Read Between The Lines ~ Kristi Noem
Answering Press Questions at White House July 1, 2025
The greatest threat to those in power is an informed and educated public.
Emotional manipulation is a part of human interaction. While it can be intentional, it's more often unconscious, woven into habits, culture, and language. As a therapist, I help clients recognize the subtle and/or obvious biases that shape everyday communication. This work isn’t just about calling it out when it happens; it’s about being more aware and less vulnerable to manipulation.
This is a short analysis of answers by Kristi Noem dated July 1, 2025. It is based on universal patterns and techniques commonly found in communication and public speaking.
Before reading further, I encourage you to listen to her answers. Pay attention to your initial reactions. What thoughts or emotions come up as you listen? How do you feel about Kristi Noem? Reflect on the beliefs and assumptions you already hold about the topic, and consider her body language. It often speaks just as loudly as the words.
Initial Analysis
Prior to understanding someone’s words, it’s important to have a basic understanding of the person delivering them. Here is a little background.
Kristi Noem is a prominent conservative Republican whose political philosophy centers on limited government, individual liberty, and traditional family values. As governor of South Dakota from 2019 to 2025 and now U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, she has consistently opposed federal mandates, prioritizing personal responsibility over government intervention.
Noem’s values are deeply informed by faith, family, and a rural upbringing. She portrays herself as a guardian of family-rich traditions and religious freedoms, values she believes should guide both personal life and public policy. In her memoir, “No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward,” she recounts a controversial incident in which she killed her 14-month-old dog.” Noem defended her decision believing he was “less than worthless” and “untrainable.”
As you reflect on her answers, keep these personal and political details in mind. Understanding the speaker’s background and values can provide important insight into the underlying messages behind their words.
Now, let’s consider her words.
1. Appeal to Fear (Emotional Manipulation)
We are going after murderers and rapists and traffickers and drug dealers… (0:15); They had detained a cannibal… he started to eat himself… (0:31)
Explanation: This language is meant to elicit fear and disgust. By focusing on extreme and rare examples (e.g., cannibalism), she provokes strong emotional reactions which bypass rational thinking.
Impact: emotionally charged language, like referencing murderers, rapists, or even cannibalism, shifts the listener’s focus away from critical thinking and toward emotional reactivity.
Critical Thinking Prompts:
How common is this example of immigrants’ behavior while being detained?
Is this a fair representation of the whole group being discussed?
Is it true? If so, why would someone behave this way?
2. Overgeneralization (Cognitive Bias)
Joe Biden let the worst of the worst come in here. (0:25); These are the kind of deranged individuals that are on our streets in America… (0:42)
Explanation: In this section, Noem paints all immigrants or released individuals with the same brush. Using a single example to represent an entire population, it creates a false association.
Impact: taking one extreme case to define an entire group distorts reality, promoting fear, prejudice, and division.
Critical Thinking Prompts:
Is this a single case being used to generalize a whole group?
What data or context is missing?
What are the broader circumstances or root causes?
3. Ad Hominem Attacks & Media Distrust
You lie every single day, CNN (0:14)
Explanation: Instead of addressing the content of opposing arguments, she attacks the character or credibility of the opposition. This shuts down dialogue and encourages distrust of alternate sources, reinforcing the narrative of “fake news.”
Impact: this language is deeply corrosive to constructive dialogue and informed decision-making. Rather than focusing on the content, she is attacking the source itself.
Critical Thinking Prompts:
Is this a criticism of ideas or just personal attacks?
What happens when I check multiple sources?
Is her attack on CNN being used to avoid answering the real question?
4. Polarizing Language (Us vs. Them Thinking)
Those liberals… (0:09); We just want to raise our children and live the American dream (1:02)
Explanation: Here, she creates a clear division between “good” and “bad” people. It simplifies complex issues into two opposing sides, making it harder to engage in nuanced conversations.
Impact: language that frames issues as “"us vs. them” is divisive and intellectually limiting. By connecting liberals with a lack of desire to raise children “right,” she draws a hard line between who is right and who is wrong.
Critical Thinking Prompts:
Who is being cast as the villain or hero?
Who benefits from this division?
Who gets silenced when the world is painted in black and white?
5. Repetition and Branding (Persuasive Framing)
This Big Beautiful Bill… (1:24); Somebody’s got their back… (1:40)
Explanation: Repeating emotionally loaded phrases reinforces the message and makes it more memorable. Phrases like “Big Beautiful Bill” frame legislation as inherently positive, even before its content is examined.
Impact: repetition, alliteration, and branding through persuasive framing is subtle but powerful. When connecting ideas to emotionally charged phrases like this are repeated, they shape how you feel about an idea before you’ve had a chance to think about it.
Critical Thinking Prompts:
What is she trying to make me feel about this?
Do I understand the details or just the slogan?
Have I looked past the branding to examine the substance?
6. False Equivalence & Loaded Language
Deranged individuals... they shouldn’t be walking the streets with our children. (0:53)
Explanation: The use of the word “deranged” lumps criminal behavior with mental instability and immigrant status, which unfairly associates these together.
Impact: statements like this are deeply stigmatizing and misleading. It manipulates perception by blurring the lines between unrelated traits (such as mental illness, criminal behavior, and immigration status) and framing them all as a collective threat.
Critical Thinking Prompts:
What evidence supports this claim?
Are unrelated ideas being lumped together?
What emotions are being triggered to shape my reaction?
Takeaway
When speakers use emotional triggers, exaggerated examples, or divisive language, pause and reflect. Ask yourself:
Are they saying what I already believe is true?
Are they challenging me to think in a new way?
Am I reacting emotionally or am I thinking critically?
What is being left unsaid or oversimplified?
Can I verify this with a neutral or opposing source?
Bias awareness doesn’t just help you see the truth more clearly, it protects your mind from being shaped by someone else's agenda.
Now that you’ve read through this post, consider listening to her words again.
What other biases did you notice in her answers? What questions are still left unanswered?