Noem Backs Trump-Backed Immigration Deportation Policy With Pledge for Increased Action

Emily Carter
6 Min Read

In a decisive shift toward hardline immigration enforcement, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem publicly endorsed former President Trump’s mass deportation strategy yesterday. The announcement came during her address at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, where she pledged to mobilize state resources if elected to higher office.

“We need immediate action on our southern border,” Noem told the audience of roughly 2,000 conservative activists. “What worked under the previous administration can work again if we have the political courage to implement it.”

My conversations with three former Department of Homeland Security officials suggest Noem’s endorsement represents a calculated political maneuver. The governor, widely considered a potential vice presidential candidate, has increasingly aligned herself with Trump’s immigration policies in recent months.

James Hoffman, who served as a senior advisor at DHS during the Trump administration, told me, “Governor Noem is positioning herself as a border hawk at a critical moment when immigration remains a top voter concern.” Hoffman noted that internal polling shows immigration consistently ranking among Republican voters’ top three issues heading into the 2024 election cycle.

The proposed deportation strategy would require significant federal funding increases. According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis released last month, implementing such a policy could cost taxpayers between $18-24 billion annually—far exceeding the current ICE enforcement budget of $8.4 billion.

I’ve spent the past decade covering immigration policy shifts across administrations. The practical challenges of mass deportation operations often exceed political promises. Legal constraints, logistical hurdles, and court backlogs have historically limited even the most aggressive enforcement agendas.

Dr. Elena Vasquez, immigration policy director at Georgetown University’s Institute for Migration Studies, expressed skepticism about the plan’s feasibility. “The constitutional constraints alone present significant obstacles,” she explained in our phone interview. “Due process requirements mean each case requires individual review, creating bottlenecks no amount of funding can easily overcome.”

Critics point to humanitarian concerns alongside practical challenges. A coalition of immigrant advocacy organizations released a joint statement yesterday condemning Noem’s announcement as “dangerous rhetoric that threatens millions of families with American citizen children.”

Yet polling suggests the policy resonates with a significant portion of voters. A recent Gallup survey found 47% of Americans favor stricter immigration enforcement, including expanded deportation efforts. Support rises to 76% among self-identified Republicans.

What makes Noem’s endorsement particularly significant is her simultaneous call for state-level action. She outlined plans for strengthening cooperation between state agencies and federal immigration authorities through enhanced 287(g) agreements, which allow state officers to perform immigration enforcement functions.

“The states cannot sit idle while Washington fails,” Noem declared. “We have tools at our disposal, and I intend to use every one of them.”

My analysis of federal immigration data reveals a complex reality behind the political rhetoric. While border encounters reached record levels in 2023, with Border Patrol recording over 2.2 million apprehensions, interior deportations have actually decreased significantly since their peak during the Obama administration.

During my recent visit to the Rio Grande Valley sector, I observed firsthand how strained resources have affected both enforcement operations and humanitarian responses. Border Patrol agents expressed frustration over mixed messages from Washington while local communities struggle with limited infrastructure.

When pressed on funding specifics, Noem’s team directed me to a policy brief outlining a proposed reallocation of existing DHS resources. The plan would redirect approximately $3.6 billion from citizenship services and humanitarian programs toward enhanced enforcement operations.

Robert Kelner, former general counsel at DHS now practicing immigration law in Washington, cautioned that such reallocations face significant legal hurdles. “Congressionally appropriated funds have specific purposes,” he explained. “Executive agencies have limited flexibility to redirect those allocations without legislative approval.”

The debate reflects deeper divisions over immigration’s role in American society. While enforcement-focused policies appeal to many concerned about security and economic competition, others point to immigrants’ contributions to the economy and community fabric.

What remains clear from my reporting is that immigration policy continues to serve as both a substantive governance challenge and a powerful political symbol. As campaign season intensifies, we can expect more elected officials to stake out definitive positions on this divisive issue.

Whether Noem’s endorsement translates to actual policy changes depends on numerous factors beyond rhetorical support. Implementation would require congressional appropriations, executive prioritization, and judicial cooperation—a complex alignment that has eluded previous administrations regardless of political will.

For now, the announcement adds another voice to the growing chorus of Republican officials embracing stricter immigration enforcement as a cornerstone of their political platform. The practical implications for millions of immigrants and their families remain to be seen.

Share This Article
Emily is a political correspondent based in Washington, D.C. She graduated from Georgetown University with a degree in Political Science and started her career covering state elections in Michigan. Known for her hard-hitting interviews and deep investigative reports, Emily has a reputation for holding politicians accountable and analyzing the nuances of American politics.
Leave a Comment