On November 12, President-elect Donald Trump announced the nomination of South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This decision has drawn considerable controversy, particularly given Noem’s fraught relationship with the tribal nations in South Dakota, which make up approximately 20% of the state’s geographic area. Earlier in the year, all nine tribal nations in South Dakota barred her from entering their reservations, reflecting deep-seated discontent with her governance and comments regarding tribal leadership. Her unpopularity stems from a series of contentious statements that accused tribal leaders of being complicit with drug cartels, thereby painting a negative picture of their governance.
Noem’s record on border security is a focal point of Trump’s endorsement. He praised her for being proactive by sending National Guard troops to assist Texas in addressing issues at the border, claiming this action speaks to her strength and commitment to national security. However, Noem’s rhetoric has alienated many communities, particularly Native American tribes, which raises concerns about her ability to engage with broader issues of public safety and security within the DHS. Many regard her comments as racially charged, and they fear that this could extend to how she addresses immigration and border policy as the new head of this crucial department.
Adding to the scrutiny surrounding Noem is her recent book, which contains unsettling anecdotes, including the controversial killing of her pet dog Cricket and an unnamed goat. Although she reportedly recounted her meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, her team later stated that this incident never occurred, further contributing to the public skepticism surrounding her credibility. These peculiar narratives have left many wondering about her suitability to lead a department that manages serious national concerns and the public’s safety.
Chase Iron Eyes, director and lead counsel of the Lakota People’s Law Project, represents the voices of many in Indian Country who are deeply apprehensive about Noem’s appointment. He argues that her consistent alienation of tribal nations in South Dakota poses a serious risk when it comes to her oversight of national security policies that could affect vulnerable communities. Iron Eyes emphasizes that her arrival at DHS could facilitate the continuation of divisive, racially charged rhetoric that may fuel mass deportations of migrants while neglecting to address genuine threats to safety.
Despite the backlash, Noem expressed gratitude for her nomination. She framed her appointment as an opportunity to make America “SAFE again” and reassured her commitment to enhancing border security alongside Border Czar Tom Homan. However, many remain convinced that her past actions and statements reveal a troubling pattern of behavior that could shape her leadership at the DHS. Observers within Native American communities harbor concerns that her approach to policy and security would perpetuate existing prejudices rather than foster constructive dialogue and healing.
As South Dakota navigates the implications of Governor Noem’s controversial nomination, the prevailing attitudes among tribal nations reflect a broader apprehension about her leadership style at the national level. The sentiments expressed by figures like Iron Eyes underline the fears that racialized narratives could inform her actions as Secretary of Homeland Security. With issues around immigration, drug trafficking, and community safety under her purview, Noem’s governance will ultimately be scrutinized not only by her constituents back in South Dakota but also by communities of color and immigrant groups across the nation, who approach her appointment with a mix of skepticism and concern.