Rep. Jamie Raskin and Sen. Dick Durbin fired off a letter to the Department of Justice on Monday seeking criminal charges against Kristi Noem, accusing the former Homeland Security Secretary of lying under oath during congressional hearings earlier this month.
The top Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees allege Noem's testimony violated criminal statutes carrying up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
The letter targets four categories of statements Noem made during her appearances, covering whether DHS follows court orders, Corey Lewandowski's role in DHS contracts, whether immigration enforcement has detained U.S. citizens, and the contracting process for a $220 million ad campaign.
A DHS spokesperson wasted no time responding, telling Fox News Digital: "Any claim that Secretary Noem committed perjury is categorically FALSE."
Durbin and Raskin laid out their case in characteristically dramatic fashion:
"After months of evading our Committees' requests to testify in routine oversight hearings, Secretary Noem made a series of demonstrably false statements in a brazen attempt to undermine critical congressional oversight of the Department of Homeland Security."
Their letter further claimed that "a number of her statements appear to violate criminal statutes prohibiting perjury and knowingly making false statements to Congress."
The most politically charged allegation involves a $220 million advertising campaign. Noem testified that career DHS officials selected the advertising contractors and that the process was competitive. She also stated that President Trump knew about the ad campaign. Trump contradicted that claim in an interview with Reuters.
Even Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican, pressed Noem on this point during the hearings. Kennedy told Noem his research showed the contracts were not competitively bid and alleged that the group receiving most of the money had direct ties to former DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin and her husband, Benjamin Yoho. "It's something we have to defend. I'm on the Appropriations Committee. I mean, my research shows that you did not bid them out."
Durbin and Raskin acknowledged that Noem may have been truthful about Trump's knowledge of the campaign, but argued the competitive bidding claim was indefensible:
"Even if Secretary Noem was the one telling the truth about the President's knowledge, and she may well have been, she flatly misrepresented that the contract had been subject to a competitive bid."
Benjamin Yoho, who runs the company connected to the advertising contracts and is married to McLaughlin, denied using his wife to secure the work. He wrote a letter to Senate Democrats on Friday pushing back against Kennedy's characterization:
"This statement is factually incorrect, and I respectfully request that you have your colleague correct the official record and issue an apology."
The contracting question is legitimate. How DHS spends $220 million of taxpayer money matters, and congressional oversight of that spending is appropriate regardless of which party controls the executive branch. But that question exists independently of the Democrats' political theater.
Noem is already out at DHS. Trump announced earlier this month that she would no longer serve as secretary and would instead take on a new role as special envoy to the Shield of the Americas. Sen. Markwayne Mullin has been nominated to take over the department, with a confirmation hearing expected this week.
So why pursue a criminal referral against someone who has already been removed from the position?
Durbin and Raskin answered that question themselves, perhaps more honestly than they intended:
"While we have low expectations that you will pursue this matter given your partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice, we note that the statute of limitations for perjury and for knowingly and willfully making false statements to Congress is five years."
Read that again. They admit they don't expect the DOJ to act. They're building a file for the future, planting a five-year clock, and generating headlines in the meantime. This is not a pursuit of justice. It is an investment in future political ammunition.
Democrats have perfected the art of the criminal referral that goes nowhere but dominates a news cycle. The referral itself becomes the story. The accusation travels the world while the rebuttal barely makes it out the door. Whether DOJ ever opens a file is almost beside the point. The letter exists. It can be cited. It can be referenced in campaign ads and cable news segments for years.
None of this means the underlying questions about DHS contracting practices are unimportant. Taxpayers deserve to know whether a $220 million ad campaign went through proper channels. That is the kind of oversight Congress should conduct seriously, with subpoenas, audits, and inspector general reviews.
But a criminal referral wrapped in press-release rhetoric, sent to a DOJ they openly describe as partisan, about a secretary who has already been replaced? That is not oversight. That is content creation.
The five-year clock is ticking. Durbin and Raskin made sure everyone knew it.