Noem worldwide threats hearing ends in subpoena bid: 4 things to know

An annual hearing to review the threats facing the U.S. ended with an effort by Democrats to subpoena Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after she exited the hearing early.

The “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland” hearing was a deviation from past events in many respects.

FBI Director Kash Patel did not testify, instead sending a stand-in, while Noem was heckled by protesters as she left the hearing an hour early.

While she said she was leaving to attend a different meeting, that event was canceled, prompting Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee to suggest she may have misled the panel. That sparked their subpoena bid to compel her return.

And while the hearing traditionally has had a greater focus on threats posed by terrorism and extremism, Trump administration officials spent much of the time issuing warnings about immigration.

Here are four things to know.

Sparring over Afghans

Noem and Joe Kent, a former congressional candidate now running the National Counterterrorism Center, both highlighted immigration from Afghanistan as among the threats facing the homeland after an Afghan who served in a U.S.-backed unit shot two National Guard members, killing one.

“The terrorist who shot them was an Afghan national who entered the United States under Operation Allies Welcome,” Noem said before listing the recent arrests of two other Afghans, calling the matter among the “despicable examples that unfortunately are becoming too common.”

Kent called the arrival of Afghans “probably the top terrorist threat that we face right now.”

Kent said 2,000 Afghans who entered the U.S. after the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan have terrorist ties and claimed without evidence that prior vetting done on the shooter was used as a “ruse.”

“The individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan, and that vetting standard was used by the Biden administration as a ruse to bring him here. Had we followed the standard operating procedures for Special Immigrant Visas, that individual and none of the Allies Welcome people would have come to America. That’s on Joe Biden,” he said.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), the top Democrat on the panel, disputed that the accused shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, wasn’t vetted, noting that he underwent a second round of review when he was approved for asylum under the Trump administration.

However, Thompson came under criticism himself for initially saying the shooting was an “unfortunate mistake.”

“You think that was an unfortunate accident?” Noem said with dismay. “It was a terrorist attack.”

“It was an unfortunate situation,” Thompson said, “but you blamed it solely on Joe Biden.”

“I don’t want to bring perjury charges against you, but I’m of the opinion that the Trump administration DHS [Department of Homeland Security], your DHS, approved the asylum application,” he added.

Thompson was later taken to task by Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) for his comments.

“Mr. Chairman, that was a murder that took place in D.C. It was not an unfortunate incident. And those comments are effing disrespectful,” he said.

Disputes over immigrants

The Charles Dickens novel “A Tale of Two Cities” featured prominently as both parties sparred over whether the Trump administration’s immigration policies should be celebrated or denigrated.

“The Democrats see it as the worst of times, but I see it really as the best of times,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who argued poor control of the border by the Biden administration allowed unvetted migrants to enter the country.

“That was the worst of times. Let me go to the best of times — most secure border I’ve seen in my 22 years in Congress, and I’ve dealt with this for a long time. … The daily crossings are 95 percent down from the prior administration. That’s the best of times — zero catch and release.”

Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.) riffed on McCaul’s framing.

“This is ‘A Tale of Two Cities.’ Under Secretary Noem, the Trump administration — you’re going after the worst of the worst criminals. … The problem is 70 percent of the people you’ve arrested have no criminal record. You’re going after noncriminal immigrants,” he said.

Noem defended the Trump administration’s immigration policies, once again describing high immigration levels as an “invasion” and listing the risks of immigration as the greatest threat facing the country.

“Mr. Chairman, what keeps me up at night is that we don’t necessarily know all of the people that are in this country, who they are and what their intentions are,” Noem said.

“What keeps me up at night is the individuals that are in this country that wish to do us harm.”

Kent also attacked migrants when asked by Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) about those who “openly reject assimilation.”

“We simply won’t have a country anymore as we know it,” Kent said.

Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) accused Noem of “fueling bigotry” with her comments and by taking illegal actions to broadly target immigrants.

“Today’s hearing is supposed to be about worldwide threats. But Madam Secretary, under your watch, the threat is coming from inside the building,” said McIver, who is currently facing what she has described as politicized charges after she was arrested outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. 

“Because when DHS, the department charged with keeping Americans safe, is called breaking the law, lying to the American public, systematically dismantling oversight, fueling bigotry and targeting vulnerable communities, trust is broken.”

Noem was confronted a the hearing by guests invited by Democrats who were intended to highlight the risk of Trump administration immigration policies.

Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.), for example, invited a South Korean man who served in the U.S. military but who was deported back to South Korea under President Trump. He also invited the veteran spouse of a woman who is a legal permanent resident who remains in detention facing deportation after writing two bad checks 10 years ago.

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) also accused the Trump administration of violating the law by arresting those showing up in immigration court for their asylum hearings, noting that those who seek the protection have legal status.

And Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas) said immigration officers were conducting racial profiling.

“You can’t just snatch somebody walking into a coffee shop because of the color of their skin,” she said. “There’s no probable cause for that.”

FEMA and Noem’s early exit

Noem left the “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland” hearing early, telling the committee she had to depart to attend a meeting of the FEMA Council as the Trump administration seeks to diminish the role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Thompson later moved to subpoena Noem to reappear before the panel, saying she shirked her duties and may have even lied about needing to attend the FEMA meeting.

“I understand on good information that the FEMA council meeting was canceled so there was no need for her to go,” Thompson said, referencing the meeting to determine the future of the agency.

“She was a liar with no respect for congressional oversight.”

Noem left the witness table a few minutes after noon for the FEMA Council meeting that was slated to begin at 1 p.m., which The Hill independently verified had been canceled.

Thompson mentioned Noem also spent time in the committee’s anteroom after leaving the witness table, suggesting she did not immediately head to her next meeting.

“The Secretary found out at 12:26 p.m. that the meeting was cancelled,” a DHS spokesperson said.

Republicans voted down Thompson’s motion to again call her before the committee.

Noem had said earlier in the hearing that she would be heading to the FEMA Council meeting.

“I have to actually leave this hearing early, because the FEMA Review Council is giving their report today on suggestions for changes to FEMA. I have to co-chair it, but I will be leaving soon to have to go do that,” Noem said.

A struggle to answer questions over antifa 

Michael Glasheen, a longtime FBI agent serving as operations director of the National Security Branch, struggled to answer questions from Thompson about why the Trump administration had determined antifa was a domestic terror organization.

“We share the same view. When you look at the data right now, you look at the domestic terrorist threat that we’re facing right now, what I see from my position, is that’s the most immediate violent threat that we’re facing on the domestic side,” Glasheen said.

Thompson asked where the group was headquartered and then when Glasheen hesitated asked, “Where in the United States does antifa exist?”

“We are building out the infrastructure right now,” Glasheen said.

“What does that mean?” Thompson asked. “We’re trying to get information. You said antifa is a terrorist organization. Tell us, as a committee, how did you come to that? Do they exist? How many members do they have in the United States as of right now?”

“Well, that’s very fluid,” Glasheen said.

“Sir, I just want you to tell us — if you said antifa is the No. 1 domestic terrorist organization operating in the United States, I just need to know where they are … how many people have you identified with the FBI that antifa is made of,” Thompson asked.

“Well the investigations are active,” Glasheen responded.

Thompson suggested the FBI had failed to establish why those opposed to fascism deserved to be labeled as domestic terrorists.

“Sir, you wouldn’t come to this committee and say something you can’t prove. I know you wouldn’t do that,” Thompson said, “but you did.”