Either President Donald Trump isn’t telling the truth, or Kristi Noem seems to have committed perjury.
There’s not really a third alternative, at this point.
Trump on Thursday could have just relieved Noem of her duties, as he did. But he didn’t stop at that; he also repeatedly appeared to deny portions of her testimony — which she gave under oath — to the Senate this week.
Specifically, Trump took issue with her claims that he was aware of and had approved a controversial $220 million Department of Homeland Security ad campaign that prominently featured Noem.
(The ad campaign is controversial not just because of the dollar amount and how much it promoted Noem personally, but also because it resulted in a lucrative subcontract for the husband of a now-former DHS spokesperson, according to a report by ProPublica.)
Noem repeatedly signaled in her testimony that Trump was aware of and even approved of the ad campaign. Trump is telling a very different story.
“I never knew anything about it,” he told Reuters on Thursday, shortly before Noem was ousted.
“I didn’t know about it,” Trump added later in an interview with NBC News.
But how directly does that contradict Noem’s testimony? And who appears to have told the truth?
It’s worth noting that even if Noem did commit perjury, it’s rare to see someone prosecuted for lying to Congress. Some Democrats are already beating this drum on Noem, but Republicans would have to be on board to even make a referral to the Department of Justice, which would ultimately decide whether to pursue charges.
Still, Democrats could pursue the matter later if and when they control more levers of government.
Let’s break down what we know.
Noem faced questions on this topic Tuesday from both Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California.
She was at times evasive when they tried to pin down exactly what Trump had approved. But Noem clearly agreed that Trump knew about the ad campaign and even the dollar amount, and that he consented to them.
When Kennedy asked her if Trump asked her to run the ads, Noem said, “We had that conversation, yes …”
Perhaps sensing a little wiggle room in Noem’s answer, Kennedy asked again whether “you’re testifying that President Trump approved this ahead of time.”
“We had conversations about making sure that we were telling people…” Noem began.
But Kennedy cut her off, seemingly sensing that she was avoiding a direct answer.
“No, ma’am. I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt,” Kennedy said. “But the president approved, ahead of time, you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?”
Finally, Noem answered directly: “Yes, sir.”
“We went through the legal processes, did it correctly, worked with (the Office of Management and Budget) –” she added.
Kennedy again, though, seemed to believe this was somewhat evasive — that she said “yes” but then quickly pivoted to the legal process rather than Trump’s role.
So he twice asked her if Trump knew she was going to do the ads.
Noem twice replied, simply, “Yes.”
Kennedy ultimately said it was “hard for me to believe” that Trump signed off on the amount.
But then Schiff began asking about the subject. And suddenly Noem was more evasive again. Rather than answer the question, she talked about the importance of the ads’ message.
When asked how she knew Trump approved of spending $220 million, Noem replied: “We had conversations and worked with OMB to make sure that the funding was there.”
Schiff kept trying. He asked whether she had “conversations directly with the president where he approved this $220 million ad campaign” and whether “the president approved this expenditure.” Both times, Noem talked around the questions.
What to make of this?
It’s somewhat normal for politicians to give evasive answers. It’s why they often don’t respond with yesses or nos but instead put things in their own words.
But it is strange how the answers to these questions weren’t always, “Yes.” If Trump was fully on board with all of this and knew about the details, that would seem to be something Noem would want to scream from the mountaintops.
Still, due to Kennedy’s persistence, Noem ultimately claimed Trump was not only aware of the ads and approved of them, but also consented to the dollar amount.
That’s virtually impossible to square with Trump’s flat denial that he “never knew anything about it.”
Noem’s best defense here might be that it’s actually Trump who isn’t telling the truth.
After all, as the Atlantic noted late Thursday, this isn’t the first time Noem has said Trump was aware of and approved of the ads. She also said so back in February 2025, shortly after these conversations would have taken place.
Appearing at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Noem recalled detailed conversations with Trump about the ad campaign.
She said Trump cited the “beautiful ads you did about South Dakota,” and said, “I want you to do those for the border.”
She also said the president told her that she should appear in the ads, rather than Trump. She even said he urged her to include specific content: “I want you to thank me for closing the border.”
“They will run throughout the world, letting America and the world know it has a new leader,” Trump said, according to Noem.
It’s certainly possible Noem wasn’t telling the truth back then. But her story was detailed. And as a newly christened DHS secretary, it would seem risky to come in and immediately invent a conversation you had with Trump in a public event.
Whatever the case, who lied remains an important question — Noem is still going to be a government employee. Trump said she will continue serving in government as special envoy for “The Shield of the Americas,” a policy initiative focused on the Western Hemisphere.
So who’s telling the truth? The outgoing DHS secretary with the credibility problem? Or the president with the credibility problem? Stay tuned.
