immigrants committing crimes in
our neighborhoods are being let back into the community without
consequences. Sanctuary policies defy Federal immigration law, impede
pathways to justice for victims of crimes, prioritize illegal
immigrants over American citizens and immigrants who came to this
country legally, and ultimately pose enormous risks to our national
security.
Secretary Noem, how do sanctuary cities obstruct Federal efforts to
apprehend and remove violent criminals--and how will the proposed
budget address the challenge posed by jurisdictions that defy ICE
detainers?
Answer. Sanctuary cities significantly obstruct ICE's mandate to
enforce Federal law, sanctuary cities affect ICE's mission by
restricting access to databases and limiting interaction with and
support from State and local government components, including law
enforcement. Moreover, some of these jurisdictions have implemented
State-wide laws, or local ordinances, that discourage or prohibit
businesses or private citizens from cooperating with ICE. These
policies increase the physical risk impacting ICE officers, special
agents, and the general public as it forces ICE to conduct its
operations with very limited background information, which would be
otherwise available to law enforcement. To mitigate an increased
physical risk to ICE officers, ICE is required to spend additional time
conducting risk assessments, which in many instances require an
increase in law enforcement personnel assigned to specific operations,
thus, significantly reducing the number of operations ICE can execute.
The fiscal year 2026 budget provides funding for ICE to perform its law
enforcement mission, which includes enforcing the law in both sanctuary
and non-sanctuary jurisdictions.
Question 1b. Can you provide examples where sanctuary policies
directly led to preventable crimes against Americans--and how would the
administration's budget proposal would help prevent future tragedies?
Answer. When local jurisdictions refuse to cooperate with ICE and
hand over aliens who have committed serious crimes, it is often local
immigrant communities who suffer the repercussions when these
individuals are released and reoffend. For example, on May 7, 2025, ICE
arrested Senat Dufren, an illegal alien from Haiti, in Waltham,
Massachusetts, after local authorities failed to honor 2 detainers
lodged against him. On April 1, 2024, the Boston Police Department
arrested Mr. Dufren for assault and battery and malicious destruction
of property. Although ICE lodged a detainer, Mr. Dufren was released
from custody. On February 18, 2025, the Waltham Police Department
arrested Mr. Dufren for assault and battery on a pregnant victim,
assault and battery on a family or household member, and assault and
battery. ICE lodged another detainer, but Mr. Dufren was again released
from custody. The fiscal year 2026 budget provides funding for ICE to
perform its law enforcement mission. This includes enforcing the law in
both sanctuary and non-sanctuary jurisdictions.
Question 2. As you are aware, Colorado is facing a huge public
safety issue with the presence and criminal activity of Tren de Aragua,
recently designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization (FTO), and other transnational criminal organizations.
This has led to violent crime perpetrated against law enforcement
officials and innocent families. I am particularly concerned over
recent intelligence reports from ICE that TdA has established its U.S.
headquarters in the Denver-metro area and the serious threats this
poses to public safety and national security.
Secretary Noem, how much of the proposed budget is explicitly
dedicated to countering Tren de Aragua? And what enhancements in the
budget will strengthen ICE and HSI's ability to investigate, apprehend,
and dismantle dangerous transnational criminal organizations operating
inside U.S. cities?
Answer. ICE, Homeland Security Investigations current and projected
hours worked and expenditures towards Tren de Aragua in fiscal year
2025 and fiscal year 2026:
In fiscal year 2025, as of May 14, 2025, Homeland Security
Investigations special agents worked 103,959 hours and spent
approximately $19.1 million towards Tren de Aragua
investigations.
It is projected Homeland Security Investigations special
agents will work 183,170 hours and spend approximately $43.7
million towards Tren de Aragua investigations for all of fiscal
year 2025.
In fiscal year 2026, it is projected Homeland Security
Investigations special agents will work 206,145 hours and spend
approximately $51.3 million towards Tren de Aragua
investigations.
The Fiscal Year 2026 Congressional Budget Justification does not
specify any enhancement funding directed at Tren de Aragua criminal
organizations operating inside U.S. cities.
Questions From Honorable Delia C. Ramirez For Honorable Kristi Noem
registration
Question 1. A new ``registration'' requirement \1\ asks 2-3 million
undocumented immigrants to come forward and ``register'' or risk
criminal punishment. The law requires all noncitizens 14 and older to
register with the U.S. Government. At least some people have already
been criminally charged for failure to register, including in Texas,\2\
Arizona, and Louisiana,\3\ including individuals arrested while
traveling through Border Patrol checkpoints. A related law, which has
virtually never been enforced in U.S. history, requires all noncitizens
to carry proof of registration with them at all times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/trump-
administration-registration-requirement-immigrants.
\2\ https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2025/04/29/texas-
man-charged-with-failing-to-register-as-an-undoc umented-migrant/.
\3\ https://www.justice.gov/usao-edla/pr/honduran-woman-indicted-
illegal-re-entry-and-failure-register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many individuals have registered through this new process?
Answer. As of May 29, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services has received more than 64,000 G-325R Biographic Information
(Registration) forms and registered approximately 11,650 aliens through
Form G-325R submissions.
Question 2. Has DHS begun taking biometrics and issuing proof of
registration for individuals who have registered?
Answer. Yes.
Question 3. How does DHS intend to treat children who turn 14 and
are now required to register and be fingerprinted under this new
process? Does DHS intend to pursue removal proceedings and/or criminal
prosecution for 14- to 17-year-old noncitizens who fail to register?
Answer. Per Immigration and Nationality Act 262(b), 8 U.S.C.
1302(b), ``[w]henever any alien attains his fourteenth birthday in the
United States he shall, within thirty days thereafter, apply in person
for registration and to be fingerprinted.'' Congress has long required
alien children who turn 14 in the United States to apply for
registration and to be fingerprinted, and the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) is charged with faithfully executing the laws
established by Congress.
Failure to register as required under Immigration and Nationality
Act 262, 8 U.S.C. 1302, is not, in and of itself, an enumerated ground
for removal under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237, 8 U.S.C.
1227, or an enumerated ground of inadmissibility under Immigration and
Nationality Act Section 212, 8 U.S.C. 1182. However, should such an
alien be otherwise removable from the United States, he or she may be
processed for removal proceedings.
Question 4. Does DHS intend to recommend charges under 8 USC 1304
for ``failure to carry'' registration documents for all noncitizens,
including people with green cards and visas?
Answer. 8 U.S.C. Section 1304(e) states: ``Every alien, eighteen
years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in
his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien
registration receipt card issued to him.'' Given the clear statutory
language of the Immigration and Nationality Act, if DHS encounters an
alien who is 18 years of age and over and who has failed to comply with
Immigration and Nationality Act Section 264(e), 8 U.S.C. 1304(e), DHS
may refer him or her for prosecution.
Question 5. Is it your view that every noncitizen should carry
their papers with them at all times or risk arrest?
Answer. 8 U.S.C. 1304(e) is a longstanding mandate from Congress
requiring aliens 18 years of age and over to carry with, and have in
their personal possession at all times, evidence of registration.
Question 6. Should U.S. citizens carry their papers with them at
all times to avoid risking an arrest for failure to register?
Answer. U.S. citizens are not required to register.
Question 7. Legal experts have expressed concern that Latinos
living in the United States will be racially profiled as a result of
the registry. How will DHS's policy ensure that the registry won't
enable racial discrimination against Latino residents under the guise
of ``national security and protection''?
Answer. 8 U.S.C. 1302(b) requires all aliens not currently
registered with the United States Government to register. Alien
Registration applies to all aliens regardless of nationality or
ethnicity, not just Latinos and DHS does not tolerate profiling or
discrimination based upon race. The Trump administration strongly
opposes racial discrimination.
self-deportation
Question 1. A newly-announced DHS policy \4\ provides that the
agency may give $1,000 to any person who uses the CBP Home app to
depart the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.dhs.gov/cbphome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many people have used the CBP Home app to register a departure?
Answer. As of May 14, 2025, 3,415 aliens have successfully
indicated their intent to depart in the CBP Home app. Many more have
departed voluntarily without registering their departure via the app.
Question 2. What legal authorization permits DHS to do this?
Answer. DHS, in implementation of an interagency agreement with the
U.S. Department of State (DOS), is using foreign assistance funding and
the derived authority to provide this stipend. For any further requests
for information, DHS defers to DOS for their authority to provide the
assistance.
Question 3. Where does DHS intend to obtain funding for this
program?
Answer. In partnership with DOS, DHS is using foreign assistance
funding via an Interagency Agreement with DOS to provide the payments
upon confirmation of departure. Stipend payments are made to eligible
and qualifying program participants after they have departed the United
States.
Question 4a. Who qualifies and doesn't qualify for this program?
Answer. Participation in this program is voluntary, and illegal
aliens, regardless of their nationalities, may submit their intent to
depart the United States through the CBP Home Mobile App to establish
eligibility and complete vetting. Eligible categories for individuals
who qualify for participation in this program are enumerated on the DHS
website.
Question 4b. Does it include people who have humanitarian parole?
Answer. The exit bonus is available to any alien uses the CBP Home
Mobile Application to self-deport and is vetted and determined to be
qualified.
Question 4c. Does it include people who have temporary protected
status?
Answer. The exit bonus is available to any alien who does not have
status to remain in the United States or, whose temporary status is
terminated, and who uses the CBP Home Mobile Application to self-deport
and who is vetted and determined to be qualified.
Question 4d. Does it include people in removal proceedings?
Answer. Aliens who have a pending case before an immigration court
can participate in CBP Home voluntary self-deportation. DHS and the
alien may jointly file a motion with the immigration court to dismiss
the alien's case.
Question 4e. Does it include people with final orders of removal?
Answer. The self-deport option is available to aliens illegally in
the United States who elect to take the offer, are vetted, and are
determined to be qualified.
Question 5. If the program includes people in removal proceedings,
will DHS commit to moving to terminate or dismiss any on-going removal
proceedings for people who take advantage of this program so that they
do not receive a deportation order?
Answer. DHS and the alien may jointly file a motion with the
immigration court to dismiss the alien's case.
Question 6. DHS advertises that people who take advantage of this
program may be permitted to reenter lawfully. Are you aware that some
people who depart the country may become permanently barred, or barred
for decades, from reentering with a visa? Will you commit to ensuring
that notification of the consequences of departing the United States is
prominently displayed as part of the CBP Home process?
Answer. Participation in CBP Home does not prevent an individual
from legally returning to the United States in the future if they
follow lawful processes and are eligible for admission. Any future
reentry into the United States is subject to U.S. immigration laws and
regulations and will depend on the individual's specific circumstances
at the time they seek lawful admission. Each individual circumstance is
unique and requires careful personal legal advice.
dhs agreements with foreign countries
Diplomatic Agreements with Libya
Question 1. Recent reporting suggests that the United States may
begin deporting third-country migrants to Libya. The U.S. State
Department said \5\ of Libya's treatment of migrants last year that
``migrants routinely experienced unlawful killings, arbitrary
detention, torture, sexual exploitation, and other abuses. Perpetrators
included state officials, armed groups, smugglers, traffickers, and
criminal gangs.'' The U.S. State Department has also found \6\ that
there are credible reports that employees of Libya's immigration
enforcement agency ``systematically subjected migrants detained in DCIM
detention centers to sex trafficking and other forms of sexual
exploitation; guards and staff coerced women, girls, men, and boys to
perform sexual favors in exchange for essentials such as food, clean
water, and, at times, their freedom. NGO's and international
organizations continued to report DCIM guards and military officials
also ``sold'' female detainees to outside individuals who then
exploited the women in sex trafficking.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-
rights-practices/libya/.
\6\ https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-trafficking-in-persons-
report/libya/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were you going to send migrants to Libya?
Answer. In keeping with President Trump's vision of safe borders
and vigorous enforcement of our immigration laws, DHS considers a
variety of options and possible lines of effort as we look to rapidly
remove illegal aliens from our country. At this time, no third-country
nationals have been removed to Libya.
Question 2. Which Libyan government were you going to send migrants
to?
Answer. At this time, no third-country nationals have been removed
to Libya.
Question 3. Reporting indicates \7\ that ICE was going to deport
nationals of Mexico, Vietnam, Laos, and the Philippines to Libya. Can
you confirm this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-may-soon-deport-migrants-
libya-military-flight-sources-say-2025-05-07/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. At this time, no third-country nationals of any nationality
have been removed to Libya.
Question 4. Are you aware of the State Department's assessment of
the horrific conditions faced by migrants in Libya?
Answer. The Secretary is aware of the U.S. Department of State's
annual Trafficking in Persons Report, most recently published in June
2024, which evaluates governmental anti-trafficking efforts in 188
countries, including Libya.
Question 5. Are you aware of credible reports that migrants in
Libya are at times sold into sexual slavery?
Answer. The Secretary is aware of the U.S. Department of State's
annual Trafficking in Persons Report, most recently published in June
2024, which evaluates governmental anti-trafficking efforts in 188
countries, including Libya.
Question 6. Are you aware of reports that beatings, sexual
violence, and other crimes against migrants are routine in immigrant
detention centers in Libya?
Answer. The Secretary is aware of the U.S. Department of State's
annual Trafficking in Persons Report, most recently published in June
2024, which evaluates governmental anti-trafficking efforts in 188
countries, including Libya.
Question 7. Are you aware of reports that migrant women and
children in Libya are sometimes sold to outside parties by guards at
migrant detention centers?
Answer. The Secretary is aware of the U.S. Department of State's
annual Trafficking in Persons Report, most recently published in June
2024, which evaluates governmental anti-trafficking efforts in 188
countries, including Libya.
Question 8. Are you aware of reporting that migrants in Libya are
at times sold into slavery?\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/28/un-experts-libyas-
security-threatened-by-foreign-fighters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. [Please refer to Question 5 above.]
Question 9. How can you possibly suggest that Libya was a safe
country to send migrants?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is focused
on ending human smuggling and trafficking in the United. States. An
important part of this effort is prosecuting and/or removing the
criminal illegal aliens from our country who support, drive, and
perpetuate these awful crimes.
Question 10. Will you commit at this moment not to send any non-
Libyans to Libya?
Answer. While we continue to consider all available options to
remove criminal illegal aliens from our country, no third-country
national aliens have, as of yet, been removed to Libya.
Question 11. How does DHS justify such exorbitant spending of
taxpayer funds for transfers to third countries, including Guantanamo
Bay, El Salvador, and perhaps soon Libya or Rwanda?
Answer. DHS is focused on ending human smuggling and trafficking in
the United States. An important part of this effort is prosecuting and/
or removing the criminal illegal aliens from our country who support,
drive, and perpetuate these awful crimes, thereby inflicting heavy
costs upon our country.
Risk of Chain Refoulement
Question 1. How does DHS justify transferring individuals to
countries that cannot guarantee their safety or that may return them to
situations of torture or persecution?
Answer. DHS follows all relevant laws and treaties designed to
ensure that we will not remove aliens to countries where they may face
torture or persecution on account of a protected ground. As a matter of
state sovereignty, DHS cannot and will not interfere if criminal
illegal aliens are prosecuted for crimes committed in their home
countries.
Question 2. What specific guarantees did DHS secure to ensure that
deported individuals would not be harmed or expelled onward without due
process?
Answer. DHS follows all relevant laws and treaties designed to
ensure that we will not remove aliens to countries where they may face
torture or persecution on account of a protected ground. As a matter of
state sovereignty, DHS cannot and will not interfere if criminal aliens
are prosecuted for crimes in their home countries.
Question 3. What safeguards are in place now and in the future so
that funds appropriated by Congress aren't used to pay for abuse in CBP
custody and refoulement, or return to potential persecution?
Answer. DHS follows all relevant laws and treaties designed to
ensure that we will not remove aliens to countries where they may face
torture or persecution on account of a protected ground.
Misuse of Humanitarian Funds
Question 1. How much has DHS spent on removals to Panama and Costa
Rica?
Answer. During fiscal year 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Air Operations estimates the below costs are
associated with removals from the United States to Costa Rica and
Panama via air charter flights and commercial flights through May 15,
2025.

ESTIMATES AS OF MAY 15, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE Commercial
Cost Breakdown ICE Air Charter Air TOTAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panama.................................................... $-- $67,005.00 $67,005.00
Costa Rica................................................ 379,507.33 112,377.00 491,884.33
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................... $379,507.33 $179,382.00 $558,889.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please note these are estimated costs, which are subject to change
during ICE's final accounting/cost validation processes.
Question 2. Did DHS verify whether individuals flown back to their
countries of origin through the IOM-managed Assisted Voluntary Return
(AVR) program, funded by the State Department's Migration and Refugee
Assistance (MRA) account, truly consented to return? What assurances
can you provide that U.S. State Department funds--allocated for
assisted voluntary returns--were not misused to carry out coercive
deportations?
Answer. The U.S. Department of State funds allocated assisted
voluntary returns were not misused to carry out coercive deportations.
The programs established under Executive Order 14159 Protecting
American People Against Invasion, and Presidential Proclamation
Establishing Project Homecoming, were designed to incentivize and
facilitate voluntary departures for aliens unlawfully present in the
United States. These programs emphasized personal choice and provided
clear assurances that participation was entirely voluntary.
Question 3. What monies have been transferred from the State
Department to the Department of Homeland Security for migration
management, and for what specific purpose?
Answer. The purpose for this funding transfer is to advance U.S.
national security by facilitating voluntary returns by providing
operational support for air and ground movement for eligible aliens.
DHS is helping the U.S. Department of State (DOS) to respond to record
levels of immigration. As of June 4, 2025, $250 million has been
obligated from DOS's Migration and Refugee Assistance fund to the
Offices of the Secretary and Executive Management within the Homeland
Security Headquarters Departmental Management and Operations account.
Question 4. How can DHS credibly claim migrants participated in
voluntary returns, when these individuals had first been forcibly
removed from the United States? Are these forced removals using funds
intended for humanitarian purposes?
Answer. DHS has accepted help from DOS for programs focused on
voluntary self-deportation. Participation in the program is voluntary.
Self-deportation is a dignified way for aliens who do not have a legal
basis to remain in the United States to depart the United States.
Lack of Transparency in Bilateral Agreements
Question 1. What is the legal basis for entering into these
agreements and removing individuals to third countries with no known
asylum safeguards?
Answer. This question appears to conflate the requirements of 8
U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(A), which applies to aliens with pending protection
claims in the United States who are transferred to a third country for
consideration of those claims, and 8 U.S.C. 1231(b), which applies to
an alien ordered removed after protection claim has been rejected by an
immigration judge.
Question 2. Will you make public the text of the agreements between
the United States and the governments of Panama, Costa Rica, and Libya
and any other third parties accepting deportees from the United States?
Answer. DHS is committed to transparency, and we will make public
what we can under legal and diplomatic constraints. We are committed to
following all relevant laws.
Question 3. What deportation deals are in place with Qatar and the
UAE? How about deals with other countries in the Americas and Africa
beyond the ones that have been covered in the media (Costa Rica,
Panama, El Salvador, Libya, and Rwanda)?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in
coordination with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) collaborates with
many foreign governments routinely on deportation arrangements and
logistics. With respect to negotiations with specific countries, DHS
defers to DOS.
Question 4. If not, why is this administration outsourcing U.S.
immigration enforcement without public transparency, Congressional
oversight, or legal clarity?
Answer. As we vigorously enforce America's immigration laws and
secure our borders, DHS is committed to transparency and working with
Congress. It has been our consistent position that we always follow the
law.
internal enforcement and detention
Question 1a. Initial reporting suggested that ICE signed a $3.8
billion contract (which was then revoked \9\ with the contract
currently not fulfilled) to run a massive tent camp on Fort Bliss to
hold thousands of migrant families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.propublica.org/article/ice-cancels-contract-
immigrant-detention-camp-fort-bliss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-point-eight billion dollars is more than ICE's entire annual
detention budget, how could DHS sign a contract that size without
funding from Congress? Where did ICE intend to get the money?
Answer. In accordance with recent Executive Orders, including
Executive Order 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion
(Jan. 20, 2025), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is
expanding available detention capacity to accommodate an increase in
immigration enforcement activities and the detention of aliens
unlawfully present in the United States. ICE is exploring various
acquisition strategies to support numerous detention facilities. Since
January 20, 2025, ICE has awarded contracts, or entered into
agreements, to acquire bed space in various locations. All awards can
be found on ICE.gov.* Please note, not all facilities included are
currently housing ICE detainees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* https://www.ice.gov/foia/library.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1b. How many families are they going to hold there?
Answer. ICE has standards and procedures in place to provide
oversight for safe and secure housing of families. However, ICE has no
current plans to house families on military facilities at this time,
including Fort Bliss.
Question 1c. How are they able to ensure child welfare?
Answer. ICE has no current plans to house children or families on
military facilities, including Fort Bliss.
Question 1d. Are you familiar with previous reports of allegations
of sexual abuse \10\ and watchdog reports of terrible conditions \11\
involving migrant children from when Fort Bliss was used as an
emergency intake shelter for kids? How can you ensure similar
situations don't happen?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/audio-migrant-
kids-shelter-reveals-discussion-sex-between-staff-minors-n1275547.
\11\ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-fort-bliss-hhs-
inspector-general-report/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. ICE has no current plans to house children or families on
military facilities, including Fort Bliss.
Question 2a. A recent Reuters report stated that ``thousands''\12\
of Federal law enforcement officers have been diverted to carry out
internal enforcement, including ``scores'' of ICE HSI agents focused on
stopping child exploitation on-line. Reuters reports that 25 percent of
DEA agents are doing immigration enforcement, as well as 80 percent of
ATF agents, alongside the FBI (including counterterrorism
investigators), IRS financial crimes investigators, and even U.S.
Postal Inspector Service officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/
thousands-agents-diverted-trump-immigration-crackdown-2025-03-22/
&sa=D&source=docs&ust=174786528700-
1516&usg=AOvVaw0JCct7YuvejkZrly6FHnH3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
News reporting suggests that ``scores'' of ICE HSI agents assigned
to child exploitation cases have been taken off their normal duties and
made to carry out immigration enforcement instead. The head of HSI's
union has stated that reducing the number of agents working these cases
may lead vulnerable children to be victimized. Will you commit to
reassigning any agent working child exploitation cases away from
immigration enforcement and back to protecting our children?
Answer. ICE Homeland Security Investigations is committed to
combatting all crimes of exploitation to include those targeting
children and other vulnerable members of the population. The DHS Cyber
Crimes Center, DHS Center for Countering Human Trafficking, and the
Homeland Security Investigations Financial Crimes Center continue to
aggressively support investigations into crimes of exploitation in
support of Presidential Executive Orders.
Question 2b. The DEA is crucial for stopping drug trafficking and
protecting our community from fentanyl. Why are you using these agents
for immigration enforcement rather than their normal jobs?
Answer. Federal law enforcement agencies have long supported each
other's respective missions through direct and indirect methods,
including participation in task forces, asset sharing, information
sharing, and operational collaboration.
Question 2c. Are you concerned at all that taking thousands of law
enforcement officers away from their normal duties will make the
country less safe?
Answer. Homeland Security Investigations' primary mission is to
identify, disrupt, and dismantle transnational criminal and foreign
terrorist organizations that exploit U.S. immigration and customs laws,
posing a threat to our national security, and creating a risk to public
safety. Thousands of convicted criminals, gang members, cartel members,
and terrorists have been removed from the United States as a result of
law enforcement investigations and operations.
Question 2d. Do you think that FBI counterterrorism experts should
be focused on fighting terrorism and not carrying out mass
deportations?
Answer. ICE defers to the U.S. Department of Justice on questions
regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Question 3a. DHS has effectively eliminated \13\ the Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of Immigration Detention
Ombudsman, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.wusf.org/2025-03-21/homeland-security-makes-cuts-
to-civil-rights-and-immigration-oversight-offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties was the primary
body responsible for investigating claims of violation of the Prison
Rape Elimination Act in ICE detention. Now that it has been effectively
eliminated, who will investigate these claims?
Answer. DHS is not closing the Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties. All legally-required functions are being performed, but in
an efficient and cost-effective manner and without hindering the
Department's mission of securing the homeland. DHS is realigning
responsibilities as it deems necessary and appropriate to be in line
with the Department's mission. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, in coordination with ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations,
continues to investigate Prison Rape Elimination Act Claims.
Question 3b. Nine people have died in ICE detention so far this
year,\14\ yet you have eliminated the Office of Immigration Detention
Ombudsman. How can you conduct oversight over the care of people held
in ICE detention when you're firing the watchdogs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/14/ice-
detainee-deaths-custody-spending/83619379007/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The oversight offices have not been eliminated and continue
to perform all statutorily-required functions. Moreover, ICE's Office
of Professional Responsibility and the DHS Inspector General continue
to have oversight of detention conditions.
Question 3c. President Trump committed to being the most
transparent administration in history. Can you explain why you have
eliminated 3 oversight bodies whose job it is to ensure transparency
and that civil liberties are respected?
Answer. Please see previous response.
Question 3d. Is it true that right now, if an ICE detainee is being
abused or neglected, the only way to file a complaint or ask for help
is to contact an office inside your agency? No one from the Office of
Civil Rights & Civil Liberties (CRCL) or the Office of the Immigration
Detention Ombudsman is going into these detention centers, correct?
Answer. Detainees can continue to file complaints with the DHS
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Immigration Detention
Ombudsman, ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility, and the DHS
Inspector General.
cecot and el salvador
Question 1a. El Salvador's Vice President said on May 6 that ``The
status of the detainees or the people who come here isn't assessed by
El Salvador, it's assessed by the state that requests the
service.''\15\ Similarly, El Salvador's ministry of foreign affairs has
said previously that: ``El Salvador confirms it will house these
individuals for 1 year, pending the United States' decision on their
long-term disposition.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://legrandcontinent.eu/es/2025/05/06/cualquier-pais-
puede-requerir-los-servicios-de-las-instalaciones-penitenciarias-de-el-
salvador-la-entrevista-con-el-consigliere-de-bukele-x/.
\16\ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-pay-el-salvador-jail-300-
alleged-gang-members-ap-reports-2025-03-15/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What status has the United States given to those it is paying El
Salvador to detain?
Answer. The criminal illegal aliens DHS has removed to El Salvador
have no immigration status in the United States.
Question 1b. What legal authority permits the United States to
contract with El Salvador to imprison Venezuelans in CECOT?
Answer. DHS has removed some criminal illegal aliens to El Salvador
under the Immigration and Nationality Act. DHS has also removed some
Venezuelan citizens determined to be members of Tren De Aragua to El
Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.
Question 1c. What is the source of the funding for this deal?
Answer. DOS has provided Fiscal Year 2024 International Narcotics
Control and Law Enforcement funds for direct government-to-government
assistance to El Salvador to be used for its law enforcement and anti-
crime needs.
El Salvador may, but is not required to, use the funds on costs
associated with detaining Tren de Aragua members, and may use them for
other law enforcement and anti-crime needs more generally.
Question 1d. How much would this deal cost American taxpayers?
Answer. DOS has provided Fiscal Year 2024 International Narcotics
Control and Law Enforcement funds for direct government-to-government
assistance to El Salvador to be used for its law enforcement and anti-
crime needs.
El Salvador may, but is not required to, use the funds on costs
associated with detaining Tren de Aragua members, and may use them for
other law enforcement and anti-crime needs more generally.
Question 1e. What assurances of good treatment has the United
States received from El Salvador?
Answer. DHS follows all applicable laws and treaties designed to
ensure that we will not remove aliens to countries where they face
persecution on account of a protected ground or torture. El Salvador
committed to take actions in accordance with its authorities under
Salvadoran domestic law, and in a manner that is consistent with El
Salvador's international legal obligations regarding human rights and
treatment of prisoners, including the Convention Against Torture.
Question 1f. What does the United States plan to do with
Venezuelans imprisoned there after 1 year?
Answer. Aliens detained by El Salvador are in the custody of El
Salvador, and that sovereign nation will determine their future.
Question 1g. If the agreement has a minimum quota, what is the
minimum quota of people subject to the agreement?
Answer. In February, during Secretary Rubio's visit to El Salvador,
President Bukele verbally committed to accepting members of the
designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and
Tren de Aragua (TdA) deported from the United States. President Bukele
also offered to accept third-country nationals illegally present in the
United States beyond TdA who are associated with criminal organizations
and are deported from the United States.
Question 1h. Can you confirm if El Salvador is taking people based
off of a targeted list of individuals DHS is providing?
Answer. In February, during Secretary Rubio's visit to El Salvador,
President Bukele verbally committed to accepting members of the
designated FTOs Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Tren de Aragua deported
from the United States. President Bukele also offered to accept third-
country nationals illegally present in the United States beyond Tren de
Aragua who are associated with criminal organizations and are deported
from the United States.
Question 1i. What promises has DHS made to dictators like Nayim
Bukele and other governments like those in Libya, Rwanda, and Panama
about payments they will receive from the U.S. Government if they take
migrants the United States does not want?
Answer. DHS defers to DOS regarding negotiations with foreign
states.
Question 1j. How do you intend to fund the payment of these debts
to third-party countries?
Answer. DHS defers to DOS regarding negotiations with foreign
states.
Question 1k. What transfer or reprogramming, if any, was necessary
from DHS funds to complete sending individuals to El Salvador?
Answer. DHS funds used in support of the effort to remove criminal
illegal aliens to El Salvador have been used in line with all
applicable laws.
Question 1l. What additional costs are incurred by DHS to conduct
these third-country removal flights? For example, do these require
additional personnel or additional personnel costs for extended time or
stays in foreign countries?
Answer. DHS funds used in support of the effort to remove criminal
illegal aliens to El Salvador have been used in line with all
applicable laws.
Question 1m. Can you tell me today if those men and teenagers are
all alive? If not, why not?
Answer. DHS defers to the government of El Salvador on the status
of any criminal illegal aliens removed to El Salvador.
Question 1n. DHS is under court order to bring back at least 2
people from CECOT, will you comply?
Answer. DHS is complying with all judicial rulings and will
continue to do so.
Question 2a. What safeguards are in place in these ``third
countries'' to guarantee the safety of migrants?
Question 2b. Are you planning to send more people, like Kilmar
Abrego Garcia, who have been granted withholding of removal protection
in the United States to third countries to get around these protection
orders?
Answer. DHS follows applicable laws and treaties designed to ensure
that we will not remove aliens to countries where they face persecution
on account of a protected ground or torture.
Question 2c. Given the high cost of the military and deviation from
Defense priorities, how do you justify the continued use of military
planes to conduct deportations?
Answer. DHS defers to the U.S. Department of Defense.
Question 2d. Given extensive reports of due process violations and
binding court orders this administration has violated, why is the Trump
administration pursuing additional third-country transfers?
Answer. DHS follows applicable laws and treaties designed to ensure
that we will not remove aliens to countries where they face persecution
on account of a protected ground or torture.
Question 3a. The National Intelligence Council recently determined
that ``the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating
with Tren de Aragua and is not directing Tren de Aragua movement to and
operations in the United States.''\17\ Given this clear assessment by
the United States' intelligence community, why does DHS continue to
assert otherwise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-intelligence-agencies-
contradict-trumps-tren-de-aragua-claims-rcna205107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. President Trump issued a proclamation under the Alien
Enemies Act declaring Tren de Aragua is perpetrating, attempting, and
threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of
the United States directly and at the direction of the Maduro regime in
Venezuela.
Question 3b. DHS has recently stated that it believes it can apply
the Alien Enemies Act to any person with just 12 hours warning \18\ and
at most a 36-hour opportunity to file a habeas corpus lawsuit. The
Supreme Court ruled unanimously \19\ that people subject to the law
must be given enough notice in ``such a manner as will allow them to
actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal
occurs.'' DHS's notice does not include any language stating that a
person can challenge a determination under the Alien Enemies Act. Is it
reasonable to expect that 36 hours is enough time for a person with no
lawyer, who doesn't speak English, who is held in detention, to read
the notice, understand that they can challenge the determination in
Federal court, find a lawyer, and file a habeas corpus lawsuit?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://www.npr.org/2025/04/25/nx-s1-5377191/venezuelan-
migrants-immigration-trump-alien-enemies-act.
\19\ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. These issues are subject to on-going litigation. DHS will
continue to follow all applicable laws.
Question 3c. DHS reportedly uses an ``Alien Enemies Act''
validation guide for determining that a person is a member of Tren de
Aragua. It says that having a ``tattoo'' supposedly linked to a gang is
half of the evidence necessary to ``validate'' someone as a gang
member.
i. Is to accurate that the administration has used a point system
to determine who will be deported to torture?\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25915745-alien-
enemies-validation-guide/#document/p1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The Attorney General, acting pursuant to Presidential
Proclamation 10903, Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act
Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de
Aragua, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033, 13035 (Mar. 14, 2025), has
issued the Alien Enemies Act' validation guide to law
enforcement officers to ascertain whether aliens are alien
enemies, including whether such aliens are members of the
Foreign Terrorist Organization Tren de Aragua.
1. If a person has a tattoo, does that make them a gang member?
Answer. Having a tattoo does not, in and of itself, make a
person a gang member but particular tattoos may be evidence
of membership in a particular gang. Some gangs utilize
particular tattoos (or types of tattoos) as proof of
membership such as MS-13 gang members who historically use
tattoos, slogans, and other markings to signify their
affiliation with the gang.
2. If a person texts someone who turns out to have a criminal
record, does that make them a gang member?
Answer. Sending a text message does not, in and of itself, make
a person a gang member. The content and context of the text
message may, however, play a significant role in
determining if an individual is a gang member.
3. If a person lives in an area where there are ``gang''
members, does that make them a gang member?
Answer. No. Living in an area where there are gang members does
not, in and of itself, make a person a gang member. Gang
membership involves specific activities, affiliations,
behaviors, and characteristics that go beyond simply
residing in a particular location.
ii. Are you aware that multiple experts \21\ on Tren de Aragua have
stated that the gang does not use tattoos at all to
identify their members?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/tattoos-deported-
venezuelans-not-necessarily-gang-members-rcna197089.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Yes, tattoos are not mandatory for Tren de Aragua members,
but there are patterns observed among Tren de Aragua
members and suspected Tren de Aragua members that include
popular tattoo choices.
iii. Are you aware that both FBI and DHS sources have internally
questioned the use of tattoos to identify members of Tren
de Aragua?\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/28/dhs-
fbi-documents-question-tattoos-identification-tren-de-aragua/
82695605007/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Having a tattoo is a potential indicator of affiliation or
membership of criminal gangs. However, DHS does not use the
fact of a tattoo on an individual as a singularly
distinguishing proof of Tren de Aragua membership or any
other criminal gang. Criminal activity is constantly
evolving and DHS responsibly adapts its techniques of
criminal investigations accordingly. As criminal methods
change, so too do the methods used to identify, disrupt,
and dismantle criminal organizations and bad actors.
iv. Are you aware that a 2024 DHS intelligence assessment on Tren
de Aragua tattoos used examples taken from random people
across the internet with no connection to the gang,
including a British man whose tattoo was falsely labeled as
a gang tattoo?\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly22xm8kx1o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. DHS intelligence assessments go beyond just gang affiliate
tattoos, incorporating numerous factors critical to law
enforcement officers. Tren de Aragua is a violent and
ruthless terrorist gang. Law enforcement officers require
knowledge of all factors to be able to make an assessment
regarding whether an individual is a gang member.
Question 4a. Based on the latest Washington Post story on March 15
\24\: Can you confirm that multiple people sent to El Salvador had
entered the country legally and that at least 4 individuals had been
granted Temporary Protected Status?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/05/04/trump-
el-salvador-alien-enemies-act-venezuelans/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. DHS cannot comment on individual cases due to privacy laws
and regulations.
Question 4b. Can you confirm that Venezuela was allowing
deportations at the time the flight took place, and has since taken
more deportations, in contrast to the claim that El Salvador was
necessary since people could not be deported to Venezuela?
Answer. Venezuela has only been allowing a very limited number of
removal flights which are not sufficient to remove all Venezuelans who
do not establish a legal right to remain in the United States. DHS is
committed to removing all criminal illegal aliens from the United
States to keep our communities safe.
Question 4c. Can you confirm that the majority of the people sent
to El Salvador had no criminal record?
Answer. DHS has removed criminal illegal aliens to El Salvador in
keeping with President Trump's promise to Make America Safe Again.
Question 4d. Can you confirm that DHS has no intent to ever provide
individuals sent to El Salvador an opportunity to challenge the
Government's determination that they were members of Tren de Aragua?
Answer. DHS follows applicable legal requirements as it works to
enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.
Question 4e. Can you confirm the number of people imprisoned in El
Salvador on March 15 at U.S. request?
Answer. Approximately 240 criminal illegal aliens were removed to
El Salvador on March 15.
Question 4f. Why has DHS never publicly told families of those it
sent to El Salvador that their loved ones are there?
Answer. DHS follows applicable legal requirements as it works to
enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.
Question 5a. For those who have been sent into prisons in El
Salvador: Under what law/authority were they sent away?
Answer. DHS follows applicable laws, policies, and regulations with
regard to immigration enforcement.
Question 5b. How are we guaranteeing that those people are being
well-treated and are not being abused in ways that violate U.S. or
international law?
Answer. DHS follows all applicable laws and treaties designed to
ensure that we will not remove aliens to countries where they face
persecution on account of a protected ground or torture.
Question 5c. What are the terms of their detention? Do people have
a right to appeal or to a new hearing? Is there a plan for people's
release and how long is the period of detention?
Answer. DHS would refer any questions regarding aliens detained by
El Salvador to that sovereign nation.
Question 5d. What is the plan for repatriation of people to their
countries of origin?
Answer. DHS would refer any questions regarding aliens detained by
El Salvador to that sovereign nation.
Question 5e. How are family visits facilitated?
Answer. DHS would refer any questions regarding aliens detained by
El Salvador to that sovereign nation.
Question 5f. For those denied due process before they were
deported, what is the process for ensuring that they have hearings and
are afforded rights in the location to which they have been deported?
Answer. DHS would refer any questions regarding aliens detained by
El Salvador to that sovereign nation.
legal immigration system
Question 1a. The United States does best when it has a functioning
legal immigration system. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration services are
already facing historic case backlogs. Last year, for the first time in
over a decade, USCIS announced that it had reduced the total backlogs
faced by the agency.\25\ However, the Trump administration is now
reportedly seeking to either lay off thousands of adjudicators \26\ or
reduce total employees through reductions in force.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://www.uscis.gov/EOY2023.
\26\ https://migrantinsider.com/p/uscis-staff-cuts-threaten-to-
worsen.
\27\ https://immigrationimpact.com/2025/03/06/federal-firings-
immigration-processing-enforcement-expands/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With backlogs still at near-record levels, why are you laying off
employees at USCIS and seeking deferred resignations for others?
Answer. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), as part
of DHS, did not lay off employees. USCIS participated in a DHS
Workforce Transition Program that employees were able to partake in
voluntarily.
Question 1b. How many people does USCIS anticipate will be laid off
or will accept early resignation offers?
Answer. Approximately 1,800 employees have participated in the DHS
Workforce Transition Program.
Question 1c. With USCIS implementing more vetting and screening
protocols, the average time to process a case may be going up. Doesn't
that call for hiring more staff, not firing the ones you have?
Answer. USCIS is committed to enhanced screening and vetting
techniques, leveraging the appropriate use of personnel and technology
available to address the current caseload, and to shore up the national
security and public safety of our Nation.
Question 1d. USCIS is a fee-funded agency. With the agency recently
laying off thousands of employees, is the agency expecting to function
with less funding? Is USCIS expecting a reduction in salary payments
and expenses? If so, will the agency reduce the fees paid by
applicants? If not, what will USCIS do with the additional revenue
gained by layoffs?
Answer. USCIS did not lay off thousands of employees. USCIS
participated in a Department of Homeland Security Workforce Transition
Program that employees were able to partake in voluntarily. The agency
will comport with the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 that
requires a biennial fee review to ensure fees are set at a level that
ensures full cost recovery per 8 U.S.C 1356(m). USCIS uses all revenue
collections to fund the agency's operational requirements.
Question 1e. Has USCIS conducted an assessment of the agency's
operations caused by layoffs? Please provide that assessment to the
committee.
Answer. USCIS did not lay off employees. USCIS is in the process of
completing an impact assessment as a result of the Workforce Transition
Program.
Question 1f. What measures is USCIS taking to ensure that layoffs
do not impact backlogs?
Answer. USCIS is committed to enhanced screening and vetting
techniques, leveraging the appropriate use of personnel and technology
available to address the current caseload and to shoring up the
national security and public safety of our Nation. USCIS has and will
continue to strive to ensure processing times remain such that we are
as efficient as possible. Not only have we increased our screening and
vetting, but we also continue to prioritize the detection of fraud,
national security threats, and public safety concerns. We have worked
to streamline processes where feasible to ensure our processing times
remain in an acceptable range. We do this through technology, training,
and close coordination with our law enforcement partners.
ice detention/transparency
Question 1. Tell me what funding you are specifically requesting in
the DHS budget for medical care, mental health care, access to counsel
for people and children in detention?
Answer. The fiscal year 2026 President's budget supports
requirements for detainee health care, detention bed/guard contracts,
and other costs directly tied to execution of the detention program.
Examples of other direct costs include detainee welfare (clothing and
other materials), provisions (food, beverages, and cooking materials),
telecommunications services, utilities, operation and maintenance of
facilities, supplies, equipment, postage, and miscellaneous contractual
services such as inspection contracts.
Question 2. Every medical expert agrees that children experience
long-term mental trauma after detention and through family separation.
How are your agencies taking that into consideration when dealing with
minors? How much money is ICE using to detain children with their
mothers or their fathers?
Answer. ICE does not separate families unless there is a threat to
the child. ICE makes custody decisions based on a variety of case-
specific and operational factors and notes the agency's specially
designed Family Residential Center provides a safe and humane
environment for families who are detained.
Question 3. How much money is DHS requesting to detain pregnant
people in ICE custody?
Answer. The ICE budget provides funding for services necessary to
detain all aliens in ICE custody in accordance with ICE detention
standards. This includes medical care and other health care services
based on the needs of the individual detainees, including prenatal and
specialized care and counseling services provided to pregnant aliens
who are detained in ICE facilities. The budget does not have a specific
line item for pregnant aliens.
Question 4. How does ICE justify issuing solicitations and awarding
new contracts in excess of its annually-appropriated budget?
Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may solicit
and award contracts containing total potential values that exceed its
annual appropriations for a variety of reasons, in compliance with the
Antideficiency Act. For example, contracts containing estimated ceiling
values for out years to be funded with future annual appropriations (if
enacted) and contract vehicles available for use by other U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components or other Federal
agencies.
Question 5. What private contractor bids or proposals is ICE
considering for expansion of its detention and deportation operations?
Answer. DHS is committed to keeping American communities safe after
the invasion that the previous administration allowed. As part of that
effort, ICE is currently considering a variety of locations to
establish detention capacity; however, no decisions have been
finalized.
Question 6a. Can you let this committee know which State, county,
or local governments, or private companies responded to the Emergency
Detention Related Services sourcing vehicle posted in April 2025 for
additional detention capacity?
Answer. Please refer to the below table for the requested
information.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offeror Name Offeror UEI Address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ ADS................. XXJXSMP4H4J1....... 280 HUGO RD, SAN MARCOS, TX 78666
USA.
2................................ Acuity.............. L41JMCZK3GW6....... 10701 PARKRIDGE BLVD STE 200,
RESTON, VA 20191 USA.
3................................ Akima............... LUDNH5K4XQU9....... 2553 Dulles View Dr Ste 700,
Herndon, VA 20171 USA.
4................................ Amentum............. QEMLRQA7PLG4....... 4800 WESTFIELDS BLVD STE 400,
CHANTILLY, VA 20151 USA.
5................................ AMI Expeditionary DL1VNK64YL14....... 12030 SUNRISE VALLEY DR STE 250,
Healthcare. RESTON, VA 20191 USA.
6................................ Apex Site Services.. P5YZCMJ7QDA8....... 1300 W MAIN ST, STE 305,
WAXAHACHIE, TX 75165 USA.
7................................ Aspen Medical....... UF3FMLEAWT13....... 1100 15TH ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC
20005 USA.
8................................ Asset Protection and HMJ4CBSCDNY4....... 5502 BURNHAM DR, CORPUS CHRISTI,
Security Services. TX 78413 USA.
9................................ Bering Straits L8BNTYVF45P7....... 3301 C ST STE 400, ANCHORAGE, AK
Professional 99503 USA.
Services.
10............................... Caduceus............ ZX23KR32ZH32....... 1850 PARKWAY PL SE STE 725,
MARIETTA, GA 30067 USA.
11............................... Centerra Group...... H4H3J7SJCT76....... 13530 DULLES TECHNOLOGY DR, STE
500, HERNDON, VA 20171 USA.
12............................... CoreCivic........... HJGMJN1JKL46....... 5501 VIRGINIA WAY, BRENTWOOD, TN
37027 USA.
13............................... Cotton Commercial... VPRKW5GS6K17....... 5443 KATY HOCKLEY CUT OFF RD,
KATY, TX 77493 USA.
14............................... Deployed Resources.. GFTGQRJ8F959....... 164 MCPIKE RD, ROME, NY 13441 USA.
X................................ Deployed Services... T4R2JNL2PKV3....... 6820 W LINEBAUGH AVE STE 105,
TAMPA, FL 33625 USA.
15............................... DMG Global.......... MLLGWJ8ZZ2S3....... 4741 MILITARY TRL STE 202,
JUPITER, FL 33458 USA.
16............................... EDS................. HAK5PNC3GZW5....... 1385 PRIDEMORE CT, LEXINGTON, KY
40505 USA.
17............................... GardaWorld Federal FJLMN2N34M93....... 1700 N MOORE ST STE 1875,
Services. ARLINGTON, VA 22209 USA.
18............................... GEO Group........... JMLKZZ1NL2Z6....... 4955 TECHNOLOGY WAY, BOCA RATON,
FL 33431 USA.
19............................... Global Dimensions... QDNZY1MXQUK8....... 923 MAPLE GROVE DR STE 201,
FREDERICKSBURG, VA 22407 USA.
20............................... Gothams............. HVR7BYAMSL27....... 115 E 5TH ST, AUSTIN, TX 78701
USA.
21............................... Guardian 6 Solutions TTLUYN248DA1....... 1968 W BELT LINE RD, CEDAR HILL,
TX 75104 USA.
22............................... Industrial Tent N7GNTMBL69K5....... 322 RILEY RD, HOUSTON, TX 77047
System (ITS). USA.
23............................... InGenesis........... PC8MDM9DDWT6....... 18756 STONE OAK PKWY, STE 200, SAN
ANTONIO, TX 78258 USA.
24............................... International SOS EEANN2A3SSQ4....... 1201 Louisiana St Ste 500,
GMS. Houston, TX 77002 USA.
25............................... ISS Action.......... CN6JHWKMSCD5....... 204 E MCKENZIE ST, UNIT E6, PUNTA
GORDA, FL 33950 USA.
26............................... J&J Worldwide Y4TKSMDNTRN6....... 8350 Broad St Ste 1100, McLean, VA
Services. 22102 USA.
27............................... Kastel Enterprises.. SVC5U6D9JNQ5....... 60 SAINT FRANCIS ST STE P6,
MOBILE, AL 36602 USA.
28............................... KIG Technical Z5JLMFHLJF59....... 3030 K ST NW, STE 203, WASHINGTON,
Services. DC 20007 USA.
29............................... LaSalle Corrections. J76AEWGPFZT1....... 192 BASTILLE LN STE 200, RUSTON,
LA 71270 USA.
30............................... Lemoine Disaster.... C182PM2K1463....... 1906 ERASTE LANDRY RD, STE 200,
LAFAYETTE, LA 70506 USA.
31............................... Longview Intl Tech CNM4U3TPGUE7....... 12930 WORLDGATE DR STE 300,
Solutions. HERNDON, VA 20170 USA.
32............................... Loyal Source........ Y54FQAPG4TN5....... 12612 CHALLENGER PKWY STE 365,
ORLANDO, FL 32826 USA.
33............................... Luke................ MT3CJK6XGNF8....... 375 Commerce Pkwy Ste 103,
Rockledge, FL 32955 USA.
34............................... MLU................. L77SPKGHB5G5....... 200 Whitehead Rd, Bogart, GA 30622
USA.
35............................... MTC................. G58ZEJ7HJGM1....... 500 N MARKET PLACE DR,
CENTERVILLE, UT 84014 USA.
36............................... ProTech II.......... YT2JRNW5CHB3....... 21145 WHITFIELD PL STE 106,
STERLING, VA 20165 USA.
37............................... Rapid Deployment.... K1B6MGA23WL3....... 1521 AZALEA RD, MOBILE, AL 36693
USA.
38............................... Recana Solutions.... HT74GJ837NF8....... 11767 Katy Fwy Ste 930, Houston,
TX 77079 USA.
39............................... Response AI ZE2JVFS8ML75....... 843 Constellation Dr, Great Falls,
Solutions. VA 22066 USA.
40............................... Responsive C1G6S1HJFEQ4....... 400 W VIRGINIA ST STE 100,
Deployment. MCKINNEY, TX 75069 USA.
41............................... Rockwell American H6NCLMPBP565....... 10849 NW QUAIL RD, TERREBONNE, OR
Services. 97760 USA.
42............................... Security Partners... H9YLYJ7TSEH8....... 366 Merle Gustafson Rd, Tallulah,
LA 71282 USA.
43............................... SLSCO............... F1PMZXNJ7NM5....... 6702 BROADWAY ST, GALVESTON, TX
77554 USA.
44............................... SOSi................ L3VCKMD7J585....... 1881 CAMPUS COMMONS DRIVE, SUITE
500, RESTON, VA 20191 USA.
45............................... Target Logistics.... LLMHPD1Q3X51....... 9320 Lakeside Blvd Ste 300, The
Woodlands, TX 77381 USA.
46............................... Telos............... JLW7WAKPEKD4....... 19886 Ashburn Rd, Ashburn, VA
20147 USA.
47............................... US Advisors......... UKQUPVHWM6V9....... 2 EXECUTIVE CIR, STE 205, IRVINE,
CA 92614 USA.
48............................... US Commercial Diving DHL2L69BKFT5....... 500 NW 91ST ST, MIAMI, FL 33150
USA.
49............................... USA UP STAR......... EQDFVSJ3HGE7....... 1760 INDUSTRIAL DR, GREENWOOD, IN
46143 USA.
50............................... V2X................. RRFJZGASZJ41....... 2424 GARDEN OF THE GODS RD STE
300, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80919
USA.
51............................... Vision Quest MNA3EF2HHKE5....... 13212 COMMODORE RD, HOT SPRINGS,
Solutions. SD 57747 USA.
52............................... Xator LLC........... ZJFDNMA46LT9....... 10432 Balls Ford Rd Ste 240,
Manassas, VA 20109 USA.
53............................... Zebra............... G5G7HJNJRJN9....... 310 HALEY MEADOWS DR, MONCURE, NC
27559 USA.
54............................... Mercedes Cab Company NAFMPMUZNN73....... 182 Queen Anne Rd, Harwich, MA
Inc. 02645 USA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 6b. If there have been responses, will you provide a list
of the Government entities that have responded and the name of the
proposed facilities or regions?
Answer. ICE received responses from interested industry partners.
ICE did not receive responses from any Government entities for the
emergency detention-related services contract award.
Question 7. Has ICE conducted any studies to evaluate the
feasibility of building new facilities in specific communities, or
conducted any environmental impact studies regarding the impact of
utilizing existing detention facilities or prisons to detain more
individuals as described in the Emergency Detention Related Services
sourcing vehicle? If so, please provide the results of the studies,
including any environmental impact assessments.
Answer. ICE has not conducted feasibility or environmental studies
under the Emergency Detention Related Services sourcing vehicle;
however, ICE constantly evaluates detention needs and contract
structures based on migration trends, operational needs, and
availability of resources.
Question 8a. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons has said that he wants
the agency to be run like Amazon Prime for human beings.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ice-
director-todd-lyons-deportation-operate-amazon-1235314047/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is in charge of ICE right now? Is it Tom Homan or Steven
Miller? The 2 men have not been before the Senate to submit their
nominations to lead the agency. Do you have any plans to follow regular
orders and nominate someone to be the director of ICE?
Answer. ICE's Acting Director is Todd Lyons, who leads the agency's
dedicated law enforcement officers and agents in protecting the United
States by conducting criminal investigations and enforcing immigration
laws to preserve national security and public safety.
Question 8b. Who is responsible for reviewing complaints against
ICE officers and personnel when they are breaking car windows of
vehicles with pregnant women, children? What component of ICE is
responsible for overseeing these complaints? Are you asking for a
funding increase for this office?
Answer. Per existing policy, complaints against ICE officers and
personnel can be directed to the ICE Office of Professional
Responsibility or the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), who
maintains statutory authority to investigate or review any matter, at
any time, within its statutory authority.
No additional funding has been requested in the President's fiscal
year 2026 budget.
Question 9a. DHS has not been transparent at a time when the
Department is asking for unprecedented amounts of Government funding.
For example, ICE is required under Sec. 218 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2021 (Pub. Law 116-260) to provide semi-annual
reports on several categories, including arrests of U.S. citizens, and
appears to be significantly delayed.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-
116publ260.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the status of these reports and when will you make them
available to the public and this committee?
Answer. We respectfully request that the Member of Congress clarify
their inquiry so we can provide a more accurate response.
Question 9b. DHS is required to post detention data on a bi-weekly
basis but that is not up-to-date, including the number of families in
detention. When will that be fixed?
Answer. The fiscal year 2025 ICE Statistics report available on the
ICE Detention Management website (https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-
management) is updated on a bi-weekly basis. This report includes data
on the Dilley Detention Immigration Processing Center which is ICE's
only facility housing families.
Question 9c. The Recommendations and Investigations reports from
the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties have disappeared from
the on-line landing page except for 2 reports from January 30, 2024.
Congress funded the work that went into creating these reports. Why
were they removed, and will your office commit to republishing them at
the earliest opportunity?
Answer. The reports were removed to comply with Executive Order
14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and
Preferencing. The reports were full of divisive, racially-charged
language.
Question 10a. On Saturday, May 10, DHS issued a press release
titled, ``ACLU Drops Baseless Lawsuit Over False Claims that ICE
Deported U.S. Citizens.''\30\ This press release includes a screenshot
of a court filing, a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal. Is the
ACLU legal counsel in the case discussed in this press release?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/10/aclu-supported-lawsuit-
over-false-claims-ice-deported-us-citizens-dropped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 10b. Attorneys with the National Immigration Project of
the National Lawyers Guild are listed on this filing. Does DHS check
the facts of its press releases before it issues them?
Question 10c. Writing a press release saying that the ACLU dropped
a case, when the press release includes a document showing the ACLU was
not counsel in the case, suggests either basic incompetence or that
your public affairs office is in the business of spreading lies. Did
your public affairs office get it wrong, or did they lie on purpose
about what happened in this case? Which is it?
Answer. The question is clearly political in nature.
delaney hall and intimidation of members of congress
Question 1a. DHS spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, told CNN that
``there will likely be more arrests coming'' of Members of Congress,
who had been given a tour of a taxpayer-funded ICE detention facility--
Members of Congress presumably including my colleague Rep. McIver.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/10/ice-new-jersey-
baraka-lawmakers-arrests-00340273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do Members of Congress have a right to inspect detention facilities
paid for by U.S. taxpayers?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
i. To be clear, Section 527 of the Further Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2024,\32\ which is incorporated into the
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2025,\33\ states: None of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department of Homeland Security by this Act may be used to
prevent any of the following persons from entering, for the
purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or
for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or
otherwise house aliens'' and lists ``A Member of Congress.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr2882/text.
\33\ https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr9747/text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. ICE maintains security protocols to ensure the safety of
staff, detainees, and the local community including maintaining
a secure perimeter, scheduling facility tours, and screening
all visitors prior to entry as required by ICE's detention
standards. All visitors are required to comply with identity
verification and security screening requirements prior to
entry.
Question 1b. Does the Constitution of the United States allow the
Executive branch to arrest Members of the Legislative branch, for
exercising statutorily-mandated oversight authority?
Answer. Due to on-going litigation, ICE is unable to provide
further comment.
Question 1c. Is the Delaney Hall detention facility funded with
American taxpayer dollars?
Answer. Yes, ICE worked with its contractor, the GEO Group, to
begin housing detainees at Delaney Hall in early May 2025.
i. The Geo Group was awarded a 15-year contract with DHS. How many
dollars a day are we giving The Geo Group for this facility?
Answer. The contract is a hybrid firm-fixed price, time and
materials, and labor hour contract. The detention and health
care services are fixed monthly costs totaling $4,803,044.81
per month. Transportation services are reimbursed on a per mile
rate of $0.71 per mile, and guard services are reimbursed at a
rate of $74.13 per hour. The actual costs of both elements are
based on operational usage; therefore, it is not possible to
provide a set daily price for detention services at the
facility.
ii. The private prison behemoth GEO Group became the first
corporation whose PAC maxed out to former President Donald
Trump's campaign in February 2024. Do you see any conflict of
interest with this contract? If not, could you outline the
process followed to comply with ethical, anticorruption
expectations?
Answer. This contract was awarded under a competitive process in
accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and
includes applicable Improper Business Practices, Personal
Conflicts of Interest, and Organizational and Consultant
Conflicts of Interest clauses.
Question 1d. The mayor of the city of Newark and the fire
department were denied entrance to inspect the facility, despite it
being paid for with taxpayer dollars. When their requests were denied,
did the city issue a notice of fire code violations?
Answer. Local governmental authorities must coordinate with ICE for
approval to visit the facility. During the third week of April 2025,
the city inspectors performed the preliminary inspection of the
facility and provided the report findings to GEO Group on May 5, 2025.
On May 6 and May 7, 2025, the Newark Mayor and city officials from
the Newark Fire Department made unauthorized visits to the Delaney Hall
Detention Facility and left fire code violations on the rear gate
entrance. The Newark Mayor's Office failed to receive prior clearance
from ICE to enter the premises on the dates of May 6 and May 7, 2025.
attacks on sanctuary cities
Question. This administration is attacking State and local
officials who are well within their right to assert State and local
jurisdiction over their own policies. On Saturday, Federal officials
arrested the mayor of New Jersey's largest city for ``trespassing''
when he was outside the Delaney Hall detention facility. On April 28,
President Trump issued an Executive Order stating the administration
would pursue criminal penalties against State and local officials and
to defund communities in so-called sanctuary cities.
Do you agree that the Federal Government cannot compel the States
to carry out immigration arrests? If you believe the Federal Government
has that authority, could you outline under what power or legal basis?
Answer. ICE will follow the law as written by Congress. Cooperation
between ICE and State and local law enforcement agencies across the
Nation is a priority for ICE. ICE recognizes the importance of its
relationships with law enforcement partners to carry out its mission
and will continue expanding partnerships in a way that best serves
national security, public safety, and border security.
constitutional protections
Question 1a. 1. Before the House Appropriation subcommittee,
Secretary Noem was asked by Representative Underwood a simple question:
Do you believe that the Constitution guarantees due process to everyone
in America?
Does the Constitution guarantee due process to everyone in this
country?
Answer. There is no one-size-fits-all process due under the Due
Process Clause.
Rather, due process is a flexible standard that depends on the
facts and circumstances. For illegal aliens, especially illegal aliens
who arrived recently, the legally-required process is significantly
diminished. See Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103,
140 (2020). DHS complies with all legally-required due process
procedures.
Question 1b. Do you know what habeas corpus is?
Answer. Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase meaning ``you shall have
the body.'' The writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure to test the
legality of a person's detention. Habeas corpus proceedings are
available in certain circumstances to challenge immigration detention.
See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688 (2001); Demore v. Kim, 538
U.S. 510, 517 (2003).
border militarization/enforcement
Question 1. The Trump administration is reporting extraordinarily
low encounter numbers at the U.S.-Mexico border. Given the reduction in
encounters, what is the justification for an over $60 billion increase
in border wall and enforcement funding, despite DHS having already
having a record-high budget?
Answer. Infrastructure is just 1 element of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection's (CBP) approach to border security. Border wall and
barriers are proven critical component in securing our border. Today,
only one-third of the Southwest Border has man-made barriers, and the
majority of the current barriers are missing detection technology,
cameras, and lighting that provide agents with the domain awareness to
respond to illegal activity. The increase in funding will secure the
identified gaps on the border where there isn't constant surveillance,
personnel, or technology. This funding will ultimately improve CBP's
ability to detect, identify, and mitigate the flow of illegal aliens
and illicit goods crossing into the United States.
Question 2. What is the plan for the U.S.-Mexico border? Will it be
reopened to facilitate migration, including asylum?
Answer. CBP has implemented several initiatives to detect, enforce,
and deter illegal crossings. Deterrence initiatives such as
repatriation flights and enhanced prosecutions contributed to the
record-low apprehension numbers. This reduction in apprehensions allows
CBP to significantly reduce agent assignments to detention and
administrative duties and move them into enforcement roles. CBP is
actively constructing border wall and barriers across the Southwest
Border, while simultaneously installing detection technology. These
efforts combined with the whole-of-Government approach supported with
assistance from the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of
Justice, and other Federal, State, and local entities, serves to
increase our physical presence on the border, situational awareness,
and deterrence efforts to gain operational control of the border.
refugees and asylum
Question 1. Is DHS deceptively telling parolees that, if they leave
the country, they will have an easier time coming back legally?
Answer. Aliens who obtain visas or other documentation can legally
return to the United States in the future if they meet all eligibility
requirements and follow lawful processes.
Question 2. Is DHS arbitrarily and en masse stripping parolees who
entered legally through ports of entry and are integrating into
communities of their status and their work authorization?
Answer. Parole under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act is inherently discretionary and temporary. Parole alone
is neither an underlying basis for obtaining any immigration status,
nor an admission to the United States. Further, parole is determined on
a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances of an
alien and whether those circumstances merit an exercise of discretion.
Question 3. Is it DHS's policy that if a parolee is in on-going
removal proceedings and leaves the country, they will receive absentia
deportation orders, barring them from returning for 10 years? And will
that absentia deportation order mean they nullify any on-going
application for relief, thereby making it hard to pursue relief in the
future?
Answer. Aliens who are in removal proceedings and voluntarily
depart the country may have consequences applied. Please visit https://
www.ice.gov/self-deportation and https://www.dhs.gov/cbphome for more
information.
Question 4. To whom and how were the parole and EAD revocations
sent out and under what authority?
Answer. The Immigration and Nationality Act confers upon the
Secretary of Homeland Security the narrow discretionary authority to
parole inadmissible aliens into the United States ``temporarily under
such conditions as [DHS] may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.''
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C.
1182(d)(5)(A); see 8 C.F.R. 212.5(a) and (c) through (e)
(discretionary authority for establishing conditions of parole and for
terminating parole). Additionally, upon a finding by DHS that the
purpose of the temporary, discretionary parole has been served, the
alien is required to depart the United States ``or be returned to the
custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall
continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other
applicant for admission to the United States.''
Accordingly, on March 25, 2025, DHS announced the termination of
the parole processes for Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan
nationals and their immediate family members through Federal Register
Notice. That announcement stated that the parole period for aliens
whose parole has not already expired by April 24, 2025, would terminate
on that date unless the Secretary makes an individual determination to
the contrary. A court temporarily ordered DHS to pause taking action
concerning the termination of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and
Venezuelan nationals parole periods, but the U.S. Supreme Court has
since held that DHS may proceed with terminating the parole granted
under the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan parole programs.
Accordingly, on June 12, 2025, DHS sent a Notice of Termination of
Parole notifying parolees that their parole has been terminated.
Similarly, their parole-based, Employment Authorization Document, as
they have previously been notified, in accordance with 8 C.F.R.
274a.14(b), was revoked.
Question 5. How is it accurate to say that using CBP Home will help
parolees who leave re-enter legally if they are in on-going removal
proceedings?
Answer. Participation in CBP Home does not prevent an alien from
legally returning to the United States in the future if they meet all
eligibility requirements, follow lawful processes, and are eligible for
admission. Any future reentry into the United States is subject to U.S.
immigration laws and regulations and will depend on the alien's
specific circumstances at the time they seek lawful entry.
Question 6. How is DHS ensuring compliance with U.S. asylum law
when asylum seekers are removed from the United States to Panama and
Costa Rica without individualized screening or credible fear
interviews? Isn't that a clear violation of both U.S. law and the
Refugee Convention?
Answer. The United States remains committed to upholding its legal
obligations under the relevant laws and regulations.

[all]