WASHINGTON — A contentious hearing on Capitol Hill erupted into a sharp dispute on Thursday after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was accused by a senior Democrat of misleading Congress to justify an early departure from her testimony.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, asserted that Secretary Noem had provided a false pretense for leaving the oversight hearing, prompting him to move for a subpoena to compel her return.

The controversy began when Noem, in the middle of the committee session, informed members she would have to leave prematurely. “I have to actually leave this hearing early, because the FEMA Review Council is giving their report today on suggestions for changes to FEMA,” Noem explained from the witness table. “I have to co-chair it, but I will be leaving soon to have to go do that.”

She added that the meeting was a bipartisan effort to realign the Federal Emergency Management Agency with “the president’s vision for making sure that states get the chance to manage it.”

Shortly after noon, Secretary Noem departed. However, it was soon discovered that the 1 p.m. FEMA Council meeting she was scheduled to attend had been canceled. The Hill independently verified the cancellation.

Upon learning this, Rep. Thompson voiced his immediate condemnation. “I understand on good information that the FEMA Council meeting was canceled so there was no need for her to go,” he stated before the committee. He went on to make a pointed accusation: “She was a liar with no respect for congressional oversight.”

Thompson also noted that after leaving the witness stand, Noem was seen in the committee’s anteroom, which he suggested indicated she was not in a hurry to get to another engagement. He moved to issue a subpoena for Noem to reappear before the panel, a measure that would legally require her testimony.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) quickly refuted the allegation that Noem had intentionally misled the committee. A DHS spokesperson provided a specific timeline of events, asserting that the Secretary was unaware of the change in schedule when she left the hearing. “The Secretary found out at 12:26pm that the meeting was cancelled,” the spokesperson said. This was several minutes after she had already excused herself from the proceedings.

The dispute laid bare the deep partisan divisions on the committee, as Republican members voted along party lines to defeat Thompson’s motion for a subpoena.

Thompson expressed frustration not only with Noem’s early exit but also with what he portrayed as a pattern of disrespect from the administration toward congressional oversight. He lamented that FBI Director Kash Patel had also not appeared at the hearing, where the director’s testimony is traditionally expected.

“She joined FBI Director Kash Patel in telling the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security to pound sand by getting up and walking out in the middle of the hearing,” Thompson said. He noted that the committee had been informed she would stay until 1 p.m. but had “left significantly early.”

“This is an embarrassing display from someone who can’t take the heat, is disrespectful to the committee and the Constitution [and] the separation of powers,” he added.

The canceled FEMA meeting was not a minor administrative gathering. As described by Noem herself, its purpose was to review recommendations for fundamentally restructuring the agency. The proposed changes aim to shift more disaster response authority from the federal government to state and local emergency managers. The sudden cancellation of such a significant meeting raises its own set of questions regarding the administration’s internal planning and strategy for FEMA’s future.

The incident underscores the frayed relationship between the executive branch and Democratic-led House committees. Oversight hearings are a cornerstone of the constitutional system of checks and balances, allowing Congress to question cabinet secretaries and other senior officials on policy and departmental management. An early departure, particularly under disputed circumstances, is often viewed by lawmakers as an affront to their authority and a way to evade accountability.

While Noem’s office maintains she acted in good faith based on the information she had at the time, the perception of a deliberate snub has already taken root among her critics on the committee, further straining an already tense political environment in Washington. The conflict over a few crucial minutes has now spiraled into a larger debate over transparency, truthfulness, and the fundamental respect owed between co-equal branches of government.