Kristi Noem Denies Defying Court Order on National Television, Calls Judges "Activist"

On November 30, 2025, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Kristen Welker and publicly denied defying a federal court order—despite the Justice Department having admitted in court filings just four days earlier that she personally made the decision to continue deportation flights in defiance of Judge James Boasberg’s order.

When Welker asked directly, “Did you defy the court’s order?” Noem answered flatly: “No, Kristen.” She then pivoted to attacking the judiciary, stating: “We are facing activist judges who are using radical decisions that have no standing and no grounds, to try to stop what President Trump is doing to protect America and to keep us safe.”

Noem asserted her authority over deportation operations, declaring: “The decisions that are made on deportations, where flights go, and when they go are my decision at the Department of Homeland Security.” She committed to “continue to do the right thing and ensure that dangerous criminals are removed.”

Context: DOJ Admission Four Days Earlier

On November 26, 2025, the Justice Department revealed in a court filing that Noem was the Trump administration official who personally authorized continuing deportation flights to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT mega-prison despite Judge Boasberg’s March 15 order to halt them and return the detainees to the United States.

According to the DOJ filing, court officials conveyed Boasberg’s oral order to administration officials, who then communicated it up the chain of command. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove provided legal advice to DHS General Counsel Joseph Mazzara, who conveyed that guidance to Secretary Noem. After receiving this information, Noem made the final decision that detainees who had been removed from the United States before the court’s order could be transferred to El Salvador’s custody.

Criminal Contempt Proceedings

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg resumed his criminal contempt inquiry in November 2025 after an appeals court cleared the way for him to proceed. In April 2025, Boasberg had found “probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt” for displaying “willful disregard” of his order.

Judge Boasberg ordered written declarations from all government officials involved in the March 2025 deportation decision, with a deadline of December 5, 2025. The judge must determine three factors to establish contempt: (1) whether the court order was “clear and reasonably specific,” (2) whether “the defendant violated the order,” and (3) whether “the violation was willful.”

Legal experts note that Boasberg is investigating whether to refer Noem and potentially other officials for criminal prosecution. Contempt hearings were scheduled to begin as soon as December 1, 2025, with plaintiffs seeking to put at least nine past or present Trump administration officials on the witness stand.

The March 2025 Court Defiance

The case centers on the Trump administration’s deportation of over 150 alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, to El Salvador’s CECOT (Terrorism Confinement Center) prison in March 2025 under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. On March 15, 2025, Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order directing that deportation planes be turned around and the detainees returned to the United States.

According to court documents and whistleblower accounts, the administration deliberately rushed planes into international airspace to evade the court’s jurisdiction. Despite the judge’s explicit order—“Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States”—Noem authorized completing the deportations.

Noem’s CECOT Prison Visit

Eleven days after defying the court order, on March 26, 2025, Noem personally toured El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison where the deported Venezuelans were being held. During the tour, she characterized the notorious facility as “one of the tools in our toolkit” and posted on social media: “President Trump and I have a clear message to criminal illegal aliens: LEAVE NOW. If you do not leave, we will hunt you down, arrest you, and you could end up in this El Salvadorian prison.”

The administration has not identified who was deported or provided evidence that they are gang members. Relatives of some deportees have categorically denied any gang affiliation.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

Noem’s public denial of established facts while facing contempt proceedings represents an extraordinary challenge to judicial authority. Government ethics experts and constitutional scholars have expressed alarm at a Cabinet secretary openly contradicting her own department’s court filings while simultaneously attacking the legitimacy of federal judges.

The DOJ itself argued in its November 26 filing that the legal advice given to Noem “did not violate the court’s order, much less constitute contempt,” claiming the written order did not mandate returning detainees already removed. However, Judge Boasberg’s April finding of probable cause for “willful disregard” suggests the court views the matter differently.

Charles Tiefer, a leading authority on federal law and former member of the Commission on Wartime Contracting, has called for investigations by the DHS inspector general and Congress into the administration’s actions.

Pattern of Court Defiance

This incident is part of a broader pattern of Trump administration defiance of court orders. In August 2025, Judge Boasberg had already found probable cause of contempt for the administration’s deliberate defiance. A whistleblower reported that DOJ official Emil Bove told attorneys they may need to tell courts “f*** you” regarding such orders.

Noem’s characterization of federal judges as “activist judges” making “radical decisions” echoes authoritarian rhetoric historically used to delegitimize judicial independence and the rule of law. Her assertion that judicial orders have “no standing and no grounds” contradicts basic constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial review.

The juxtaposition of Noem’s public denial with the DOJ’s court admission creates a surreal situation where the same administration is making contradictory statements in different forums—telling the court one thing while telling the American public another on national television.