Spotted in: Face the Nation interview with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem
Topic: Federal intervention during California protests
Frame Used: Red Herring + Emotional Evidence + Authority Attack
Reporter: “The Governor doesn’t want the federalized system here. He says he’s got it under control. There’s no shortage of law enforcement. Gavin Newsome said he’s called in California Highway Patrol. He says the Trump administration is seeking a spectacle here. He’s saying to protesters: “Don’t get violent, don’t engage.”
Secretary of Homeland Security: “Well, if he was doing his job then people wouldn’t have gotten hurt the last couple of days. We wouldn’t have officers with a shattered wrist from bricks being thrown through their vehicles—vehicles being burned, flags being burned in the street, and Molotov cocktails being thrown. Governor Newsom has proven that he makes bad decisions. The president knows that, and that’s why he chose the safety of this community over waiting for Governor Newsom to get some sanity.”
— DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, June 2025, Fox News
This quote appeared in a Fox News short segment.
What This Frame Does
- Red Herring: It sidesteps the central question—whether there is a shortage of law enforcement—and instead fixates on dramatic incidents.
- Emotional Evidence: References to shattered wrists, burned flags, and Molotov cocktails stir outrage and fear.
- Authority Attack: Shifts blame entirely onto Governor Newsom, framing him as irrational and irresponsible.
Why It Works
- It bypasses a factual debate and leads with emotionally vivid imagery.
- It personalizes blame, turning a policy critique into a judgment of character.
- It justifies federal action by portraying the alternative (waiting on the governor) as dangerous and irrational.
Rather than address the operational question—“Is there enough law enforcement?”—this response reframes the conversation around moral failure and chaos, making opposition appear reckless.
Takeaway for Communicators
Dry version: “There is currently not adequate law enforcement presence.”
Framed version: “If he was doing his job, we wouldn’t have officers with shattered wrists and cars in flames.”
Red herrings often work because they emotionally hijack the conversation. The communicator abandons the original line of questioning and introduces a new one. Recognizing this lets you either (1) call it out, or (2) refocus the discussion with specific data or contrast frames of your own.
Final Note
The other thing to consider here is that Kristi Noem is really stating facts. She’s not lying. Those incidents really did happen. But the original question of whether there is enough law enforcement is never directly addressed.
This blog isn’t designed to decide who’s right—Governor Newsom or the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. It’s designed to observe how arguments are framed, and how different rhetorical choices shape the way we perceive an issue.