Noem testifies before House committee after refusing to apologize for labeling Good, Pretti as domestic terrorists
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is sworn in as she testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is testifying on Capitol Hill for the second day in a row on Wednesday — this time before the House Judiciary Committee, where she is again being grilled on the agency’s immigration enforcement operations under her leadership.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, began the hearing by attacking Noem over her handling of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Minneapolis and the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal law enforcement earlier this year.
He said that after Good and Pretti’s deaths in January, Noem launched a “smear campaign” against them as she made comments that labeled their conduct as “domestic terrorism.”
“You’ve provided no evidence to back up your defamatory lie against either of these American citizens,” Raskin said.
Raskin also insinuated that America is less safe because of her leadership of the Department of Homeland Security.
“You’ve turned our government against our people, and you’ve turned our people against our government,” Raskin said. “But the people are winning today, although we know we must continue to wake up every day like the people of Minneapolis, and go out and fight for constitutional freedom.”
In her opening statement, Noem called Raskin’s comments lies, and said that they should be working together for families who lost loved ones to those who were illegally in the U.S.
When Noem appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, she faced intense questions — both from Republicans and Democrats — over her handling of ICE efforts in Minneapolis and her leadership of the agency in general. Many Democrats questioned Noem about the fatal shootings of Good and Pretti and her handling of the fallout.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Noem refused to apologize for or retract her characterization of Pretti following the shooting, when she called his actions “the definition of domestic terrorism” without evidence.
Noem drew criticism for insinuating Pretti, an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs hospital, wanted to “massacre” law enforcement before the evidence and investigation was complete. Pretti was licensed to carry a handgun. Video from multiple angles showed that Pretti did not try to draw his gun from his waistband before or during the scuffle with federal agents.
Noem said Good “weaponized her vehicle,” which she said was an “act of domestic terrorism” without evidence. DHS said that agents in the interaction with Good acted in self-defense in shooting her; local and state officials have disputed federal officials’ claims.
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis on Tuesday attacked Noem in a roughly 10-minute tirade, during which he called DHS a “disaster” and “failure” under her leadership.
Her testimony comes as much of DHS — from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Transportation Security Administration to the Coast Guard — remains shut down amid a standoff between Democrats and Republicans over how to reform ICE. Democrats have said they will fund the department only if changes are made to the agency following the deaths of Good and Pretti.
U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to members of the media as he leaves the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Top congressional leaders — comprising the “Gang of 8” — did not receive a briefing from the administration before the U.S. strike in Venezuela began, multiple sources told ABC News Saturday morning.
Per one source, the Department of Defense notified congressional staff after the operation started.
Weeks ago, President Donald Trump indicated he wouldn’t brief lawmakers in advance of any land operations in Venezuela because he was worried they would “leak.”
Early congressional reaction largely split along party lines.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio worked the phones Saturday morning to shore up support among Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Notably, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee initially seemed critical of the action being taken without authorization by Congress.
“I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Lee posted on X.
But later, Lee followed up his post saying he had spoken by phone with Rubio about and was now comfortable with the administration’s authority to take action.
“Just got off the phone with @SecRubio He informed me that Nicolás Maduro has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack Thank you, @SecRubio, for keeping me apprised,” Lee wrote.
He also said that Rubio told him he anticipates “no further action in Venezuela now that Maduro is in U.S. custody.”
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, echoed Lee’s comments after saying he, too, had spoken with Rubio.
“Nicolas Maduro wasn’t just an illegitimate dictator; he also ran a vast drug-trafficking operation. That’s why he was indicted in U.S. court nearly six years ago for drug trafficking and narco-terrorism,” Cotton posted on X. “I just spoke to @SecRubio, who confirmed that Maduro is in U.S. custody and will face justice for his crimes against our citizens. I commend President Trump and our brave troops and law-enforcement officers for this incredible operation.”
Later, speaking to Fox News, Cotton said, “Congress doesn’t need to be notified ever time the executive branch is making an arrest. And that’s exactly what happened this morning in Venezuela, and now Maduro is going to come to the United States, and he’s going to face justice.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement he has spoken to Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in “the last several hours” — calling the military action in Venezuela “decisive” and a “justified operation that will protect American lives.”
Johnson said the Trump administration is working to schedule briefings next week when Congress returns to Washington after the holiday break.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said in a statement that he had spoken with Rubio as well and argued Trump’s actions were undertaken as part of “the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant.”
“President Trump’s decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States,” Thune said.
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, countered that Rubio had denied regime change was the administration’s goal.
“Maduro is an illegitimate ruler, but I have seen no evidence that his presidency poses a threat that would justify military action without Congressional authorization, nor have I heard a strategy for the day after and how we will prevent Venezuela from descending into chaos,” he said in a statement. “Secretary Rubio repeatedly denied to Congress that the Administration intended to force regime change in Venezuela. The Administration must immediately brief Congress on its plan to ensure stability in the region and its legal justification for this decision.”
In a statement Saturday morning, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, one of the Senate’s most vocal advocates for congressional war authorizations, issued a scathing statement on Trump’s actions in Venezuela and called for Congress to take up his resolution that would block the use of the U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.
“Where will this go next? Will the President deploy our troops to protect Iranian protesters? To enforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza To battle terrorists in Nigeria To seize Greenland or the Panama Canal? To suppress Americans peacefully assembling to protest his policies?” Kaine said.
“Trump has threatened to do all this and more and sees no need to seek legal authorization from people’s elected legislature before putting servicemembers at risk,” he said.
Kaine, along with California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and co-sponsor GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, introduced a war powers resolution last month to block the use of the U.S. military to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.
That legislation is ready to be called up for a vote. The Senate returns to Washington next week on Monday, while the House returns on Tuesday.
Last month, Republicans defeated two Democratic war powers resolutions that attempted to reign in the president’s military actions in the Caribbean and East Pacific.
The first measure, H. Con. Res. 61, would direct the president to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force for such purpose has been enacted.
That resolution was authored by the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks. A vote failed on Dec. 17 by a count of 210-216, with two Republicans voting in favor and two Democrats opposed to the measure.
“This action is also a violation of international law and further undermines America’s global standing,” Meeks, D-N.Y., stated Saturday following the operation. “Congress must reassert its constitutional role before this escalation leads to greater instability, chaos, and unnecessary risk to American lives.”
A separate war powers resolution, H. Con. Res. 64 — championed by Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern and written to address hostilities with Venezuela, narrowly failed by a vote of 211-213, with three Republicans voting in favor — at odds with the rest of the House Republican Conference. One moderate Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, voted to defeat the measure alongside Republicans.
On Saturday, McGovern argued the strikes are illegal.
“Without authorization from Congress, and with the vast majority of Americans opposed to military action, Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela,” he posted on X.
While congressional Republicans overwhelmingly expressed support for the Trump administration’s operation to capture Maduro, at least three House Republicans put out critical statements of the action.
GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky posted on X: “If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law.”
Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska posted on X, in part, “My main concern is now Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan. Freedom and rule of law were defended last night, but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.”
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia posted, in part, “If U.S. military action and regime change in Venezuela was really about saving American lives from deadly drugs then why hasn’t the Trump admin taken action against Mexican cartels?”
She added, “And if prosecuting narco terrorists is a high priority then why did President Trump pardon the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez who was convicted and sentenced for 45 years for trafficking hundreds of tons of cocaine into America Ironically cocaine is the same drug that Venezuela primarily traffics into the U.S.
Greene continued, “Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going. This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”
(WASHINGTON) — Department of Justice officials, citing privilege, did not disclose details on the legal advice given to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the decision to continue the deportation of more than 100 Venezuelans to El Salvador in March.
The declarations filed in court Friday are a response to a contempt inquiry initiated by U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who is determining whether Noem or anyone else should be referred for potential contempt prosecution.
The court filings Friday were submitted after DOJ lawyers said in a filing last week that Noem directed the deportation flights to continue despite Boasberg’s order to return the planes to the U.S. as he heard a legal challenge to the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport the Venezuelans, whom the Trump administration accused of being gang members.
In her declaration, Noem confirmed she made the decision to continue the transfer of the detainees after receiving legal advice from DOJ leadership and from Joseph Mazarra, the acting general counsel of DHS.
In the filings Friday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, a DOJ official in March who is now a U.S. circuit judge, declined to provide details on the “privileged” legal advice they gave to Noem.
“DOJ has not authorized me to disclose privileged information in this declaration,” Bove said.
Mazarra, in his declaration, said that he analyzed Judge Boasberg’s order that sought to block the deportations and then provided Noem with legal advice.
“DHS had removed these terrorists from the U.S. before this Court issued any order (or oral statement regarding their removal),” Mazarra wrote in the filing Friday.
In a separate filing, DOJ attorneys said it would be “prejudicial and constitutionally improper” to compel testimony from the officials who submitted declarations in advance of a referral for prosecution.
“[The] Court has all the information it needs to make a referral if it believes one to be justified, and further factual inquiry by the Court would raise constitutional and privilege concerns,” the DOJ attorneys stated.
In response to the declarations, Lee Gelernt, the lead attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has challenged the AEA deportations in court, told ABC News “the Trump administration is again refusing to cooperate with a federal court.”
In March, the Trump administration invoked the AEA — an 18th-century wartime authority used to remove noncitizens with little-to-no due process — to deport two planeloads of alleged migrant gang members to the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a “hybrid criminal state” that is invading the United States.
In a March 15 court hearing, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order and ordered that the planes carrying the detainees be turned around, but Justice Department attorneys have said his oral instructions directing the flight to be returned were defective, and the deportations proceeded as planned.
Boasberg’s earlier finding that the Trump administration likely acted in contempt was halted for months after an appeals court issued an emergency stay. A federal appeals court last month declined to reinstate Boasberg’s original order, but the ruling allowed him to move forward with his fact-finding inquiry.
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) looks on as senators speak to reporters following a Senate Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on December 09, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate on Thursday failed to advance two competing health care proposals aimed at addressing a spike in costs that are expected for tens of millions of Americans who receive enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Both plans, one put forward by Democrats and the other championed by Republicans, failed to get the 60 votes needed.
The Republicans’ bill failed to advance by a vote of 51-48 with Republican Sen. Rand Paul as the only Republican to vote against it.
The Democrats’ bill also failed to advance by a vote of 51-48. Republican Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan and Josh Hawley crossed the aisle to join all Democrats in supporting it.
Now, lawmakers will have only a matter of days remaining to address the expiration of the enhanced tax credits, and there’s little indication that any sort of breakthrough is on the horizon.
Here’s what the plans entailed.
Democratic plan: 3-year extension of expiring enhanced tax credits
The Democratic plan proposed a three-year extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that are otherwise set to expire on Jan. 1. The enhanced subsidies were originally put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic.
During remarks on the floor Wednesday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the Democratic plan the “only realistic path left” to address the looming premium spike.
“We have 21 days until Jan. 1. After that, people’s health care bills will start going through the roof. Double, triple, even more,” Schumer said. “There is only one way to avoid all of this. The only realistic path left is what Democrats are proposing — a clean direct extension of this urgent tax credit.”
Even though Democrats are in the minority, they got a vote on their proposal as part of a deal struck by a small group of Senate moderates to reopen the federal government after a 43-day shutdown, which centered around Democrats’ efforts to address the expiring tax credits.
“What we need to do is prevent premiums from skyrocketing and only our bill does it is the last train out of the station,” Schumer said.
But Majority Leader John Thune made clear Wednesday that Republicans would not support the Democratic plan.
Thune called the Democratic proposal a “partisan messaging exercise” and said that Democrats’ claim that their plan would lower health care costs represented a “tour of fantasy land.”
Republicans have for months been saying that the premium subsidies require reform. Without changes, Republicans say, the enhanced subsidies create opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse and have driven up the overall cost of premiums.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the Senate Democrats’ proposal would add nearly $83 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade. CBO also estimates that enacting the Democrats’ legislation would increase the number of people with health insurance by 8.5 million people by 2029.
Pointing to the cost of extending the subsidies, Thune said Democrats ought to put forward a program that makes modifications to the program.
“That’s not what they did … No changes,” Thune said. “Just continue to run up the cost. Run up the cost in the individual marketplace like that — but have the American taxpayers pay for it and then go tell people that you’re trying to keep their premiums down,” Thune said. “This does nothing, nothing, to lower the cost of health insurance.”
Republican plan: Do away with the enhanced tax credits and create HSAs
Republicans offered an “alternative” plan on the Senate floor on Thursday.
The Republican proposal, championed by Senate Health Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, would do away with the enhanced tax credits and instead take the extra money from those tax credits and put it into health savings accounts for those who purchase bronze-level or “catastrophic” plans on the ACA exchanges. Republicans say this will help Americans pay for out-of-pocket costs.
Under the plan, individuals earning less than 700% of the federal poverty level would receive $1,000 in HSA funding for those between age 18 and 49 and $1,500 for those age 50-64. Republicans say these funds could be used to help cover the higher deductibles on lower cost plans.
Republicans said that their plan will reduce premiums through cost-sharing reductions and tout that the plan stops payments to insurance companies. Thune called it a “very different business model” than what Democrats proposed.
“The question is do you want the government deciding this, ordo you want to put this power and these resources in the hands of the American people?” Thune said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “American taxpayers. Patients. That’ what we’re about.”
Schumer had called it “dead on arrival.”
“I want to be very clear about what this Republican bill represents, junk insurance,” Schumer said. “Let me tell my Republican colleagues: it is dead on arrival. The proposal does nothing to bring down sky-high premiums; it doesn’t extend the ACA premiums by a single day. Instead, Republicans want to send people $80 dollars and pretend that is going to fix everything.” Schumer said.
Cassidy called Schumer’s categorization of his plan as a “junk plan” “so ironic.”
“These are Obamacare plans. These are the plans they put in place, except that when they did the plans, they’ve got $6,000 deductibles, or $7,500 deductibles. We addressed that deductible. We make these plans better,” Cassidy said. “We Republicans are trying to make it better. We want money in your pocket for your out-of-pocket [costs], and they want you to front the whole thing.”
Democrats also took umbrage with provisions in the GOP bill that prevent funds from being used for abortions. Schumer, on the Senate floor, called it a “poison pill.”
Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate appropriations committee, was asked if she saw any way that Democrats could support the bill.
“Not with the choice issues in it, where they have made it that women cannot get access to an abortion through their plan,” Murray said. “I don’t see any way that this helps the people that are being hurt right now by the tax credits going away.”
