Fact check: When was the order for Kristi Noem's jets placed

1. How the timeline is reported and why no single “order date” appears

News reports converge on a two-step sequence rather than a single transaction date: the Coast Guard first requested funding in its 2025 budget cycle for a long-range aircraft, and later in 2025 the Department of Homeland Security executed a contract to buy two Gulfstream jets. Articles from October 2025 summarize these developments and quote officials describing the procurement need voiced publicly in May 2025 during a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, when the Coast Guard’s acting commandant explained the service needed a new plane to replace an older model ^[2]. The sourcing pattern suggests procurement progressed from a budget request, congressional briefings, and then a contract award, but none of the articles publish a procurement office timestamp or contract award date that would answer “when exactly” the order was placed ^{[1] [3]}.

2. What the October 2025 articles actually say about the contract

Multiple October 2025 pieces report that the Coast Guard’s procurement office ultimately signed a contract to acquire two Gulfstream business jets, identified in reporting as G700 or Gulfstream V variants and described as “used” in at least one account, with the total contract value reported between roughly $172 million and $200 million ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The articles describe the contract as a DHS purchase facilitated by Coast Guard logistics and budgeting processes; they do not, however, reproduce contract award documents, Federal Procurement Data System entries, or a Defense or DHS acquisition notice that would indicate the contract award date or the procurement instrument number. That gap is the proximate reason public coverage does not provide a single, verifiable calendar date.

3. Public statements that shape the reported timeline

Officials and congressional testimony feature in reporting and anchor the timeline. The Coast Guard’s acting commandant, Adm. Kevin Lunday, told a House subcommittee in May 2025 the service needed a replacement plane, which reporters cite as the public initiation point of the procurement narrative ^[2]. Subsequent reporting frames the contract signing as occurring “later” in the year, citing DHS action. These public remarks provide context and a sequence — May 2025 as a clear public marker and later months as the likely contract window — but because news outlets rely on official statements and government announcements without access to procurement records, they stop short of naming an exact order date.

4. Discrepancies in cost figures and how they affect the timeline question

The reporting shows disagreement about total cost — one article lists a little over $172 million, other pieces cite about $200 million — which reflects different rounding, inclusion of add-ons (modifications, training, spares), or summarization choices by outlets ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Cost variance does not directly change when the order was placed, but it underscores that publicly available journalistic accounts are derived from disparate briefings and statements rather than a single, definitive procurement document. That fragmentation of facts is why a precise date is not consistently reported across outlets despite agreement on the broad 2025 procurement timeline.

5. What is omitted from reporting and why it matters

Key procurement artifacts are missing from the coverage: the contract award notice, Federal Procurement Data System entry, or a DHS acquisition announcement that would show a contract award date and contract number. Reporters instead rely on budget requests, congressional testimony, and departmental statements, leaving an evidentiary gap. The absence of those procurement records in the stories means the public narrative can state that a contract was signed “later this year” without producing the exact procurement date that would definitively answer the original question ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Alternative interpretations and potential agendas in coverage

Coverage focuses on optics — procurement timing, cost, and the appearance of jets serving a cabinet official — which invites political framing. Some outlets emphasize scrutiny over expenditure during budget scrutiny or a shutdown context, while others summarize procurement logistics and official justifications. The reporting pattern and wording differences suggest editorial choices shape how the sequence is presented: budget request and May testimony framed as justification, and the later contract framed as the actionable procurement step ^{[2] [3]}. Readers should note these narrative emphases when weighing why precise dates were or were not reported.

7. Bottom line and what would provide a definitive answer

Based on the reporting, the order process began publicly with a Coast Guard budget request and May 2025 testimony and culminated in a DHS contract signed later in 2025, but none of the cited articles publish the exact contract award or order date. To establish a definitive date, one would need the DHS or Coast Guard contract award notice or a Federal Procurement Data System entry showing the contract award date and number; absent that document in the October 2025 coverage, the most accurate answer is that the procurement actions occurred earlier and later in 2025 without a publicly disclosed single calendar date in the cited reporting ^{[1] [2] [3]}.