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

James

3 min read

Post on Jun 12, 2025

4.6

Share

Kristi Noem's Claim on National Guard Deployment: A Timeline of Contradictions

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem's account of the National Guard's deployment during 2020 protests at Mount Rushmore has been embroiled in controversy, marked by a series of shifting statements and conflicting narratives. Her claim of personally ordering the deployment has faced intense scrutiny, prompting investigations and raising questions about transparency and accountability. This timeline examines the evolving story and highlights the key contradictions surrounding the Governor's actions.

The 2020 Mount Rushmore Protest and Initial Claims:

The Fourth of July 2020 saw protests near Mount Rushmore, coinciding with a large fireworks display attended by President Trump. Governor Noem, a staunch Trump ally, initially praised the National Guard's response, portraying it as a necessary measure to maintain order and prevent violence. Her early statements suggested a proactive role in the deployment decision, emphasizing her commitment to public safety and the protection of the iconic monument. These statements, however, lacked specific details regarding the chain of command and the authorization process.

Emerging Discrepancies and Shifting Narratives:

Subsequent reporting and official inquiries unearthed inconsistencies in Governor Noem's narrative. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests revealed a different sequence of events than the one she initially described. These documents suggested that the decision to deploy the National Guard was not solely hers, but rather involved consultations with other state officials and federal agencies. This contradicted Noem's earlier assertions of direct and sole responsibility.

Key Contradictions in the Timeline:

• Timeline of Communication: Noem's account of when she authorized the deployment differs significantly from the timeline presented in official documents and witness testimonies. This discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy of her public statements and her willingness to provide complete transparency.

• Level of Involvement: The initial narrative presented Governor Noem as the ultimate decision-maker. However, later evidence points towards a more collaborative approach, with input from various stakeholders, including the South Dakota Adjutant General. This challenges the notion of a singular, decisive action by the Governor.

• Justification for Deployment: While initially framed as a response to imminent violence, subsequent accounts offered less conclusive evidence of an immediate and substantial threat requiring such a significant response. This raises concerns about whether the deployment was proportionate to the perceived threat.

The Ongoing Investigation and its Implications:

The discrepancies surrounding Governor Noem's account have led to an ongoing investigation, examining the circumstances surrounding the National Guard deployment. The outcome of this investigation could have significant implications, not only for Governor Noem's reputation but also for the broader understanding of how decisions regarding the use of the National Guard are made and justified. The investigation seeks to clarify the chain of command, the decision-making process, and the assessment of the threat level at the time.

Transparency and Accountability in Government:

This case underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in government. The public has a right to understand how crucial decisions are made, particularly those involving the deployment of state resources and the potential use of force. The discrepancies surrounding Governor Noem's claims highlight the need for rigorous documentation and clear communication to maintain public trust. The outcome of the investigation will be crucial in determining the extent to which Governor Noem's actions aligned with established procedures and ethical standards.

Further Reading:

• [Link to relevant news articles on the topic]
• [Link to official government documents related to the incident]
• [Link to reports from investigative journalism organizations]

This incident serves as a reminder of the necessity for thorough investigations into claims made by public officials and the importance of open and transparent government operations. The ongoing investigation will hopefully shed more light on the exact sequence of events and provide a clearer picture of the decision-making process surrounding the National Guard deployment at Mount Rushmore in 2020.