Even GOP senators rip Noem over $220M taxpayer-funded TV ads -- starring her
Noem defended the immigration ads and said DHS followed its contracting rules, while denying involvement in the award process.

SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYThe New York Post is an established national newsroom with named authors and editorial practices, though its tabloid style and headline framing warrant a more moderate score than a newspaper of record.
- Source type — Established national news outlet, with a tabloid presentation.
- Author attribution — A named author is credited.
- Editorial standards — The story reports a public hearing and attributes key statements to named speakers.
- Transparency — The article identifies the hearing and references prior reporting, but provides limited underlying documentation.
The story includes specific spending figures, quotes from senators and Noem, and a denial from the former DHS spokesperson. Much of the account relies on hearing exchanges and attributed allegations, with limited independent verification or broader context.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The article includes criticism from senators of both parties and responses from Noem and a former DHS spokesperson. It does not provide a fuller agency explanation or independently establish the effectiveness or contracting claims.
- Counterarguments presented — Noem defended the ads, said they were effective, and denied involvement in the contract award; McLaughlin disputed claims about her husband’s company.
- Source diversity — Includes statements from Republican and Democratic senators, Noem, and a former DHS spokesperson.
- Omitted context — Provides little independent documentation or further explanation of the spending and contracting process.
- Loaded language — Some emphatic framing appears, especially in the headline and descriptions of the hearing.
The article reports criticism from senators of both parties, but its headline and descriptions such as “whopping” and “incredulous” emphasize the case against Noem.
- Language tone — Uses emphatic terms, including “whopping” and “incredulous.”
- Framing — Centers criticism of Noem and the taxpayer-funded ads.
- Source selection — Quotes questioning senators as well as Noem’s defense and a spokesperson’s denial.
At a Senate hearing, Republican and Democratic senators questioned Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about $220 million in taxpayer-funded immigration ads featuring her. Noem defended the campaign and denied involvement in awarding a related contract.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. John Kennedy questioned Noem about the department spending $220 million on television ads featuring her. Noem said President Trump tasked her with getting the message out to people in the country illegally, and she maintained that the ads were effective. Kennedy questioned whether Trump would have approved the spending and said the ads had increased Noem’s name recognition.
Community verdict
24 VOTESPeople in this story
SWIPE →Homeland Security secretary defending the ad campaign and DHS contracting
Louisiana senator questioning Noem about the ad spending
Kennedy's version of this story ↗Vermont senator questioning the DHS contract and subcontract
Welch's version of this story ↗California senator questioning Noem about DHS contracting
Schiff's version of this story ↗President whom Noem said tasked her with communicating the immigration message
North Carolina senator described as criticizing Noem
Part of a bigger story
4 OUTLETSAt a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, senators questioned Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about immigration enforcement and her department’s conduct. Noem defended her statements and actions in response to some of the questions. Left-leaning outlets center Cory Booker’s challenges to Noem’s testimony and allegations about immigration operations. Center outlets focus on senators’ challenges to her remarks and leadership. Right-leaning outlets focus on scrutiny of taxpayer-funded immigration ads and Noem’s defense of the campaign.
- ARTICLES
- 5
- OUTLETS
- 4
- AVG CRED
- 61
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…





