Impeachment Resolution Charges DHS Secretary Noem with Obstructing Congress, Misusing Federal Funds, and Directing ICE Misconduct

This resolution lays out articles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Lynn Arnold Noem for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors. The core of the document charges her with three major areas of misconduct: willfully obstructing Congressional oversight, illegally withholding congressionally mandated funds, and directing widespread violations of federal law and constitutional rights by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The Lockout: Shutting Down Congressional Oversight

Article I focuses on what the resolution calls a "Willful Refusal to Comply with Congressional Oversight Law." Congress passed Public Law 118-47 specifically stating that no DHS funds could be used to prevent a Member of Congress from entering a DHS detention facility for oversight, and that no prior notice could be required. Think of it like a surprise inspection right written into law. However, the resolution alleges that on May 13, 2025, Secretary Noem implemented a new policy requiring Members of Congress to give at least seven calendar days' advance notice for visits. The resolution cites multiple instances where Representatives, including those from Texas, Colorado, and Washington, were denied entry to facilities like the El Paso Service Processing Center and the Northwest ICE Processing Center based on this new, non-compliant policy.

The Frozen Funds: Violating the Impoundment Control Act

Article II charges Secretary Noem with violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This is the law that prevents the Executive Branch from simply refusing to spend money that Congress has legally appropriated. According to the resolution, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that under Noem’s supervision, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) illegally withheld funds designated for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program and the Shelter and Services Program. For organizations that rely on these funds to help people in crisis—like local charities or community shelters—this delay or refusal to release obligated money can mean the difference between keeping the lights on and turning people away. The resolution notes that when the GAO investigated, Noem’s team allegedly refused to cooperate.

Militarized Policing and Civil Rights Violations

Beyond the procedural violations, the resolution levels severe charges regarding the alleged conduct of ICE under Secretary Noem’s direction. It claims she directed ICE to engage in widespread misconduct that violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the First and Fourth Amendments, and the due process rights of American citizens. The allegations include directing ICE to make widespread warrantless arrests, forgo due process, and use violence against U.S. citizens and lawful residents.

Specific incidents detailed are alarming and hit close to home. In Chicago, the resolution cites a September 2025 warrantless raid where agents allegedly used military-style tactics, detained U.S. citizens and veterans in zip ties, and left apartments damaged with items stolen. Even more concerning are the allegations of excessive force, including agents allegedly using tear gas on children during an October 2025 Halloween parade and on peaceful crowds near a grocery store, exposing police officers and elderly adults to the gas. The resolution also cites an incident where an agent allegedly shot and killed a U.S. citizen driver, followed by Secretary Noem publicly claiming the officer was in danger, despite video evidence allegedly suggesting otherwise.

The Friend Zone: Contract Funneling

Finally, the resolution establishes findings that Secretary Noem violated federal ethics rules (5 CFR part 2635) by misusing her position to funnel taxpayer dollars to businesses owned by her friends. It alleges she used the declared national emergency at the southern border to bypass the standard competitive bidding process. This allowed her to award multi-million dollar contracts to politically connected advertising agencies. For example, the resolution cites a $200 million ICE agent recruiting campaign contract awarded to a company formed just days before the award. That company then allegedly subcontracted with a firm run by the husband of a senior DHS official and close friend of the Secretary. This kind of alleged no-bid contracting raises serious questions about whether taxpayer money was spent to benefit the public or to benefit political insiders.