Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem faced sharp criticism from lawmakers during a congressional hearing over a $220 million taxpayer-funded advertising campaign, including a widely circulated video showing her riding a horse near Mount Rushmore, as members of Congress questioned how federal contracts were awarded and whether public funds were misused.
The campaign, produced during Noem's tenure at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and promoted as part of the administration's immigration messaging, drew scrutiny from both Democrats and Republicans during a hearing examining DHS spending. Lawmakers argued that the scale of the advertising campaign raised serious questions about fiscal oversight and procurement practices.
Rep. Joe Neguse, a Democrat from Colorado, sharply criticized the spending while questioning Noem during the hearing. "It is fraud and ultimately I think there's going to be accountability," Neguse said, referring to the government contracts tied to the advertising initiative.
The controversy centers on a 60-second promotional video filmed in October 2025 that features Noem riding horseback near Mount Rushmore while warning about illegal immigration. The video also includes imagery of law-enforcement officers, military personnel and former President Donald Trump, framing the message around border security and enforcement policies.
Lawmakers said the scale of the spending appeared extraordinary compared with other media projects. According to figures cited during the hearing, the total advertising budget exceeded the combined production and marketing costs of many films nominated for Best Picture at the 2026 Academy Awards, including titles such as F1, One Battle After Another, and Sinners.
Members of Congress also raised concerns about how contracts were distributed to outside companies involved in producing the campaign.
Key contracts highlighted during the hearing included:
- $175 million contract awarded to Safe America Media Group, a firm reportedly established shortly before the agreement and with little government contracting history
- Payments to Strategy Group, a consulting firm run by Ben Yoho, the husband of Noem's former DHS spokesperson
- Additional advertising and communications spending connected to the broader DHS campaign
Neguse questioned the circumstances under which one of the largest contracts was awarded. "You want the American people to believe that this is all above board, that £138 million of taxpayer money just happened to go to this one company that doesn't have a headquarters, doesn't have a website, has never done work for the federal government before," Neguse said during the hearing.
Other lawmakers broadened the criticism to include DHS spending priorities more generally.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, said the department appeared to be misusing funds while immigration enforcement operations were already under intense legal scrutiny. Addressing Noem directly during the hearing, Raskin said: "While you make a daily mockery of our courts and our constitution, you're treating the billions of dollars our colleagues showered on your department like a personal slush fund."
The congressional hearing intensified political pressure surrounding the DHS advertising campaign, which had already drawn attention because of its overt political messaging and unusually large budget.
Shortly after the hearings, President Donald Trump removed Noem from her position as DHS secretary, though the administration did not publicly attribute the decision solely to the advertising controversy.
The dispute has continued to expand in Washington. Sen. Richard Blumenthal and other lawmakers have called for further investigation into the contracting process, including whether Noem accurately described her role in approving the advertising campaign during sworn testimony.
Congressional committees have also requested documentation from companies involved in producing the ads, seeking details about the selection process and financial arrangements tied to the contracts.
At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General has begun reviewing the advertising campaign and the procurement decisions behind it. The inspector general's investigation could determine whether federal contracting rules were followed or whether violations occurred during the awarding of the contracts.
