Kristi Noem Pledges to Refocus DHS, Rejects Anti-Disinformation Efforts as Secretary Nominee

2025-01-17

In a bold declaration before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor and nominee for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary, vowed to steer the agency away from combating disinformation and misinformation. Instead, she emphasized a return to the department’s core mission: protecting critical infrastructure and enhancing cybersecurity.

Noem’s testimony signals a significant shift in priorities for DHS, aligning with the broader conservative critique that federal efforts to address false information have overstepped boundaries and infringed on free speech. Her remarks also underscore the incoming Trump administration’s intent to dismantle initiatives perceived as partisan or overreaching, particularly in areas like election security and COVID-19.

A Shift in Focus: Smaller, Nimble, and Mission-Driven

Noem criticized the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a key DHS component, for straying from its original mandate. “CISA’s gotten far off-mission,” she stated. “They’re using their resources in ways that were never intended. The misinformation and disinformation that they have stuck their toe into and meddled with should be refocused back onto what their job is.”

She pledged to streamline CISA, making it “smaller, more nimble,” and refocus its efforts on safeguarding critical infrastructure. This stance reflects a growing sentiment among conservatives that federal agencies have overreached in their attempts to regulate online content, particularly on social media platforms.

DHS’s Retreat from Disinformation Efforts

Under the Biden administration, DHS had launched several initiatives to combat disinformation, including the controversial Disinformation Governance Board, which was disbanded amid widespread criticism. The department also scaled back efforts to flag false election-related claims, following accusations that such actions amounted to censorship.

Noem’s commitment to further distance DHS from these efforts aligns with the Trump administration’s broader agenda. During his first term, Trump clashed with DHS over its election security fact-checks, ultimately firing then-CISA director Chris Krebs.

Conservative Backing and Broader Implications

Noem’s testimony resonated with GOP senators, who have long argued that federal efforts to combat disinformation infringe on free speech. Senators like Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, and Ron Johnson have been vocal critics of CISA’s expanded role, with Paul even suggesting the agency’s elimination.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent allegations that the Biden administration pressured the company to remove COVID-19 posts—some of which he claimed were true—have further fueled the debate. This has led to a broader discussion about the role of social media platforms in moderating content and the extent to which government agencies should be involved.

What Undercode Say:

Kristi Noem’s nomination and her testimony before the Senate highlight a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the role of government in combating disinformation. Her pledge to refocus DHS on its core mission reflects a broader conservative push to limit federal overreach, particularly in areas perceived as infringing on free speech.

However, this shift raises critical questions about the balance between safeguarding national security and preserving civil liberties. While Noem’s emphasis on streamlining CISA and refocusing its efforts may appeal to those wary of government overreach, it also risks undermining efforts to address the growing threat of disinformation, which has proven to be a significant challenge in areas like election security and public health.

The disbandment of the Disinformation Governance Board and the scaling back of CISA’s role in flagging false information mark a significant departure from the Biden administration’s approach. Critics argue that these moves could leave the U.S. more vulnerable to foreign interference and the spread of harmful misinformation.

Moreover, Noem’s testimony underscores the deeply polarized nature of the disinformation debate. While conservatives view federal efforts as an infringement on free speech, progressives argue that such initiatives are essential to protecting democracy and public health. This divide is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, particularly as social media platforms continue to grapple with their role in moderating content.

In the long term, Noem’s proposed changes could reshape the landscape of U.S. cybersecurity and disinformation efforts. A smaller, more focused CISA may be better equipped to address critical infrastructure threats, but it may also lack the resources and authority to effectively combat disinformation campaigns.

As the Trump administration prepares to take office, the direction of DHS under Noem’s leadership will be closely watched. Her commitment to refocusing the agency’s priorities reflects a broader ideological shift, but it also raises important questions about the future of U.S. efforts to combat disinformation and protect national security.

Ultimately, the debate over DHS’s role in addressing disinformation is about more than just policy—it’s about the values and priorities that will guide the U.S. in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. Noem’s nomination represents a clear choice to prioritize limited government and free speech, but it also highlights the challenges of navigating the fine line between security and liberty in the digital age.