By XAMXAM
WASHINGTON — Congressional hearings often blur into ritual: prepared statements, partisan skirmishes, carefully worded evasions. But on this occasion, the closing moments of a Homeland Security oversight hearing cut through the familiar noise. What remained was a stark accusation, delivered slowly and deliberately: that the secretary of homeland security had not told the truth under oath.
Representative Bennie Thompson, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, framed his remarks not as a policy disagreement, but as a constitutional reckoning. He began where the hearing itself had begun — with the oath. The oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Without that promise, he argued, Congress cannot perform its most basic function: oversight.
For more than three hours, Thompson said, Secretary Kristi Noem had repeatedly invoked fidelity to the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the rule of law. Yet when measured against court rulings and documented actions by the Department of Homeland Security, those assurances, he contended, collapsed.
The first fault line was due process. The Fifth Amendment does not carve exceptions for immigration status. Federal courts have affirmed this principle for decades: no person may be deprived of liberty without meaningful legal process. Thompson cited judicial findings that DHS, under Noem’s leadership, asserted the authority to detain or remove individuals — including residents of the United States — without adequate access to courts or counsel. That position, he said, stands in direct conflict with constitutional requirements.
Then came compliance with court orders. Thompson pointed to a unanimous Supreme Court decision directing the federal government to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man removed from the country despite a court order barring his deportation. Facilitate, Thompson emphasized, is not optional language. It is a command.
Yet during the hearing, Noem testified that Garcia would never return to the United States. If accurate, Thompson argued, that statement does not merely reflect policy resistance. It reflects defiance of the nation’s highest court.
The most emotionally charged portion of Thompson’s remarks focused on the deportation of U.S. citizen children. DHS has publicly maintained that parents consented to their children leaving the country alongside deported adults. Thompson said no such evidence had been produced. Instead, court filings and attorneys involved in the cases describe families misled about their rights, denied access to lawyers or to the children’s fathers, and removed before judges could intervene — including cases involving children with serious medical conditions.
“These are not abstractions,” Thompson said in substance, if not in exact words. “These are irreversible acts.”
From there, he widened the lens beyond immigration enforcement to institutional stability. DHS’s proposed budget, he noted, prioritizes border operations while cutting deeply into cybersecurity, emergency preparedness, and aviation security. Even before Congress could debate those cuts, DHS had already overseen workforce reductions at agencies responsible for disaster response and cyber defense.
Despite repeated requests, the department has not provided Congress with basic information: how many staff remain at FEMA, how many cyber defenders are still employed at CISA, or whether formal operational plans exist. At a time of intensifying climate disasters and persistent cyber threats from foreign adversaries, Thompson warned, the absence of transparency itself becomes a national security risk.
What made Thompson’s closing statement unusual was not its sharpness, but its restraint. He did not allege motives. He did not accuse Noem of personal malice. Instead, he returned again and again to contradictions — between sworn testimony and court rulings, between public statements and documented actions, between constitutional promises and administrative behavior.
When he said, plainly, “You did not tell the truth to this committee,” it was not rhetorical flourish. It was an evidentiary conclusion.
Oversight hearings are not trials. No gavel falls, no sentence is imposed. Yet their legitimacy rests on a shared understanding that testimony under oath carries consequences — legal, political, or moral. If sworn statements can diverge from reality without consequence, then hearings devolve into theater and accountability erodes quietly, precedent by precedent.
Thompson closed with a warning that felt less partisan than institutional. Power, once untethered from truth, has a habit of expanding. Constitutional guardrails do not vanish all at once; they weaken when violations are normalized, explained away, or ignored.
The question left hanging in the hearing room was not simply whether a cabinet secretary misled Congress. It was whether Congress still possesses the will — and the means — to enforce the meaning of an oath.
In that sense, the hearing was not about immigration, budgets, or even one official. It was about whether truth before Congress still matters in American governance.
