A recent congressional hearing escalated tensions between Democrats and Republicans over a proposed animal cruelty bill. During the session on March 4, 2025, Congressman Ken Calver suggested renaming the legislation the “Kristi Noem Canine Relief Act” in a bid to critique Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The bill, officially titled House Resolution 4638, aims to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, making any individual convicted of or admitting to harming service animals inadmissible to the United States or subject to deportation.
The impetus for this bill arose from an incident at Washington Dulles International Airport, where an Egyptian man attempted to smuggle over 50 pounds of food products into the country and kicked a Customs and Border Protection dog named Freddie. Freddie, a five-year-old beagle, suffered bruised ribs and required two weeks to recover. He was present in the committee room during the hearing, which added an emotional layer to the proceedings.
While Congressman Calver sponsored the bill, more than a dozen Republican lawmakers co-sponsored the initiative, reflecting bipartisan support. However, Democrats opposed the legislation, arguing that it could impose penalties on individuals who have not been convicted of any crime. They pointed out that the assailant in Freddie’s case had already been jailed and deported under existing laws.
During the debate, Congressman Dan Goldman took the opportunity to highlight Noem’s controversial past. He referenced a personal account from her book, in which she described shooting a dog she owned. “Make no mistake. I am strongly against anyone assaulting dogs,” Goldman stated. “I really want to know how, if at all, it would apply to cabinet members who have admitted that they have shot and killed a dog.” His comments aimed to question the bill’s application beyond the ports of entry and its broader implications.
Another Democratic congressman, Jared Moskowitz, joined the criticism by insisting on the need to acknowledge the life of the dog in Noem’s narrative. “That puppy had a name. Say its name — Cricket,” he said, before quoting passages from Noem’s book about her decision to kill her dog.
In response, Republican Congressman Lance Gooden utilized humor to counter the Democrats’ critiques, employing dog-themed puns. He described Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett as “all bark and no bite,” and stated that Moskowitz was “fetching amendments,” aiming to deflect attention from the serious nature of the discussion.
Despite the efforts to rename the bill, the proposal was ultimately rejected by Republican members. The legislation advanced out of committee with a party-line vote, reflecting the ongoing division in Congress regarding immigration and animal welfare policies. Following the vote, the House Judiciary Committee GOP issued a statement claiming, “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 contentious debate highlights the complexities surrounding animal welfare legislation, immigration policy, and the political maneuvering that often accompanies such discussions in Congress. As the bill moves forward, it remains to be seen how these dynamics will influence its final outcome.
