What public statements or testimony have Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller given about the incident since Axios’s reporting?
Executive summary
Kristi Noem has privately told associates that “everything I’ve done” at DHS was directed by President Trump and Stephen Miller, a comment first reported by Axios and picked up widely in subsequent coverage [1] [2]. Stephen Miller has publicly pushed back against being blamed for the misleading “massacre” phrasing, saying early DHS claims were based on Customs and Border Protection reports and that officials are “evaluating” whether CBP agents followed protocol [1] [3].
1. Noem’s reported claim of following Trump and Miller: private remarks made public
Sources tell Axios that Noem privately told an associate, “Everything I’ve done, I’ve done at the direction of the president and Stephen,” a remark that has been widely quoted and framed as her explaining — or deflecting — responsibility for DHS statements after the Minneapolis shooting [1] [2]. Multiple outlets repeat that phrasing and link it to pressure on her office and an impeachment push in Congress [4] [5], though Noem’s office has not released a public transcript of that private remark [2].
2. Noem’s public posture at the time: forceful language echoed administration messaging
In the immediate aftermath, DHS and senior administration figures used incendiary language about Alex Pretti, with officials labeling him an “assassin” or “domestic terrorist” — phrasing that Noem and others either used publicly or that was attributed to DHS officials in statements and briefings [6] [7]. Reporting indicates Noem cited information from CBP in making those statements, even as video and bystander accounts began to call the initial accounts into question [8] [1].
3. Miller’s initial public comments: labeling Pretti, then shifting to procedural questions
Stephen Miller at first amplified the harsh characterizations of Pretti on social platforms and in statements, at one point calling him “an assassin,” language that sources say was based on early CBP reports relayed to the White House [6] [1]. After Axios and others reported Miller’s alleged role in crafting the “massacre” narrative, Miller denied originating the claim and told outlets the initial DHS statement “was based on reports from CBP from a very chaotic scene on the ground,” and that the administration was “evaluating why the CBP team may not have been following protocol” [3] [7].
4. The public clash and competing accounts inside the West Wing
Reporting describes a tug-of-war in the White House: Noem privately emphasizing she took direction from Trump and Miller [9] [2], while other officials reportedly attempted to “clean up” the DHS statement before it was widely disseminated [8]. Axios and subsequent outlets cite unnamed administration sources who attribute the “massacre” framing to Miller hearing the word “gun” and anticipating a particular narrative, even as Miller and his defenders point to CBP as the origin of the faulty information [1] [3].
5. Political fallout and denials: defense and distancing from allies
Senators and White House spokespeople have publicly defended or distanced the actors differently: some Republicans pushed back on criticism of Noem and Miller, while others demanded accountability for labeling the deceased a “terrorist” without an incident report [10]. The White House press office would not universally echo the most incendiary characterizations, and Miller’s statements to media outlets emphasized procedural review rather than an admission of responsibility for the initial wording [7] [3].
6. Limits of public record and remaining questions
The central factual points about precisely who instructed whom and what was said in internal briefings rest largely on Axios’s reporting and unnamed sources; Noem’s private quote has not been publicly released in full by her office, and there is no public transcript of any contemporaneous internal instructions attributed to Miller [1] [2]. Miller’s public comments to outlets assert CBP as the source and describe an internal evaluation [3], but available reporting does not provide definitive documentary proof in the public record tying Miller to the specific “massacre” wording beyond sourced accounts [1].