by Steve Benen | Jan 14, 2026 | Congress, Maddowblog, Politics
After almost a year of scandals, crises and abuses, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s public standing has predictably deteriorated. The latest Quinnipiac University poll, for example, found that 52% of Americans disapprove of the South Dakota Republican’s job performance, while only 36% approve. Both numbers are slightly worse than when Quinnipiac asked the same question last summer.
The DHS secretary is finding plenty of detractors on Capitol Hill, too.
Last week, Democratic Rep. Robin Kelly of Illinois announced plans to file articles of impeachment against Noem. This week, she followed through — along with quite a few of her colleagues. HuffPost reported:
With the support of nearly 70 colleagues, Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) on Wednesday introduced three articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
The first accuses Noem of obstruction of Congress, for denying lawmakers access to Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities to provide oversight. The second accuses her of violating public trust, for directing DHS agents to arrest people without warrants and for ignoring due process. The third accuses her of self-dealing, for secretly steering a federal contract to a firm run by her friend.
“Secretary Noem has called my impeachment effort ‘silly,’” Kelly told reporters. “I want to tell her right now, ‘Secretary Noem, you have violated your oath of office, and there will be consequences. I am watching you. Members of Congress are watching you. The American people, most importantly, are watching you.’”
Rep. Kelly: Secretary Noem, you have violated your oath of office. And there will be consequences.— FactPost (@factpostnews.bsky.social) 2026-01-14T16:58:52.736519087Z
Those who don’t follow Capitol Hill at a granular level may not realize this, but every year, members introduce impeachment
by Steve Benen | Jan 14, 2026 | Maddowblog, Politics
Almost immediately after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed an unarmed woman in Minneapolis, the Trump administration wasted little time settling on a narrative that it expected Americans to believe: The victim, a 37-year-old mother named Renee Nicole Good, was the villain of the story.
As far as the White House and its allies were concerned, Good had committed “an act of domestic terrorism,” as part of a “coordinated” conspiratorial effort, hatched by people “being trained” to use vehicles as weapons.
The unbelievable claims were discredited by video evidence and by local officials. The president and his team peddled the lines anyway, hoping not only to smear the victim but also to convince Americans not to believe their lying eyes.
There’s some evidence to suggest those efforts haven’t worked, at least not yet.
The latest Economist/YouGov poll, for example, found that the vast majority of Americans are familiar with what transpired in Minneapolis, and by a 20-point margin, people saw the shooting as unjustified (50% vs. 30%). The same survey found that a 56% majority of Americans believe that both state and federal officials should be responsible for investigating the shooting, which is the opposite of the Trump administration’s position.
Just as notably, the Economist/YouGov poll found that a 47% plurality said ICE is making Americans less safe, while a 46% plurality said ICE should be abolished altogether.
This is not the only available data on the subject. Consider the latest Quinnipiac poll:
Days after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot a Minneapolis woman in an incident that was captured on video, voters 82 – 18 percent say they have seen
by Jason Johnson | Jan 14, 2026 | Opinion, Politics
Every Democratic candidate in 2026, from dog catcher to state senate to Congress, should make abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, a part of their platform.
Masked ICE agents, who’ve been emboldened by President Donald Trump, have been rampaging through the streets of the United States: snatching people — including U.S. citizens — and harassing whole communities. And now we’ve recoiled in horror at the sight of ICE agent Jonathan Ross killing Minneapolis mother Renee Nicole Good. Her killing represents a seminal moment in American politics, and if Democrats can’t seize this moment politically and morally, then they shouldn’t even call themselves an opposition party.
The biggest swings during midterm elections happen when there is a clear message on where voters should focus their anger.
The biggest political swings during midterm elections happen when there is an obvious bad guy or at least a clear message on where voters should focus their anger. From Ken Starr’s witch hunt against President Bill Clinton to President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” stunt in Iraq to the 2010 “shellacking” that followed President Barack Obama’s poor rollout of the Affordable Care Act, voters are often driven by anger at a particular issue and the president responsible for it.
Trump isn’t popular, and it’s with his blessing that ICE is doing what it’s doing, providing Democrats the perfect combination of an unpopular president and a big government issue people hate.
A recent poll from The Economist/YouGov conducted between Jan. 9 and Jan. 12 shows 46% of Americans support abolishing ICE — not reforming ICE, not improving ICE but actually abolishing ICE. To put that in context: More Americans want to abolish
by Steve Benen | Jan 13, 2026 | Maddowblog, Politics
In early December, prominent voices in the “Make America Healthy Again” movement took an expected political step: The activists, many of whom are allies of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., publicly urged Donald Trump to fire Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin.
In a petition circulated online, MAHA proponents made a straightforward case: The EPA chief has prioritized corporate interests “over the well-being of American families and children.”
A month later, their case against Zeldin got even stronger. The New York Times reported:
For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency has calculated the health benefits of reducing air pollution, using the cost estimates of avoided asthma attacks and premature deaths to justify clean-air rules.
Not anymore. Under President Trump, the E.P.A. plans to stop tallying gains from the health benefits caused by curbing two of the most widespread deadly air pollutants, fine particulate matter and ozone, when regulating industry, according to internal agency emails and documents reviewed by The New York Times.
The Times’ report, based on EPA materials that have not been independently reviewed by MS NOW, added that the change represents “a seismic shift” that’s plainly at odds with the reason the EPA exists.
Zeldin slammed the newspaper’s report as “dishonest,” but the Natural Resources Defense Council’s John Walke, a clean air advocate and former EPA lawyer, shredded Zeldin’s response to the Times’ article.
The obvious significance to developments like these is the effect the administration’s environmental policies are likely to have, both on public health and the planet. But there’s a political dimension to this too: Team Trump purportedly wants to “make America healthy again,” and it wants to make things
by Steve Benen | Jan 12, 2026 | Maddowblog, Politics
After an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Good in Minneapolis, a great many Republican officials scrambled to defend the shooter and blame the victim. Some in the party, however, went much further — and took aim at dissent itself.
Republican Rep. Roger Williams of Texas, for example, appeared on NewsNation just two days after Good’s death and told viewers, “People need to quit demonstrating, quit yelling at law enforcement, challenging law enforcement, and begin to get civil. And until we do that, I guess we’re going to have it this way. And the people that are staying in their homes or doing the right thing need to be protected.”
Rep. Roger Williams: “People need to quit demonstrating, quit yelling at law enforcement, challenging law enforcement, and begin to get civil.”— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-09T13:17:42.314Z
As a rule, “people need to quit demonstrating” is not the sort of statement American leaders make — demonstrations are part of the fabric that helps define who we are as a people — but Williams wasn’t alone.
A fellow Texan, GOP Rep. Wesley Hunt, also told Newsmax last week, “The bottom line is this: When a federal officer gives you instructions, you abide by them and then you get to keep your life.”
On Sunday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sat down with CNN’s Jake Tapper and asked, “The question is, why are we arguing with a president who’s working to keep people safe?”
It was a rhetorical question, but the answer is that (a) the Trump-ordered ICE raids are not, in fact, keeping people safe; and (b) in a free country, we’re still allowed to
by Steve Benen | Jan 12, 2026 | Maddowblog, Politics
In the recent past, we might have expected to see foreign critics referring to the United States as a “predator” nation, a label many Americans would have seen as insulting.
But last week, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appeared on Fox Business, where the scandal-plagued congressman described the U.S. “the dominant predator” in the Western Hemisphere — and he meant it as a compliment.
The larger question, however, is whether Donald Trump shares his perspective.
Trump: “We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not because if we don’t it, Russia or China will take over Greenland. If we don’t do it the easy way we’re gonna do it the hard way.”— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-09T21:10:21.379Z
At a White House event on Friday, ostensibly about domestic oil companies and Venezuela, the president took the opportunity to share some fresh thoughts about his crusade to acquire Greenland, including his insistence that his administration intends to “do something” on the Arctic island, “whether they like it or not.”
The Republican added that he likes Denmark, but “The fact that they had a boat land [on Greenland] 500 years ago doesn’t mean they own the land. I’m sure we had lots of boats go there also.” (As Trump probably ought to know, the United States didn’t exist 500 years ago.)
My favorite moment was when the president said, “If we don’t take Greenland, you’re going to have Russia or China as your next-door neighbor. That’s not going to happen.”
Trump: “If we don’t take Greenland, you’re gonna have Russia or China as your next door neighbor. That’s not going to happen.”— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-09T20:54:28.747Z
It was
