Washington’s Oldest Playbook: When Scandals Start Below the President
Kristi Noem’s removal amid questions over DHS spending echoes a pattern seen during Watergate, when pressure first fell on officials surrounding President Nixon.
Every now and then a headline lands that makes history people sit up a little straighter.
Not because it is the loudest story of the day. Washington produces loud stories the way Florida produces thunderstorms. They roll through constantly. Most of them pass by with a flash of lightning and a lot of noise, and by the next morning everyone is already arguing about the next storm.
But some headlines carry a different feeling.
You read them once. Then again. And something about the shape of the moment starts tugging at the back of your memory.
Not because the players are the same.
Because the pattern looks familiar.
That is the feeling hovering around the Kristi Noem situation right now.
The story itself did not begin with a firing. It rarely does. These things almost always start somewhere quieter. In this case it started with a spending controversy that most Americans would normally scroll past without a second thought. A $220 million advertising campaign run by the Department of Homeland Security that put the secretary herself front and center in the messaging.
That raised eyebrows in Congress. Not just on one side of the aisle, either. When lawmakers start asking questions about government spending, the temperature in Washington tends to change pretty quickly.
Because once Congress begins asking who approved something, the next step is almost automatic.
They bring people into a hearing room.
And hearing rooms create testimony.
Testimony creates a record.
And records have a stubborn habit of sticking around long after the cameras turn off.
During one of those hearings, Kristi Noem was asked about the role of Corey Lewandowski, a longtime political ally of Donald Trump who had been working inside the orbit of the Department of Homeland Security.
Specifically, lawmakers asked whether Lewandowski had any role in approving contracts.
Noem’s answer was simple.
No.
Quick. Clean. The kind of answer Washington hopes will close the door on a line of questioning before it gets any deeper.
But Washington has always had a complicated relationship with paperwork.
Because after the hearing, reporting began surfacing suggesting that Lewandowski may in fact have had influence over contracts and spending decisions inside DHS. Records and internal accounts began raising questions about how those approvals actually moved through the department.
That is the moment when the story changes shape.
A spending controversy is one kind of problem.
Questions about testimony are another.
Because once lawmakers start wondering whether statements made under oath match the documentary record, the story moves out of the political arena and into the legal one.
That shift is exactly where the story sits now.
Senator Richard Blumenthal has said he intends to pursue a perjury investigation related to Noem’s testimony about Lewandowski’s role in DHS contracts. Under federal law, knowingly making false statements to Congress can carry criminal penalties. Which is why that word, perjury, tends to make the entire city stand up a little straighter.
Now watch what happened next.
The president removed her.
Just like that.
A firing. A reshuffle. Headlines announcing that the secretary was out. For a moment the story looked like it might end there. Personnel change, controversy closed, Washington moves on to the next shouting match.
But that is where history people start leaning forward in their chairs.
Because Washington has run this play before.
And if you go back far enough in the record, you eventually land on the scandal that taught the country this lesson the hard way.
Watergate.
When most Americans remember Watergate today, they picture the ending. Richard Nixon stepping down from the presidency. The helicopter lifting off the White House lawn. A president forced from office by scandal.
But that is not how the story actually unfolded.
Watergate did not begin with the president going down.
It began with everyone around him.
Investigators started with the people closest to the machinery of the operation. Advisers. Campaign officials. Staff members. People who signed things. People who approved things. People whose names appeared on documents when investigators began pulling files.
One of those men was John N. Mitchell, Nixon’s attorney general.
Mitchell had been one of the most powerful figures in the administration. He was deeply embedded in the political machinery surrounding Nixon’s reelection effort. And when investigators began unraveling the cover-up connected to the Watergate break-in, Mitchell was one of the men who went down with it.
He was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.
He went to prison.
Meanwhile Nixon survived for quite a while.
He maneuvered.
He denied knowledge.
He created distance between himself and the people around him.
Eventually the political pressure became too heavy and he resigned, but by the time that moment arrived the legal consequences had already begun landing on the people closest to the operation.
That is the part of the story Washington rarely likes to talk about out loud.
Presidents almost never go down first.
Everybody else does.
It is not a rule written into law. It is a survival instinct baked into the structure of power itself. Presidents sit at the top of enormous political machines designed to absorb damage before it reaches them. Layers of advisers. Layers of authority. Layers of plausible deniability.
When trouble starts brewing, those layers begin peeling away.
Someone becomes expendable.
Someone becomes the focus.
Someone becomes the story.
And the person at the very top gains a little more distance from the controversy.
Which is why the firing of Kristi Noem did not make the underlying questions disappear.
The advertising campaign still exists.
The contracts still exist.
The testimony given during the congressional hearing still exists.
And investigators now appear interested in comparing those pieces of the record to each other.
History suggests that when investigators begin pulling on those kinds of threads, the story rarely ends where the first headline says it will.
Because scandals do not usually explode all at once.
They unfold slowly.
One question leads to another.
One document leads to another.
One contradiction leads to another.
The Watergate investigation followed that exact path. It took more than two years before the full scope of the scandal became clear to the public.
Right now the situation surrounding Kristi Noem appears to be standing at the earliest edge of a similar structure.
A controversy over spending.
A hearing where testimony was given.
Questions about whether that testimony matches the documentary record.
And a political firing that creates distance between the president and the controversy.
None of that guarantees the ending will look anything like Watergate. History does not repeat itself that neatly.
But the pattern is familiar enough that experienced observers know exactly what investigators will do next.
They will follow the documents.
They will follow the contracts.
They will follow the signatures.
Because the truth of a scandal rarely hides in speeches or press conferences.
It hides in the paperwork.
That is why people who study political history are watching this moment carefully.
Not because the ending is already written.
But because Washington has run this play before.
And when the pressure begins building inside that machinery, the people standing closest to the paperwork are usually the ones who feel it first.
Sometimes the president survives.
But the gears underneath him rarely do.
Support the Porch
If you made it this far, you already understand something about this project.
This is not a corporate newsroom.
There are no sponsors sitting behind the curtain deciding which questions are allowed and which ones quietly disappear. No PR filters softening the edges. No boardroom trimming the truth down until it fits neatly inside someone else’s comfort zone.
What you just read exists because this porch is independent.
The work you see here is slow work. It is the kind of work that reads hearing transcripts instead of headlines. It pulls reporting from multiple outlets. It compares testimony with documents. It looks at the historical record and asks whether the same patterns are showing up again.
That is exactly what this piece did.
The $220 million advertising controversy.
The congressional testimony.
The reporting about contract influence.
The senator raising the possibility of perjury.
The sudden removal from office.
None of that came from rumor.
It came from documents, hearings, and reporting that anyone can read.
And that kind of work only exists when a community decides it is worth protecting.
This porch runs on people power.
Not sponsors.
Not political handlers.
Just readers who believe the truth deserves a place where it can sit on the table without being trimmed down to fit someone else’s agenda.
If you believe this kind of documentation matters, here is how you help keep it alive.
First, share the work.
Share it with someone who only saw the headline.
Share it with someone who thinks every political story is just noise.
Share it with someone who still believes facts should travel farther than spin.
Documentation only works when people carry it forward.
Second, subscribe to the porch.
Free subscriptions widen the circle. They bring more people into conversations that slow things down instead of speeding them up.
Paid subscriptions make the research possible. They fund the time it takes to read transcripts, cross-check reporting, and build pieces like this one that follow the paper trail instead of the talking points.
And if you feel moved to support directly, you can help keep the porchlight burning here:
https://buymeacoffee.com/southernpunk
Every cup helps keep the lights on.
Every supporter helps keep this project independent.
Because the truth does not belong to sponsors.
It belongs to the people willing to look at the record.
One last thing before you go.
If you felt yourself slowing down while reading this piece — that moment where the noise fades and the record starts to come into focus — that is exactly what this porch was built for.
That kind of attention is rare right now.
And the more people who choose it, the harder it becomes for truth to disappear under the next headline.
So if this place feels like somewhere you want to keep coming back to, pull up a chair and subscribe.
The porchlight stays on because people like you decide it should.
This IS the People’s Porch 🪑
Sources, With the Lights On
This work is anchored to what can be proven.
Not whispered.
Not implied.
Not passed around like gossip in a crowded room.
Every concrete claim in the Kristi Noem piece rests on publicly available reporting, congressional hearing records, official statements, historical archives, and documented journalism that anyone can open and read. The record of the $220 million Department of Homeland Security advertising controversy, Kristi Noem’s testimony about Corey Lewandowski’s role, the public push for a possible perjury investigation, the president’s decision to remove her, and the historical Watergate comparison used in the analysis below all come directly from the sources listed here.
There are no rumor threads doing the heavy lifting.
There are no cropped screenshots pretending to be evidence.
There is no narrative fog.
Everything here can be read, checked, and confirmed by anyone with an internet connection.
What happened at the Department of Homeland Security
Reuters | Noem defends $220 million ad campaign amid lawmaker scrutiny
Reuters | Trump says he did not sign off on ad campaign featuring homeland security secretary
Reuters | Trump taps Sen. Markwayne Mullin to replace Noem as DHS chief
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-taps-us-senator-mullin-replace-noem-dhs-chief-2026-03-05/
Time | Trump removes Kristi Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
https://time.com/7382719/kristi-noem-removed-homeland-security-secretary-markwayne-mullin/
What Noem told Congress and why the testimony became an issue
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee | Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security hearing
C-SPAN | Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testifies before Senate committee
ProPublica | Kristi Noem Misled Congress About Top Aide’s Role in DHS Contracts
Sen. Richard Blumenthal | Blumenthal demands answers about apparently false testimony regarding Lewandowski’s DHS role
The Guardian | US senator seeks perjury investigation into Kristi Noem over DHS spending
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/06/kristi-noem-congress-investigation
ABC News | Noem’s testimony on contracts questioned by senator
Historical context behind the Watergate comparison
Encyclopaedia Britannica | John Mitchell, former U.S. Attorney General
https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Mitchell-attorney-general-of-United-States
National Archives | Watergate and the Constitution
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/watergate-constitution
National Archives | Records of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force
https://www.archives.gov/research/investigations/watergate
Richard Nixon Presidential Library | Watergate trial tapes and records
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/watergate-trial-tapes
Encyclopaedia Britannica | Nixon resigns: Watergate’s legacy
https://www.britannica.com/event/Nixon-resigns-Watergates-legacy
And That Is The Record
The links above are not decoration.
They are the reporting confirming that a roughly $220 million Department of Homeland Security advertising campaign featuring Kristi Noem triggered scrutiny from lawmakers.
They are the hearing records and investigative reporting documenting that Noem testified Corey Lewandowski had no role in approving DHS contracts, and the subsequent reporting that raised questions about that claim.
They are the statements showing that Senator Richard Blumenthal publicly raised the possibility of a perjury investigation related to that testimony.
They are the reporting confirming that the president denied approving the campaign and later removed Noem from the position of Secretary of Homeland Security.
They are the historical records explaining why the Watergate comparison appears in the analysis: the conviction of former Attorney General John Mitchell and the broader pattern in which multiple Nixon administration officials were prosecuted before Nixon ultimately resigned.
It is the reporting.
It is the hearing record.
It is the historical archive.
It is the context.
This is the part that does not change when a job title changes.
This is the part that does not move when a headline shifts.
This is the part that stays exactly where it is until someone reads it.
Truth does not wander.
Truth does not hide.
Truth does not need permission to exist.
Thank you for caring enough to look at the record instead of the spin.
Thank you for helping keep the light steady.
Why will politicians never learn? They just can't help bringing their little fuck piece in for a root in the trough. Why don't they have to brains to realise if they've gotta play away from home, do it discreetly? Don't put him or her on the payroll. But they always get so greedy and so cocky they think they'll get away with it. No-one will notice the reason you wanted a king size bed on your plane is the same reason you gave contracts to a company no-one had ever heard of, and that very same fuck piece is signing government cheques. They think they've got all of the media as tame as their pets in the Legacy media. Thank dog they haven't.
Thanks for the reminder and the time line of sorts on how things went with Watergate. Gives those of us who were under the age of 10 at the time some hope.