In her upcoming memoir, No Going Back, South Dakota governor and potential Trump VP pick Kristi Noem aims to project a tough, no-nonsense image and call out “fake” politicians. But the book is already generating controversy due to a series of exaggerated claims meant to bolster Noem’s own credentials.
During an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, the Republican leader was asked about a claim in her book suggesting she had met North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Instead of providing a direct answer, Noem avoided confirming or denying the encounter, saying to host Margaret Brennan, “I’m not going to talk about my specific meetings with world leaders. I’m just not going to do that. This anecdote shouldn’t have been in the book and as soon as it was brought to my attention, I made sure that that was adjusted.”
Experts on North Korea dismissed the claim as highly unlikely. From 2011 to 2018, Kim Jong Un did not leave North Korea, according to George Lopez, a professor at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in North Korea. Benjamin Young, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and an authority on North Korea, expressed skepticism, telling **_The Dakota Scout_** that the notion of Noem meeting Kim was “dubious.” He stated, “I cover North Korea very closely, and I have never heard of Kim Jong Un meeting congressmen or congresswomen.”
In response to the controversy, Ian Fury, chief of communications for Noem’s office, told **_The Independent_** that there were two “small errors” in the book, one of which was including Kim Jong Un in a list of world leaders, a claim that Fury admitted was incorrect.
The book also recounts Noem rejecting an invitation to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron, an assertion his office has since denied. Additionally, the memoir has drawn criticism for Noem’s story of killing a young dog on her farm because it misbehaved and ate a neighbor’s chickens. This part of the book became the subject of a satirical monologue by Stephen Colbert.
Noem has accused the “fake news” of exaggerating her account of the dog incident, insisting she was justified under state law. As the controversy unfolds, it’s clear that her memoir may be attracting more attention for its inaccuracies than for its intended message.
