A number of House Democrats have insisted on the removal of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as a condition for their votes on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, the sole remaining funding bill without approval. But their novel threat is alien to the Constitution and distorts the distribution of powers that the Founders created.

“One of the points that are on our list of things that we want and we need for our votes is for Kristi Noem to go,” insisted Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.). Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) concurred, arguing that “She has completely abandoned and violated all of her duties and obligations. It’s a completely lawless agency right now with no accountability. And she is just outright lying to the American people repeatedly and has demonstrated herself to be completely unqualified and incompetent.”

After the 2024 election, Noem failed upward from being one of the most controversial Republican governors to being one of the most controversial members of President Trump’s cabinet. In January, she made herself the face of the controversial tactics that led to the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal immigration officers. Noem claimed that Pretti was “brandishing” the firearm he never drew and labelled Good a “domestic terrorist.”

After these missteps, President Trump sent immigration czar Tom Homan to Minneapolis to clean up the mess, while Noem and Border Patrol Chief Greg Bovino were called back to Washington, D.C. Upon Noem’s return to D.C., she closeted with Trump for a two-hour meeting.

Both actions suggest that Trump was displeased in some measure with Noem’s performance. However, his displeasure came short of asking for her resignation; if nothing else, Trump shows loyalty to loyal subordinates. “Why would I do that?” Trump responded when asked whether he would fire Noem. “We have the strongest border in the history of our country. We have the best crime numbers we’ve ever had, going back to the year 1900. That’s 125 years.”

Democrats, by contrast, have no loyalty towards Noem, and they showed no compunction in attacking when they smelled weakness.

Democratic congressional leaders joined the chorus of voices calling for Noem’s removal. In a letter which outlined 10 demands for immigration reform, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) added (not as one of their 10 demands) that the Trump administration could “show good faith” by “removing Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem from her position.”

Despite the overt similarities, this letter differed from Mr. Frost’s threat in a way that is far more important than it first seems. Namely, Jeffries and Schumer respected constitutional norms, while Frost distorted them. The difference in danger to our republic is like the danger you face while viewing a shark through the thick glass of an aquarium, versus the danger you would face if the glass were suddenly removed.

The basic issue at play here is that the U.S. House of Representatives has a great deal of constitutional influence over federal spending and revenue, but very little influence over executive personnel.

Article II, Section 2 invests the president with the power to appoint “Officers of the United States,” such as the Secretary of Homeland Security. It reads, “he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law” (emphasis added).

The Senate must approve the president’s nominees for high offices, but the House plays no role in the process. In Myers v. United States (1926), the Supreme Court held that the president’s power to appoint officers implies the power to remove them, without Senate approval. Thus, the power of appointment rests mostly with the president, although the Senate acts as a check on this power.

If representatives of the House wish to see an executive officer removed from his or her post, the Constitution provides a mechanism for them to do so. Article II, Section 4 stipulates that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

“The sole Power of Impeachment” is held by the House of Representatives (Article I, Section 2), and “the sole Power to try all Impeachments” is held by the Senate (Article I, Section 3).

However, the constitutional Framers sought to prevent the legislature from exercising too great a power over executive appointments. They stipulated that “no Person shall be convicted [by the Senate] without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” A two-thirds majority is a high bar to clear (even higher than the filibuster, it would require 67 votes out of 100 senators). And, for this reason, Congress has attempted relatively few impeachment proceedings over the course of its 237-year-long history.

Indeed, congressional Democrats have tried to impeach Secretary Noem, but they have not gathered enough votes to do so. Thus far, 187 of the 214 Democratic representatives in the House (87%) have co-sponsored articles of impeachment against Noem. But, as the party in the minority, they lack the votes to bring the matter to a vote on the floor.

This is the way the Constitution was designed to work. If the House of Representatives could easily veto any presidential appointment, the president would have little control over his own branch of government. Even more, if a minority of the House of Representatives could veto any presidential appointment, imagine the chaos that would unleash on the conduct of federal policy!

By contrast, the Constitution gives Congress in general and the House in particular broad powers over federal revenue and spending. It provides that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” (Article I, Section 7) and that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” (Article I, Section 9).

By attempting to condition the passage of an appropriations bill on the firing of a Cabinet secretary, House members like Frost are attempting to co-opt the power of appointment and dismissal under their power of the purse. This distorts the way the Framers divided power among the executive and legislative branches. The Constitution does prescribe a method for the House of Representatives to remove executive officers — impeachment.

Lacking the votes to impeach, a number (not all) of disgruntled Democrats are experimenting with novel approaches to force the removal of an executive officer. That’s simply not how the U.S. Constitution works.