Kristi Noem's Claim Of Ordering National Guard Against Protesters: A Timeline Of Contradictions

James

3 min read

Post on Jun 13, 2025

5.0

Share

Kristi Noem's Claim of Ordering National Guard Against Protesters: A Timeline of Contradictions

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem's account of her actions during the 2020 protests at Mount Rushmore has been plagued by inconsistencies, sparking intense scrutiny and raising questions about her leadership. Her claim that she personally ordered the deployment of the National Guard against protesters has been met with skepticism, fueled by conflicting statements and a lack of corroborating evidence. This timeline meticulously examines the evolving narrative surrounding Governor Noem's actions, highlighting the key contradictions that have emerged.

The Initial Narrative: A Swift and Decisive Response?

In the immediate aftermath of the July 3rd, 2020, protests, Governor Noem painted a picture of decisive action. She publicly lauded her administration's response, emphasizing the swift deployment of the National Guard to prevent violence and maintain order near the iconic monument. She frequently stated that she gave the direct order, portraying herself as a strong leader protecting the state from potential chaos. This narrative, widely circulated through official statements and media appearances, became the dominant account of events.

The Emerging Discrepancies: A Shifting Storyline

However, cracks quickly began to appear in this carefully constructed narrative. Reports emerged questioning the actual level of National Guard involvement. Some accounts suggested a less proactive role, with the Guard largely acting in a support capacity rather than actively confronting protesters. This contradicted Governor Noem's assertion of a direct, decisive intervention.

A Timeline of Contradictions:

• July 3rd, 2020: Governor Noem publicly celebrates a successful response to the protests, highlighting the National Guard's crucial role and emphasizing her direct order for deployment.
• July - August 2020: News reports begin to emerge detailing conflicting accounts from National Guard officials and law enforcement, suggesting a less active role for the Guard than Governor Noem described.
• Fall 2020: Increased scrutiny from journalists and opposition figures prompts further questions about the chain of command and the extent of the Governor's involvement in deployment decisions. Requests for documentation supporting her claims are made.
• Ongoing: Governor Noem maintains her account of events, despite the mounting evidence suggesting discrepancies. No conclusive evidence has been presented publicly to definitively confirm her claims.

The Lack of Concrete Evidence:

The central issue remains the lack of concrete evidence to support Governor Noem's assertion of directly ordering the National Guard deployment. Official documentation, including communication logs and internal memos, has yet to be released publicly to verify her account. This lack of transparency has further fueled criticism and heightened calls for accountability.

Political Ramifications and Public Perception:

The controversy surrounding Governor Noem's account has significant political implications. Her actions, or the perceived lack thereof, have been viewed through a partisan lens, impacting her public image and her standing within the Republican party. The inconsistencies surrounding her narrative raise broader questions about transparency and accountability in government.

Conclusion: Unanswered Questions Remain

The discrepancies surrounding Governor Kristi Noem's claim regarding the National Guard's deployment during the 2020 Mount Rushmore protests remain a significant point of contention. The lack of transparency and the conflicting accounts continue to cast doubt on her narrative, leaving crucial questions unanswered and highlighting the importance of accountability in public office. Further investigation and the release of supporting documentation are necessary to shed light on this evolving situation. Until then, the contradictions surrounding Governor Noem's actions will continue to fuel debate and scrutiny.