The growing unpopularity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement seeped into Congress this week, as the department head sat before two congressional committees, where she failed to provide adequate answers regarding her agency’s slow emergency response and the unchecked violence of her agency’s enforcement officers.
US Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) questioned DHS Secretary Kristi Noem during Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, and spoke with COURIER shortly after it concluded. The following is an auto-generated transcript of that interview that has been edited for clarity.
Camaron Stevenson
I’d like to to open it up to Rep. Goldman to ask about some of the line of questioning that he went through with [Noem] in the short time that he had. Can tell us some things that stuck out to you about how she was responding or the the non-answers that she was offering.
Rep. Dan Goldman
Yeah, well there were a lot of non-answers all day long. That was her tactic — to both filibuster, and avoid, and basically trying not to make news. The opposite of Pam Bondi, I think, that we had a couple weeks ago.
I was really the only Democrat that honed in on some of the election security issues. There is so much material to work with with her that that my colleagues very capably hit on a lot of other things, but I really wanted to hone on that because I am really scared to be quite honest that Donald Trump with his enablers like Christine Noem, and Steven Miller, Pam Bondi, Tulsi Gabbard, are going to mess with the November election and that you we’ve seen sort of an escalating degree of talk about different ways of it.
Steve Bannon saying that there have to be immigration on ICE agents at polling places which is flatout illegal. yesterday in the Senate Judiciary hearing a couple of the senators asked her about it and about that idea and she said right now we have no plans to do it. And one of the things that I said I started off by quoting her comment at the press conference a couple weeks ago where she said that “we’re being proactive to make sure that the right people vote and elect the right people,” something to that effect. And she was saying she’s taking proactive measures.
And I said, “okay, well, what are the proactive measures?” And she goes through, oh well, this is what our authorities are and this is what we do, yada yada, filibustering. But then I moved on to the the fact of that I knew she was going to pivot. Let’s put it this way. I knew she was going to pivot when I started asking her about ICE agents at polling places to what she said to Sen. Padilla yesterday in a snarky way about oh well do you want illegal you you only care if you want illegal immigrants to vote.
So I knew she was going there and and I intentionally went there so that I could attack this bogus notion of voter fraud and this concept that the Republicans are using both in terms of election security but also as it relates to the SAVE Act, that there’s a massive problem of undocumented immigrants voting in our elections and that we need to take extreme measures in order to stop that. And I called out the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, that has done a lot of work on voter fraud and trying to beef it up and essentially boiled it down to that there been 10 documented cases of undocumented immigrants voting in American elections out of two billion votes in the last like 40 years.
At the it got to the point where she said, “Well, do you think those 10 people should have voted?” And I was like, “Yeah, that’s the point. Those 10 people would have made a difference.”
My goal in a lot of these hearings to sort of give a little bit of background is not only to tackle some of the outrageous conduct that’s going on, but also to be looking ahead and anticipating where I see the administration going. because a lot of times if you if we are able to elaborate on their plan, when their plan happened, people realize that their excuses and their explanations are total bogus and that it helps to undermine the justification they’re going to use for trying to mess with the election.
CS
That’s something I wanted to ask about because, like you said Sen. Padilla yesterday had asked her a similar question and she accused — she basically accused Democrats of projecting of having a guilty conscience. They’re asking because they’re afraid it will impede with their attempt to to interfere with the election results, which there’s no basis in fact. There’s no basis in reality for that claim, But it was it was breadcrumb she was leaving so that she could use that later.
But you were able to to catch on to that and and follow up and kind of get answers on what she was actually doing, to call it out. What do you think that says about the administration that their intent in going into these hearings isn’t to give straight answers? I think the only time I heard straight answers was when Republicans were asking very pointed questions, a lot of softballs. But other than that, she clearly wasn’t looking to give you direct answers. She was looking to provide breadcrumbs and provide justification for future actions.
DG
Their strategy is essentially that they know that they have to do the bare minimum of testimony and testifying in front of Congress. And they want to make it as uneventful and painless as possible. They have no actual interest in defending meaningfully and substantively defending their actions. They refuse to make any concessions or apologies. The fact that Christine Gnome still refuses to say that Renee Good and Alex Prey are not domestic terrorists is an absolute abomination.
And it tells you everything you need to know is that they’re unwilling to even acknowledge when they are in the wrong and it then just eliminates all credibility for everything that they’re doing. the the thing I think they learned from Pam Bandi’s hearing is that the more that you engage, the worse it goes for you. And so she was very much just trying to get through it, have nothing then and be done with it and then move on and continue with her lawlessness and her unconstitutional immigration drag net that’s just terrorizing communities all around the country that is targeting people who many people who are actually trying to lawfully immigrate here. It is the opposite of the worst of the worst. All that stuff that she just doesn’t want to talk about any of it. She just wants to do it and get through it.
Part of the reason I think for her and for Bondi to some extent is they’re not actively and really running the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. Steven Miller is really driving everything. And in Homeland Security, Corey Luwendowski is handling a lot of the day-to-day. And in the Department of Justice, Todd Blanch is doing it, the deputy attorney general. And so these these secretaries in this these two particular cases are really just kind of the public face of the department. and in some respects, one of the things I called her out on is she has no idea what authority she has or does. doesn’t have to do many of the things that she’s talking about.
CS
People were asking about Cory Luwendowski. He’s a former lobbyist, he was a campaign manager for a little bit. No real experience at Homeland Security. But he is hired by the federal government and by all accounts it seems like he is running the show, like you said, similar to Stephen Miller.
Now for those two, they prefer to operate in the shadows. They don’t want the transparency of having to answer questions before Congress. They, you know, they send their figureheads so that they can continue doing what they do. Is there any opportunity to get them to testify before Congress? You have Steven Miller at a hearing, or Cory Luwendowski or Todd Blanche, or is it relegated to just the secretaries?
DG
Well, part of the problem that we have being in the minority is that we cannot compel any witnesses in the minority to come in for a hearing. That has to be done by the majority, which is the Republicans. And they have no interest in doing that as we’ve seen throughout this Congress where they’re just laying over, rolling over for Donald Trump and whatever he wants to do.
If we do take back the majority in November, which I’m very optimistic that we will, we will be able to haul them in. and if they won’t come in, then we will subpoena them. then we will go through that whole process. But we get to control the hearings when we’re in the majority. and I guarantee you that, you know, if I am leading those investigations in a way that I hope to be, I will certainly be hauling all of those folks in.
CS
A lot of what they’re doing is you’ve seen it firsthand in your district. I reported a little bit last year on 26 Federal Plaza, the ICE field office that’s being used as the detention center and just the horrific conditions that people were forced to endure while they were held there. Could you talk a little bit about just what you’ve seen firsthand and what you’ve been able to do to look out for those people who are being abducted and held?
DG
A lot of what they’re doing is you’ve seen it firsthand in your district. I reported a little bit last year on 26 Federal Plaza, the ICE field office that’s being used as the detention center and just the horrific conditions that people were forced to endure while they were held there. Could you talk a little bit about just what you’ve seen firsthand and what you’ve been able to do to look out for those people who are being abducted and held?
You’re exactly right, Camaron, that the conditions at that 26 Federal Plaza processing center, which they turned into a detention center, were horrific.
We saw video of it, we had a number of different witnesses come talk to us about what the conditions were. No showers in there for up to three weeks, not even space to lie down on a little thin mat with a thin tinfoil blanket, one toilet for everyone to use out in the open — just horrific, horrific conditions.
So a couple of different things happened. One, I tried to do oversight and go in there as I’m allowed to do by statute. They did not let me do that without advance notice of seven days. Obviously, when you have advanced notice of seven days, they can prepare and the surprise nature of it is is really important. So, I went back and looked at the statute and came up with a legal theory for why we could file a lawsuit as individual members of Congress, not as Congress as a whole, which is the only way that the minority can file lawsuits.
We won that lawsuit. And we’ve won it a couple times now. So I’ve been able to go unannounced and conduct oversight in that detention facility, almost 10 times now. I go at least once a week, sometimes more. And they have cleaned things up.
There are never more than 10 people in there, and they’re usually not there for very long. The condition, I mean, it’s still the same conditions, but it’s not overcrowded. They have food. They’re adhering to basic needs and necessities that you would want. And that is really the point of oversight.
The first time I came, I actually came an hour early and they had four cleaning people there, not expecting me until an hour later. We gave them a little notice in that case because we didn’t want any problems. I’ve then gone back a number of times unannounced, completely unannounced. But they had four cleaning people, and that’s really why oversight is important. When they don’t know when we’re coming and they know that we’re going to expose whatever the conditions are, they clean things up.
That’s a small part of it. I’ve introduced a bunch of legislation to remove the masks from ICE to prevent them from arresting people who are showing up for court appearances, lawful pathways to immigrate here. I introduced a bill a couple months ago shortly after those two awful murders in Minneapolis that would get rid of qualified immunity for ICE and CBP officers. So even though the FBI will not hold them accountable, individuals can hold them accountable in civil court.
I know, just from my experience of working with law enforcement agents, that that will have a big impact. But the thing that we’re focused on the most right now is this triage center that we’re running out of our district office, which is across the street from 26 Federal Plaza, where we’re working with clergy, other faith-based groups, advocacy groups, and lawyers to essentially create a wraparound triage center where the the court watchers and advocates will bring families of people who’ve been arrested to our office.
We will check them in and get them processed so that we can deal directly with ice on their behalf. We make sure that they’re settled with food and water and everything that they would need. We’ve got toys and games for the kids when they come over and then they’re interviewed by lawyers who are working out of there and they’re filing habeas petitions on the day of which is really necessary, because if you wait longer than that they often will move them out of the state and if they move them out of the state, then you can’t file a habeas petition. And at this point, that’s the only way they’re going to get bail.
But through this process over the last few months, we’ve been able to release 18 people because of the rapid reaction. We’ve brought medicine to a number of people. We’ve been able to get personal belongings and really just be advocates on their behalf with ICE. And because it’s a congressional office, they’re more receptive to our outreach. So, in responding to what’s going on, that’s I think a significant part of what we’re doing. But certainly, we are looking for every possible way of stopping this and these hearings with Kristi Noem, etc. are very important as part of that.
CS
I mean, setting up that triage center, that’s that’s very impressive. Opening up your office, getting the right people there —the lawyers, and just being able to file those documents —especially since a lot of the people who are being targeted no longer trust going to court, because as you mentioned, there are ICE agents waiting at the courthouse to arrest people who are trying to go through the process the proper way.
Do you feel like this triage center has helped regain some of the trust that’s been lost in the federal government?
DG
I hope so. I think so.
That’s part of the reason why we are working so closely with outside advocates because, you’re exactly right, to many people, it doesn’t matter whether you’re an immigrant or an American, you don’t necessarily understand the difference between a federal government official who works for ICE and a federal government official who works for Congress. It’s just the federal government, right?
So when you are living in a world where you’re understandably — and justifiably — really terrified of the federal government, it’s hard to think, “oh, let’s go to this federal government office voluntarily and and do that.”
So part of why this has been successful is because of the close relationships that we’ve built with many of the outside advocacy groups, immigration advocacy groups, but also a lot of faith-based groups who of of course have the trust of the community and more and more they are trusting them and now they’re learning, okay we can trust the congressman staff and and the congressman to help us, but that has been a process that was difficult at the beginning and is I think better understood right now.
CS
That’s one of the things I was wondering — if it was me, and I knew ICE agents were waiting in a government office,I I wouldn’t ask which office. I just wouldn’t go. But I’m sure seeing people coming through, making it in, making it out, has built some trust in that community.
Do you know if any other members of Congress have implemented something similar? Because your district isn’t the only one this is happening in.
DG
We have been talking to a number of other colleagues, and our staff have been talking, and we certainly are working on spreading the idea and the best practices.
It is very helpful, obviously, that our district office is across the street from where they have to be, and where they’re picked up, and where they’re processed. So New York City is a little bit different than a lot of other places. But I have spoken to a number of my colleagues about it and we are trying to spread the word.
The other thing that I found to be actually quite effective is when I go just to observe court, I’ll go and — II went a couple days ago and there were a dozen ICE officers outside fully masked, a number of them not even showing ID still. One guy had sunglasses on.
When I go there I always make a point of going up and talking to them and asking them where their ID is and why they’re wearing a mask and whether they have body cameras or not, that kind of thing. And generally, the court watchers have said that when I’m there, or other members of Congress are there, they generally do not arrest anyone. And so, in that way, we are somewhat of a deterrent as well.
We’ve had a bit of a rotation with some of my New York colleagues. I go, as I said, once-twice a week, and others have been going periodically as well, just to just to make sure they know we’re watching.
CS
So, even just having a presence there is often enough to dissuade them from snatching people?
DG
Yeah.
CS
That’s it’s a seemingly small effort that sounds like it has a lot of chance for success.
DG
Yeah. This is, Camaron, to me the civil rights issue of our era. It is just unconscionable what they’re doing. You don’t have to be an immigrant to feel it. You don’t have to be a naturalized citizen, or from an immigrant family, or whatever.
I mean, my grandmother immigrated here from Russia, went through Ellis Island. Everybody has a story like that, because that’s what this country is about. If there’s ever any way that I can do something to stop this terror, because it really is — it is a terror operation — I’m doing it.
I went with one family at 6:30 in the morning to accompany them to their check-in because they were very nervous, they weren’t going to go to their check-in. And once you don’t show up, then you’re here illegally. Your legal claim is dropped and you’re in the shadows. So, it’s a real catch-22 that everybody has: Do I go there and risk being arrested and whisked away, or do I not and then go underground in the shadows.
It’s a terrible, terrible catch-22 that nobody should be put in. But certainly, if your viewers can think of anything else that that I can do, I’m all for it. We’re working around the clock on this.
CS
My last question is is on just that: what what can be done, next steps? Because ICE’s illegal actions didn’t start when Trump retook the White House.
ICE was acting the same way during his first term. After after George Floyd was killed, ICE agents were sent out, they were abducting people, throwing them in unmarked vehicles, beating people, all of these things were happening and people were calling to abolish ICE.
Politicians were saying, “We’re going to abolish ICE.” And then nothing happened. And and what we’re seeing now is essentially an extension of that.
What momentum is there for there to actually be meaningful change in either abolishing ICE, prosecuting ICE agents, or generally holding this administration accountable, should Democrats retake Congress or a Democratic president come in in 2028?
DG
Actually, I’m probably a fairly good example of the evolution. I did not support the calls previously to abolish ICE, even though I was horrified at some of their activity and their conduct. At the time, I thought it was more of the “few bad apples” variety, not an institutional structural thing.
Now, I was one of the first to say that ICE needs to be abolished, because it is irredeemable at this point. They have hired so many people who are unqualified, who are unvetted, they are untrained. They have instilled this militarized approach to civil immigration enforcement. They are breaking the law on a daily basis, attacking pro peaceful protesters. The culture is rotten, and in my view, it just cannot be fixed.
Certainly, we need some immigration enforcement of some variety. But I’m on the Homeland Security Committee, and there are a number of different agencies that do bits and pieces of immigration law processing or enforcement. I think we need to rethink the entire structure of our immigration law as well as immigration enforcement, and how we structure the agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.
Which is something I know we will start working on. It will be very unlikely for anything to change until 2029 when we take back the presidency. We also will have then the prosecutors in the Department of Justice, who will do their jobs unlike the ones now. But I assure you, there will be real transparency and accountability coming up in January of 2027, when we take back the House. And that’s going to be a huge part of this, because we also need to understand how deep the rot is so that we can reform it properly.
