The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its secretary, Kristi Noem, have come under intense scrutiny after the recent purchase of two high-end private jets for official travel—a move that has ignited a fierce debate in Washington and beyond. The controversy centers on the Coast Guard’s October 17, 2025, contract with Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation to acquire two G700 jets for more than $170 million, all while a government shutdown left thousands of federal employees furloughed or working without pay.
According to documents reviewed by The New York Times and posted on a public government procurement website, the jets—described by Gulfstream as featuring the “most spacious cabin in the industry”—were purchased to replace planes that were up to 20 years old and plagued by frequent unplanned maintenance issues. The Coast Guard maintains that the new aircraft are essential for providing official travel for Secretary Noem, Deputy Secretary Troy Edgar, and top Coast Guard commandants, ensuring “continuity of operations and mission success.” As Adm. Kevin Lunday, acting commandant of the Coast Guard, put it in a statement, “The timing of this investment underscores the Coast Guard’s vital need to modernize its command and control capabilities to meet today’s rapidly evolving operational demands.”
But not everyone is convinced by this rationale—especially congressional Democrats, who have been quick to point out the apparent disconnect between the purchase and the department’s original funding requests. Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), both senior Democrats on key House committees, penned a pointed letter to Secretary Noem demanding answers about the procurement. “It has come to our attention that, in the midst of a government shutdown, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) entered into a sole source contract with Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation to procure two new G700 luxury jets to support travel for you and the Deputy Secretary, at a cost to the taxpayer of $200 million,” they wrote. The letter went on to accuse Noem of prioritizing her own comfort over the needs of Coast Guard servicemembers, adding, “We are deeply concerned about your judgment, leadership priorities, and responsibility as a steward of taxpayer dollars.”
DeLauro and Underwood also raised questions about the source of funding for the jets, the lack of Congressional notification, and the apparent deviation from previous acquisition strategies. Their skepticism was echoed by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, who lambasted the purchase as “wholly inappropriate.” Thompson’s condemnation was particularly sharp given the timing: “The fact that she’s doing it during a Federal government shutdown while most of the DHS workforce is working without pay is completely vile,” he said, as reported by The Hill. “Such spending is blatantly immoral—and probably illegal—and Congress must investigate. We said hell no to her request for a $50 million jet earlier this year, but now she went ahead with it anyway while quadrupling it.”
The $50 million request Thompson referenced dates back to May 2025, when the Coast Guard’s budget included a proposal to purchase a new long-range Gulfstream V jet for Noem’s personal travel—a request that was swiftly shot down by Democrats. Yet, just months later, the department moved forward with a contract for two jets at over three times that cost, leaving lawmakers and watchdogs alike scratching their heads. Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), ranking member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, was equally blunt in his criticism: “While members of the Coast Guard are focused on keeping our seas safe even though many are not getting paid, Secretary Kristi Noem wants to buy hundred million dollar jets. Secretary Noem: cool your jets and fly commercial.”
Fueling the fire are longstanding allegations against Noem regarding her use of public funds and resources. She has previously been accused of staying rent-free in a waterfront residence typically reserved for the Coast Guard’s commandant, and for using Coast Guard aircraft for personal travel. A spokeswoman for the department told The Daily Mail that Noem’s residency at the home was a necessary safety precaution following a series of threats, and that she had reimbursed “tens of thousands of dollars” to the government for personal jet use. These controversies are not new for Noem; as governor of South Dakota, she reportedly spent $68,000 of taxpayer money on renovations to the governor’s mansion—including rugs, chandeliers, and a sauna—and $150,000 on personal and political travel, with trips ranging from a Paris speech to a bear hunt in Canada.
Noem’s critics have also seized on her public persona, with some dubbing her “ICE Barbie” for her stylized, militaristic outfits during high-profile immigration raids. The nickname, though derisive, underscores a broader perception among detractors that Noem is more invested in optics and personal comfort than in the operational needs of the agencies she leads. “Your first priority should be to organize, train and equip a Coast Guard that is strong enough to meet today’s mission requirements. Instead, it appears your first priority is your own comfort,” DeLauro and Underwood wrote in their letter, highlighting a pattern of decisions that, in their view, put Noem’s interests above those of Coast Guard servicemembers.
Yet, supporters of the purchase argue that the jets are not a luxury but a necessity. Sean Plankey, senior adviser to the secretary for the Coast Guard, pushed back forcefully against the criticism, suggesting that lawmakers were “playing politics with the funding of the Coast Guard.” In a statement to The New York Times and The Daily Mail, Plankey said, “This is a matter of safety and mission readiness. It’s well known that senior military officials and cabinet members need secure command and control and rapid long-range mobility.” He went on to dismiss the criticisms as “flippant comments” designed for “clicks and fundraising emails,” arguing that they fail to “reflect the reality of protecting the American people 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year.”
Still, the backlash has not abated. Democratic lawmakers continue to press for transparency, demanding details on what precipitated the change in procurement strategy, the specific funding source for the jets, and why Congress was not notified in advance. The department has so far declined to publicly clarify these points, further fueling suspicions among critics.
As the debate rages on, the episode has become emblematic of broader tensions over government spending, transparency, and the priorities of public officials. For some, it’s a story of necessary modernization and operational readiness; for others, it’s a glaring example of self-indulgence at taxpayer expense. Either way, the purchase of two luxury jets during a government shutdown has become a political lightning rod—one likely to reverberate through Washington for months to come.
