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 sevretylyGet 220 Million
Executive summary
Reporting by ProPublica and multiple outlets says the Department of Homeland Security directed a roughly $220 million border advertising program that has so far tripled DHS’s ad budget and that at least one Republican consulting firm with longstanding ties to Secretary Kristi Noem — the Strategy Group — received money through that campaign, sometimes routed through other entities [1] [2]. Available sources document the campaign’s size and the Strategy Group’s ties to Noem and her aides, but do not provide a single public document showing an exact lump-sum “$220 million” payment directly deposited into a Noem-linked firm’s bank account [1] [3].
1. What the reporting says: a nine‑figure DHS campaign and hidden beneficiaries
ProPublica’s investigation — reprinted and summarized widely — reports that DHS invoked a “national emergency” at the southern border to bypass competitive bidding and authorized a roughly $220 million advertising campaign; the agency’s ad outlays have reportedly tripled this fiscal year as a result [1] [2]. That reporting says the public-facing prime contract named shell-like companies but that at least one Republican consulting firm, the Strategy Group, with deep personal and business ties to Noem and senior DHS aides, was a hidden beneficiary of the work [1] [3].
2. The ties between the Strategy Group and Kristi Noem’s circle
Multiple outlets cite ProPublica’s finding that the Strategy Group has long worked for Noem’s political operation and that its leadership has personal ties to Noem’s DHS staff — including that the company’s CEO is married to Noem’s chief DHS spokesperson, according to those reports [1] [4]. The Strategy Group previously received state-level public contracts tied to Noem when she was governor, a point used to show a pattern of recurring business between her network and that firm [5] [6].
3. What “secretly got $220 million” means in context
Headlines stating a firm “secretly got $220 million” compress two distinct facts reported: (a) the DHS campaign’s total authorized or spent budget is about $220 million and (b) pieces of that campaign were routed, in part, to firms with ties to Noem, sometimes obscured behind newly formed or Delaware-registered companies [3] [7]. The reporting documents millions directed to Republican consultants and that at least some work produced for DHS involved the Strategy Group — but the sources do not say the Strategy Group itself publicly reported a single $220 million payment into its own accounts [1] [3].
4. DHS’s stated rationale and procurement mechanics
According to the reports, DHS justified skipping full competitive procurement by invoking the emergency at the southern border and claiming communications needed speed to prevent “misinformation” spread; that rationale permitted sole‑source or expedited awards that critics say reduced transparency [1] [2]. Public documents show the prime contract names companies created close in time to the award, and reporting says some of the actual production work was carried out by companies not listed on the public contracts [7] [3].
5. Where evidence is strong and where it’s limited
Evidence is strongest that (a) DHS assembled a large — roughly $220 million — border public‑communications campaign and (b) at least some of that money flowed, directly or indirectly, to consultants with close ties to Noem and her advisers [2] [1]. Available sources do not publish a clear ledger showing exactly how much the Strategy Group or any specific Noem‑linked company received from the $220 million total, nor do they show a single document stating “Firm X received $220 million in direct payments” [1] [3].
6. Competing perspectives and potential agendas
Advocates for transparency frame the story as misuse of emergency contracting to favor political allies; outlets emphasize ties between the Strategy Group and Noem to suggest conflicts of interest [1] [5]. DHS’s quoted defense — that expedited awards were necessary to counter misinformation quickly — appears in the same reporting and represents the agency’s rationale for the procurement choices [1] [2]. Some downstream articles and commentary adopt punchy headlines (“secretly got $220 million”) that may overstate what the documents prove about single‑firm receipts [8] [9].
7. What to watch next
Follow-up records releases (contract payment ledgers, subpoenas, Inspector General reviews) would be the most direct way to verify exact dollar flows to named firms; ProPublica’s investigation and its republishing outlets have set the frame for oversight inquiries and legislative questions [1] [3]. Absent those official accounting documents in available reporting, precise dollar amounts paid to any specific Noem‑linked firm remain an open detail referenced but not fully itemized in the public record cited here [1] [3].
Limitations: This analysis uses only the provided reporting; available sources document the $220 million campaign and ties between the Strategy Group and Noem’s circle but do not show a public, line‑item statement that any single Noem‑linked firm received the entire $220 million [1] [3].