During a congressional hearing on March 5, 2025, a Democratic congressman proposed renaming a Republican-sponsored bill addressing animal cruelty to the “Kristi Noem Canine Relief Act.” This suggestion was made to highlight what Democrats perceive as hypocrisy in the GOP’s stance on animal welfare, particularly in relation to Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem.
The legislation, formally titled House Resolution 4638, seeks to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act. It would render any individual who has harmed law enforcement animals inadmissible to the United States or subject to deportation. The bill was introduced by Congressman Ken Calver and has garnered support from over a dozen Republican co-sponsors. The impetus for this legislation arose from an incident at Washington Dulles International Airport, where a man from Egypt allegedly kicked a Customs and Border Protection dog, a five-year-old beagle named Freddie, while attempting to smuggle more than 50 pounds of food products into the country. Freddie endured two weeks of recovery from bruised ribs as a result of the attack.
Democrats voiced their concerns during the hearing, arguing that the bill could impose penalties on individuals who have not been convicted of any crime. They highlighted that the individual involved in Freddie’s case was already jailed and deported under existing laws, questioning the necessity of the new legislation. Congressman Dan Goldman used the opportunity to reference Ms. Noem’s past admission in her book about shooting a dog she owned. “Make no mistake. I am strongly against anyone assaulting dogs,” he stated, further questioning how the bill would apply to individuals in government positions who have acknowledged harming animals.
The discussion took a more pointed turn when Congressman Jared Moskowitz chimed in, urging his colleagues to remember the name of the victimized dog. He read excerpts from Noem’s book, where she discussed the circumstances of killing her dog. This prompted laughter and groans from both sides of the aisle, showcasing the contentious atmosphere surrounding the bill.
In response, Republican Congressman Lance Gooden employed dog-themed puns to criticize Democrats, suggesting that Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett was “all bark and no bite” and implying that Mr. Moskowitz was merely “fetching amendments.” Despite the Democrats’ attempts to rename the bill, Republicans maintained their support for the legislation, which advanced out of committee on a party-line vote.
Following the hearing, the House Judiciary Committee’s GOP issued a statement criticizing Democrats for allegedly siding with illegal immigrants over animal welfare, remarking, “Democrats just voted to allow illegal aliens to kick dogs. Republicans wanted to deport illegal aliens for kicking dogs. Guess Dems hate man’s best friend!”
This legislative debate underscores a larger discourse on animal rights, immigration policy, and the complexities of political rhetoric in the U.S. Congress. As the bill moves forward, it may continue to be a focal point of contention between the two parties, particularly as they navigate the implications of animal welfare laws in relation to broader immigration issues.
