South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has stirred controversy with a suggestion in her new book, “No Going Back,” that President Joe Biden’s dog, Commander, should suffer a similar fate to a working dog she shot on her farm. Noem said that if she were president in 2025, she would ensure that Commander was not allowed on the grounds. She expressed this sentiment at the top of a list of potential day-one priorities for a future presidency, citing Commander’s behavior in incidents where he bit Secret Service personnel.
Commander, the Biden family’s German shepherd, was reported by CNN to have bitten Secret Service personnel in 24 separate incidents at the White House and other locations. The dog was ultimately removed from the White House in October. Noem has criticized Biden’s handling of the situation, questioning how many people need to be attacked and hurt before a decision is made about the dog. During an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Noem raised concerns about the safety of the Secret Service personnel who have been bitten by Commander.
When pressed by host Margaret Brennan if she was suggesting that Commander should be shot, Noem did not directly answer but emphasized that the president should be held accountable for the dog’s behavior. She continued to question the reasoning behind allowing a potentially dangerous animal to remain in a position of power despite its history of aggressive behavior. Noem’s comments have sparked debate over the appropriate response to a situation where a dog poses a threat to individuals in a high-security environment.
Noem’s remarks about Commander reflect her stance on accountability and prioritizing the safety of individuals who may be at risk due to an aggressive animal. Her criticism of President Biden’s handling of the situation raises questions about the responsibility of pet owners to address behavioral issues in their animals, especially when they are in positions of authority. The debate surrounding Commander’s behavior highlights the complexities of managing potentially dangerous animals, particularly in high-stress environments like the White House.
The controversy surrounding Noem’s comments underscores broader discussions about the treatment of animals, the responsibilities of pet owners, and the implications of aggressive behavior in pets. The incident with Commander has highlighted the need for clear guidelines on how to address situations where pets pose a risk to individuals, especially in political settings. Noem’s advocacy for accountability and the safety of personnel in the face of a potentially dangerous animal sheds light on the complexities of balancing animal rights and public safety. The response to Noem’s suggestion about Commander has sparked conversations about the appropriate measures to take when pets exhibit aggressive behavior that threatens the well-being of others.
