ExploreRead
Gutting Watchdogs and the Civil Service
The Advertising Contracts

Noem's DHS Restricted Bidding for Nearly $220 Million in Ads; She Told Senators It Was Competitive

Select a Section to Explore

Chapter 1 — Public Money, Restricted Bidding, Political Connections

Chapter 2 — What Noem Told Congress, and What DHS Has Not Answered

Chapter 3 — Trump Praised Noem After the Hearings and Announced Another Appointment

1 · Public Money, Restricted Bidding, Political Connections

1 · Public Money, Restricted Bidding, Political Connections — select a subtopic

1.1 — Nearly $220 Million Through a Pool DHS Chose

1.2 — The Production Firm Had Worked for Noem's Political Campaign

1 · Public Money, Restricted Bidding, Political Connections
1.1 · Public Money, Restricted Bidding, Political Connections
Nearly $220 Million Through a Pool DHS Chose

DHS committed nearly $220 million through two advertising contracts after restricting the initial bidding to a pool it chose. Three offers came in; the opportunity was never publicly announced. DHS said the campaign prompted more than 2.2 million self-deportations, but its published totals do not separate the effect of advertising from enforcement and incentives.

Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition, solicitation 70RDA225R00000015 (redacted version), section on publicising the requirement

An announcement for this action will not be published at SAM.gov. It is exempt from the requirement per the exception at FAR 5.202(a)(2).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Procurement Operations · posted March 7, 2025

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources
1.2 · Public Money, Restricted Bidding, Political Connections
The Production Firm Had Worked for Noem's Political Campaign

The Strategy Group, which had managed Noem's gubernatorial advertising, acknowledged $226,137.17 in production fees through a subcontract on March 3. The senators later reported an accounting that included a $60,000 signing bonus benefiting the firm. DHS said contractors chose their own subcontractors and that Tricia McLaughlin, the DHS official married to the firm's CEO, recused herself. The payment establishes a political connection in the spending.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

2 · What Noem Told Congress, and What DHS Has Not Answered

2 · What Noem Told Congress, and What DHS Has Not Answered — select a subtopic

2.1 — Competitive Bidding Without the Restrictions

2.2 — Who Approved the Contracts

2 · What Noem Told Congress, and What DHS Has Not Answered
2.1 · What Noem Told Congress, and What DHS Has Not Answered
Competitive Bidding Without the Restrictions

The answer quoted in the referral described competitive bidding without mentioning the restricted pool or the lack of a public announcement. Congress permits an urgency exception, and three offers were received, so her description could be literally true. Two Judiciary ranking members requested an investigation; a Justice Department spokesperson called the referral a political stunt, ABC News reported.

March 3 Senate Judiciary testimony, quoted in the March 16 referral by Richard Durbin and Jamie Raskin

Yes, they did. They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the Department chose who would do those advertising commercials.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, answering Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) · hearing March 3, 2026; letter March 16, 2026

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources
2.2 · What Noem Told Congress, and What DHS Has Not Answered
Who Approved the Contracts

Noem reserved personal approval of awards over $100,000 after the original awards, and four new advertising orders followed the implementing instruction, including a $65 million domestic campaign order. Senate minority staff found 1,034 awards delayed or awaiting approval under the rule. Noem denied that Corey Lewandowski had a contract-approval role; ProPublica reported internal records and officials' accounts contradicting that denial, and DHS repeated it. By September 14, the senators investigating said the department had produced no responsive records to their March request.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

3 · Trump Praised Noem After the Hearings and Announced Another Appointment

3 · Trump Praised Noem After the Hearings and Announced Another Appointment — select a subtopic

3.1 — The President Kept and Publicly Praised Her

3.2 — The Impeachment Argument

3 · Trump Praised Noem After the Hearings and Announced Another Appointment
3.1 · Trump Praised Noem After the Hearings and Announced Another Appointment
The President Kept and Publicly Praised Her

Trump announced her replacement eleven and a half months after House Democrats demanded the campaign's documents and two days after her Senate testimony. He publicly praised her performance and announced a new envoy appointment in the same post. Trump reportedly denied knowing about the campaign, while Noem said he approved the spending.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources
3.2 · Trump Praised Noem After the Hearings and Announced Another Appointment
The Impeachment Argument

The charge is restricted public contracting and publicity for a Cabinet Secretary, followed by inadequate accounting to Congress. A politically connected firm acknowledged production fees, and senators later reported a signing bonus benefiting the firm. In September, two senators said DHS had provided no substantive response and no responsive records to their March contracting inquiry. The impeachment argument against Trump concerns his responsibility for keeping and publicly praising Noem after scrutiny of that spending.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

Full Source Index

Full Source Index — 57 Sources

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

Source Index