Kristi Noem and the Dog Controversy: What’s the Latest?
A Shocking Story from the Governor’s Memoir
In her 2024 memoir No Going Back, Kristi Noem, then South Dakota Governor, ignited a firestorm by recounting how she shot and killed her 14-month-old hunting dog, Cricket. The dog had killed chickens and was labeled "untrainable" and "dangerous" by Noem. Rather than rehoming the animal or seeking professional training, she said she made the “tough decision” to shoot it herself — a story she presented as an example of leadership and moral clarity.
Public Outrage and Political Repercussions
The Backlash Was Immediate
The public and media responded with widespread outrage. Animal rights organizations and lawmakers criticized the act as cruel and avoidable. Critics said her story reflected poor judgment and a disturbing view of leadership. The Guardian and The Associated Press were among the outlets leading coverage of the backlash, emphasizing the cruelty many felt the act represented.
Media & Cultural Impact
Late-night TV hosts, including Stephen Colbert, mocked Noem for the shocking revelation. Cartoons like South Park caricatured her as a dog-killer, intensifying the ridicule and pushing the story deeper into popular culture. The incident even sparked viral memes, headlines, and parodies.
The Political Price
Noem’s future in national politics took a hit. Though once considered a strong vice-presidential contender under Donald Trump, the incident derailed much of that momentum. Sources close to Trump reportedly joked, “Even you wouldn’t kill a dog — and you kill everything,” referring to Donald Trump Jr. While Noem was later appointed Secretary of Homeland Security, the dog story continued to cast a long shadow.
Where Things Stand Now: August 2025
| Topic | Current Status |
|---|---|
| Public Sentiment | Still largely negative. Animal rights groups and online forums keep the controversy alive, especially during media appearances or policy announcements. |
| Political Standing | While still in office as Homeland Security Secretary, her national popularity remains hampered by the incident. |
| Media Attention | Satirical shows and commentators continue referencing the story regularly, showing it has staying power in the public consciousness. |
| Cultural Relevance | The story is now symbolic of political insensitivity — often used as an example in debates around leadership, morality, and public trust. |
Takeaways from the “Cricket” Story
-
Leadership or Cruelty?
Noem’s intended message — that leadership requires hard choices — was lost in the public outcry over animal cruelty. -
Political Misstep
What may have seemed like a personal anecdote was politically disastrous, alienating moderate voters and enraging advocates. -
Social Media Fury
Platforms like Twitter and Reddit exploded with condemnation, memes, and organized campaigns against her political ambitions. -
Cultural Impact
From South Park to Colbert, mainstream media turned the controversy into cultural commentary, reinforcing the story’s infamy. -
Lingering Damage
Even in her current federal role, the story is a frequent reference point when discussing Noem’s character or decision-making style.
What This Means for Kristi Noem Today
Kristi Noem continues to face the ripple effects of a decision she made — and then publicly disclosed — nearly two years ago. The dog-shooting story has become a permanent part of her political identity. While she remains in government as Homeland Security Secretary, her national appeal is significantly diminished. For many Americans, the story isn't just about one tragic event — it's about the kind of leadership it represents.
Conclusion: Can She Move On From This?
In today’s hyper-connected, emotionally charged political environment, personal stories can either humanize or haunt politicians. For Kristi Noem, the story of Cricket did the latter. Despite holding a high-ranking federal role, she hasn’t managed to fully rehabilitate her public image. Whether the controversy continues to follow her will depend on how she handles future scrutiny — and whether the public is willing to separate one emotional misstep from a broader political career.
