Impeachment Storm Looms Over Noem as ICE Fallout Rocks Congress

Paul Riverbank, 1/26/2026ICE shootings spark impeachment threat for Noem, fueling Congress’s fiercest DHS clash in years.

On Sunday morning, House Democrats closed ranks in a hastily arranged conference call with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison. The mood could have cut glass. Walz, his voice tight, didn’t bother with euphemisms: “ICE is illegally occupying my state,” he insisted. Ellison, a lawyer by nature and temperament, recounted how he’d secured a court order for all Department of Homeland Security evidence—no one wanted a repeat of past mistakes, evidence vanishing before a judge could weigh in. He left the group with a simple assurance: he’d be in court Monday.

Hardly anyone on the call seemed interested in a slow approach. Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz, rarely one to hedge, delivered a blunt warning: Impeachment proceedings were not off the table if Secretary Noem stayed put. Even some who would normally counsel patience seemed restless. Rep. Bennie Thompson—veteran member, not known for hyperbole—piled on, pointing to frustrations from moderates who, until now, resisted joining the impeachment train.

What’s striking is the way anxiety about Pretti’s death—and that of Renee Good, whose case has run parallel in the headlines—has snowballed. This isn’t merely a tragic one-off; it’s become a catch-basin for simmering anger over DHS, ICE tactics, and, let’s not overlook it, their budgetary choices. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries tried to keep colleagues disciplined—“please no leaks from this call”—but the winds had already shifted. In his own words: “There’s a battle on four fronts: legislative, appropriations, legal, moral.”

The rhetoric sharpened overnight. Take Senator Jacky Rosen of Nevada, generally considered pragmatic and not one for dramatic gestures; she barely hedged her view: “Noem’s failure at DHS, especially the abuses we’re seeing now, is a disgrace. There’s no trust left.” Rosen’s statement followed those from progressives, but she lent a mainstream weight that previous critiques arguably lacked.

Notably, Senator Ed Markey, often an early voice in these matters, was unequivocal: “Congress must move to impeach Noem. She’s enabling ICE agents to act like vigilantes in our streets and it’s unacceptable.” The fact that moderates and progressives are marching in lockstep, at least for now, is no small thing.

The momentum for impeachment is, by most accounts, swelling. Representative Laura Gillen from New York, herself until recently hesitant to cut off DHS funding, reversed course: “Noem’s actions undermined local police, fueling this violence. Impeachment can’t wait.” That was a public pivot, and it didn’t go unnoticed in leadership circles.

Much of the present standoff can be traced to a video released late last week. DHS maintains Pretti was armed and threatened agents. However, Associated Press footage appeared to show him holding a cellphone, not a gun. A weapon was recovered from the scene, but whether it was raised or simply present remains the subject of heated dispute. Such discrepancies have supplied fresh ammunition—rhetorically and politically—to Noem’s critics.

Secretary Noem hasn’t blinked. She insists the agents involved acted out of necessity, framing Pretti as intent on causing maximum harm. Noem’s push for cooperation between state and federal authorities hasn’t softened, either, even as local resistance stiffens.

Republicans, for their part, are threading a needle. Senators Thom Tillis and Bill Cassidy have called for a comprehensive investigation. They’re urging caution, presumably aware that public anxiety over immigration and law enforcement is a live wire their party might one day be forced to grab.

Yet, this is no longer narrowly a law enforcement debate; it’s expanded, gathering into itself broader anxieties about border security, DHS spending (including, some allege, on luxury items for departmental brass), and who, ultimately, sets the terms for policing in American communities.

There's a new tension around government spending bills now, too. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that Democrats will withhold votes from any appropriations act that continues DHS funding under present leadership. That threat, not merely rhetorical, could mean a partial shutdown if no compromise materializes.

Surveys indicate that even as Democrats lean toward impeachment, many voters, unsettled by immigration headlines, support aggressive enforcement. The risk to both parties is real: Democrats must tread carefully or face a damaging backlash; Republicans, if seen as obstructionist, could lose ground with centrists demanding accountability.

In short, the Noem controversy has moved beyond bureaucracy. It’s now a test of political courage, and perhaps more crucially, political judgment. With tempers flaring behind closed doors and public outrage simmering, Washington finds itself at a breaking point where procedural missteps could carry hefty costs for years to come. One certainty remains: The battle over Kristi Noem has become the latest, and perhaps sharpest, inflection point in an already polarized capital.

A pair of fatal shootings in Minneapolis—Alex Pretti’s death at the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents being the latest—has shifted the gears of political discourse in Washington. You’ll find a rising sense of unease, to put it mildly, in the corridors of Congress, where calls for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s resignation—if not outright impeachment—are echoing with growing urgency. Nobody can claim to have all the facts laid out neatly; the threads are tangled and the fallout is impossible to contain within local boundaries.On Sunday morning, House Democrats closed ranks in a hastily arranged conference call with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison. The mood could have cut glass. Walz, his voice tight, didn’t bother with euphemisms: “ICE is illegally occupying my state,” he insisted. Ellison, a lawyer by nature and temperament, recounted how he’d secured a court order for all Department of Homeland Security evidence—no one wanted a repeat of past mistakes, evidence vanishing before a judge could weigh in. He left the group with a simple assurance: he’d be in court Monday.Hardly anyone on the call seemed interested in a slow approach. Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz, rarely one to hedge, delivered a blunt warning: Impeachment proceedings were not off the table if Secretary Noem stayed put. Even some who would normally counsel patience seemed restless. Rep. Bennie Thompson—veteran member, not known for hyperbole—piled on, pointing to frustrations from moderates who, until now, resisted joining the impeachment train.What’s striking is the way anxiety about Pretti’s death—and that of Renee Good, whose case has run parallel in the headlines—has snowballed. This isn’t merely a tragic one-off; it’s become a catch-basin for simmering anger over DHS, ICE tactics, and, let’s not overlook it, their budgetary choices. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries tried to keep colleagues disciplined—“please no leaks from this call”—but the winds had already shifted. In his own words: “There’s a battle on four fronts: legislative, appropriations, legal, moral.”The rhetoric sharpened overnight. Take Senator Jacky Rosen of Nevada, generally considered pragmatic and not one for dramatic gestures; she barely hedged her view: “Noem’s failure at DHS, especially the abuses we’re seeing now, is a disgrace. There’s no trust left.” Rosen’s statement followed those from progressives, but she lent a mainstream weight that previous critiques arguably lacked.Notably, Senator Ed Markey, often an early voice in these matters, was unequivocal: “Congress must move to impeach Noem. She’s enabling ICE agents to act like vigilantes in our streets and it’s unacceptable.” The fact that moderates and progressives are marching in lockstep, at least for now, is no small thing.The momentum for impeachment is, by most accounts, swelling. Representative Laura Gillen from New York, herself until recently hesitant to cut off DHS funding, reversed course: “Noem’s actions undermined local police, fueling this violence. Impeachment can’t wait.” That was a public pivot, and it didn’t go unnoticed in leadership circles.Much of the present standoff can be traced to a video released late last week. DHS maintains Pretti was armed and threatened agents. However, Associated Press footage appeared to show him holding a cellphone, not a gun. A weapon was recovered from the scene, but whether it was raised or simply present remains the subject of heated dispute. Such discrepancies have supplied fresh ammunition—rhetorically and politically—to Noem’s critics.Secretary Noem hasn’t blinked. She insists the agents involved acted out of necessity, framing Pretti as intent on causing maximum harm. Noem’s push for cooperation between state and federal authorities hasn’t softened, either, even as local resistance stiffens.Republicans, for their part, are threading a needle. Senators Thom Tillis and Bill Cassidy have called for a comprehensive investigation. They’re urging caution, presumably aware that public anxiety over immigration and law enforcement is a live wire their party might one day be forced to grab.Yet, this is no longer narrowly a law enforcement debate; it’s expanded, gathering into itself broader anxieties about border security, DHS spending (including, some allege, on luxury items for departmental brass), and who, ultimately, sets the terms for policing in American communities.There's a new tension around government spending bills now, too. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that Democrats will withhold votes from any appropriations act that continues DHS funding under present leadership. That threat, not merely rhetorical, could mean a partial shutdown if no compromise materializes.Surveys indicate that even as Democrats lean toward impeachment, many voters, unsettled by immigration headlines, support aggressive enforcement. The risk to both parties is real: Democrats must tread carefully or face a damaging backlash; Republicans, if seen as obstructionist, could lose ground with centrists demanding accountability.In short, the Noem controversy has moved beyond bureaucracy. It’s now a test of political courage, and perhaps more crucially, political judgment. With tempers flaring behind closed doors and public outrage simmering, Washington finds itself at a breaking point where procedural missteps could carry hefty costs for years to come. One certainty remains: The battle over Kristi Noem has become the latest, and perhaps sharpest, inflection point in an already polarized capital.