Did Kristi Noem star in a $200 million ad campaign about securing the border?
Executive summary
Kristi Noem did appear as the on-camera star of a Department of Homeland Security ad campaign focused on discouraging illegal immigration and praising the administration’s border policies; DHS publicly announced the campaign and posted video featuring Noem [1] [2]. The campaign was funded at a scale widely reported as roughly $200 million (some reporting says $200 million, other sources cite $220 million), and that budget figure — and related contracting decisions — has provoked scrutiny and allegations of favoritism [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Noem is the face of the ads and DHS rolled them out publicly
Homeland Security materials and press releases show Secretary Kristi Noem announcing a nationwide and international ad push and appearing in campaign spots that warn people in the United States illegally to leave or face deportation; DHS’ own media library includes video with Noem delivering those messages [1] [2]. Multiple news organizations documented the same domestic television and radio spots and the international elements that the department said would run in multiple languages and regions [7] [8].
2. The campaign’s headline budget: $200 million (and sometimes $220 million)
News reports and DHS disclosures consistently tied the campaign to roughly $200 million in funding, with several outlets and public documents verifying a two-year budget or allocation in that range; some subsequent reporting and oversight letters expanded the figure to $220 million when tallying related contracts and awards [3] [9] [6]. The exact breakdown between ad creative, placement, and vendor subcontracts is disputed in public reporting, but the $200M number is the standard public reference for the campaign’s size [3].
3. Noem has said the ads thanked President Trump and that he asked her to star
Onstage at political events and in interviews, Noem has described the ads as thanking President Trump for border actions and recounted that the president asked her to appear in spots praising the administration’s border work — statements that were picked up and repeated in news accounts [4] [10]. DHS messaging and the ads themselves include explicit praise of administration policy and statements urging migrants not to come or to leave [1] [2].
4. Critics question effectiveness, cost and contracting; lawmakers demanded investigations
Advocates, migrants, and Democratic lawmakers have publicly criticized the campaign’s cost and effectiveness, reporting skepticism from targeted communities and raising concerns about politicization and the campaign’s use of taxpayer dollars [7] [9]. Congressional letters and reporting allege that large contracts — including awards to newly formed entities — were steered through an emergency process and that firms with ties to Noem or her allies received significant sums, prompting calls for investigation [6] [5].
5. Contracting controversy: firms tied to Noem reportedly benefited
Investigations by outlets such as ProPublica and follow-up reporting described a chain of contracts in which a large share of the campaign’s money flowed to companies that then subcontracted work to firms linked to Noem or her associates, and those reporting described payments and relationships between state, campaign, and vendor entities [5] [11] [12]. Those accounts are the basis for allegations of noncompetitive awards and potential conflicts of interest; public-source articles and a bipartisan set of senators asked inspectors general to review the matter [6] [5].
6. What can and cannot be concluded from the record provided
From the publicly available reporting cited here, it is clear that Kristi Noem appeared in and promoted a DHS ad campaign focused on securing the border, and that the campaign’s budget has been reported around $200 million [1] [2] [3]. What remains contested in reporting are the campaign’s measurable effectiveness, the precise accounting of the $200M (versus $220M) across vendors and airtime, and whether contracting procedures violated rules — those questions are the subject of ongoing scrutiny and investigation requests cited in the press [7] [6] [5].