Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did Kristi Noem or her campaign receive $220 million in donations or funding?
Executive summary
Reporting shows the $220 million figure refers to a taxpayer-funded Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advertising campaign — not to funds donated to Kristi Noem or her campaign — and ProPublica and follow‑on outlets say a firm tied to Noem received payments from that DHS ad work (the campaign is described as “more than $200 million” or $220 million) [1] [2]. Available sources do not say Noem or her campaign personally received $220 million in donations; they document a separate $80,000 payment to Noem from a nonprofit and that a private firm with ties to Noem got money from the DHS ad contracts [3] [1].
1. What the $220M number actually describes: a DHS ad campaign
Investigative reporting identifies the nine‑figure sum as a Department of Homeland Security advertising campaign budget that ProPublica and other outlets put at roughly $200–$220 million; that work was awarded using an “emergency” justification to skirt normal competitive bidding rules [1] [2] [4]. Coverage emphasizes this was taxpayer funding for government advertising, not campaign fundraising or private donations to Noem [1] [2].
2. Did Noem or her campaign get $220M in donations? No — sources do not report that
None of the provided reporting alleges that Kristi Noem or her campaign received $220 million in donations or direct campaign funding. The stories instead describe government ad spending and contracts, and they tie a beneficiary firm to Noem through personnel and prior business relationships — not a transfer of $220 million into Noem’s campaign coffers [1] [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention any claim that Noem personally or her campaign accepted $220 million in donations.
3. What ties Noem to money reported in these stories
ProPublica and other outlets report two distinct money‑related items tied to Noem: (a) a roughly $220M DHS ad campaign that included at least one firm with personal and business ties to Noem and her senior aides among its subcontractors, and (b) a separate episode in which Noem, while governor, received about $80,000 from a nonprofit linked to her political operation and did not disclose it until the reporting [1] [3] [6]. The first is government contracting; the second is a modest, earlier payment alleged to be a personal cut from fundraising [1] [3].
4. How reporting describes the firm connections and concerns
ProPublica and other outlets detail that at least one firm with long‑standing ties to Noem — including payments from her American Resolve PAC and prior state contracts — received payments as part of the DHS advertising work, and that the firm is run by a relative of a Noem aide, raising questions about procurement transparency [1] [7] [4]. Journalists highlight that DHS invoked an emergency border rationale to avoid competitive bidding, which critics say increases risks of favoritism [1] [4] [8].
5. Competing perspectives in the coverage
Reporting presents both the factual chain (DHS ad spending; firm with ties getting work) and the defense or context: Noem and DHS officials frame the ad effort as necessary for immigration messaging and the “emergency” justification as lawful; critics call the contracts and the lack of open bidding problematic and point to past instances where Noem’s team employed private firms for public ads [1] [5] [8]. The sources document critics’ language (e.g., concerns about hiding subcontractors) while noting DHS’s stated mission to use the campaign to address border policy [2] [1].
6. Separate disclosure and ethics items reporters flagged
Independent reporting also flagged that while governor Noem reportedly received an $80,000 payment routed through an LLC connected to her, critics and ethics experts said she failed to disclose that payment properly — a distinct issue from the DHS ad contracting matter and far smaller than the nine‑figure ad budget [3] [6]. These are separate allegations: one about procurement and subcontracting on a large DHS campaign, the other about nondisclosure of an $80,000 payment tied to a nonprofit and an LLC [1] [3].
7. Bottom line and what’s not in the reporting
The available reporting shows a $220M (or “more than $200M”) DHS advertising program that involved vendors with ties to Noem; it does not show Kristi Noem or her campaign receiving $220 million in donations [1] [2]. If you are asking whether Noem personally or her campaign banked $220 million in contributions, available sources do not support that claim and do not report any such transfer of donations to her campaign [1] [3].
If you want, I can compile the specific ProPublica passages and local follow‑ups that itemize the contracting chain and the payments to the firm tied to Noem so you can read the primary passages cited in these reports [1] [2] [4].