Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is facing mounting scrutiny after reports surfaced that she fast-tracked more than $11 million in federal funds to repair a historic pier in Naples, Florida—a move that has drawn allegations of political favoritism and raised questions about the Trump administration’s handling of disaster relief funds. The controversy centers on the intersection of political connections, donor influence, and the allocation of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) resources, with critics arguing that the federal government’s approach to disaster recovery has become mired in personal and political interests.
The Naples pier, a beloved landmark in the scenic and affluent Gulf Coast community, was severely damaged by Hurricane Ian in 2022. For months, local officials struggled to secure federal assistance to rebuild the structure, citing persistent delays that some attributed to staffing cuts and procedural changes implemented during the Trump administration. According to ProPublica, the bottleneck in FEMA’s response left the city in limbo, with Mayor Teresa Heitmann ultimately reaching out in August 2025 to Dr. Sinan Gursoy, a local cardiologist and past political donor, in a desperate bid to expedite the process.
Heitmann’s message to Gursoy was direct: “FEMA is holding us up. Kristi Noem could put some fire under the FEMA employees slacking.” Gursoy, who had previously donated at least $25,000 to Noem’s 2022 gubernatorial campaign, was well-positioned to advocate on the city’s behalf. He had introduced the mayor to Noem at a political event in Naples—a city known for hosting high-profile Republican fundraisers—and his name appeared as a member of the South Dakota delegation to the 2024 Republican National Convention.
Within days of Heitmann’s appeal, action on the pier project accelerated. Internal FEMA communications obtained by ProPublica captured the urgency: “Per leadership instruction, pushing project immediately,” a FEMA official wrote. Noem herself visited the site in late August, an event documented on her Instagram account. During her trip, she reportedly dined with Gursoy at Bleu Provence, a local French restaurant renowned for its extensive wine list. The mayor of Naples confirmed the dinner, further fueling speculation about the role of personal relationships in the decision-making process.
The proximity of Noem’s top aide, Corey Lewandowski, to the controversy has also raised eyebrows. Lewandowski, a prominent figure in Republican circles and a longtime adviser to Noem, reportedly owns a home near the Naples pier. Media reports have suggested a romantic link between Noem and Lewandowski, though both have denied such allegations. Lewandowski told ProPublica he was not involved in the pier project and was not present in Naples during Noem’s visit.
The Department of Homeland Security has pushed back against claims of political favoritism, highlighting Noem’s involvement in recovery efforts beyond Florida. “This has nothing to do with politics: Secretary Noem also visited Ruidoso, NM, at the request of a Democrat governor and has been integral in supporting and speeding up their recovery efforts,” the department said in a statement responding to the ProPublica report.
Still, the optics of the Naples intervention have proven difficult to shake, especially given the broader context of FEMA’s recent performance. Critics point to Noem’s policy of personally signing off on all FEMA expenditures over $100,000—a rule that, according to The Independent and other outlets, has contributed to delays in responding to disasters elsewhere, most notably in central Texas. In the aftermath of devastating floods there earlier this year, first responders and rescue workers reportedly waited nearly three days for emergency funding, a lag that some believe exacerbated the crisis. The floods claimed the lives of more than 135 people, prompting anguished questions about whether more timely federal support could have saved lives.
Even Republican officials have voiced frustration with the bottlenecks. Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina told a newspaper, “I can’t get phone calls back. I can’t get them to initiate the money. It’s just a quagmire.” His comments underscore the bipartisan nature of concerns about the current approach to disaster relief, with some observers suggesting that political connections—rather than need or urgency—are increasingly determining which communities receive help first.
When ProPublica reached out to Dr. Gursoy for comment on his involvement in the Naples pier funding, he responded curtly: “Get lost.” The blunt reply did little to quell suspicions that donor influence played a role in the sudden acceleration of federal aid for the project.
The controversy comes amid a broader reckoning within FEMA itself. Last month, a group of agency employees issued an open letter warning that staffing changes and budget cuts enacted during the Trump administration were undermining the country’s preparedness for natural disasters. “Our shared commitment to our country, our oaths of office, and our mission of helping people before, during, and after disasters compel us to warn Congress and the American people of the cascading effects of decisions made by the current administration,” the letter read. The employees’ plea painted a picture of an agency stretched thin, struggling to fulfill its mandate in the face of mounting political and operational challenges.
For critics, the Naples pier episode is emblematic of a deeper problem: the politicization of emergency management and the perception that disaster relief has become a tool for rewarding allies and punishing adversaries. “This is an appalling abuse of government resources and a show of political favoritism that shows the depths of the corruption in the Trump administration. Even emergency funding for natural disasters has been turned into yet another avenue of corruption, graft, and political gamesmanship,” wrote columnist William Sandsmark in a widely shared opinion piece.
Supporters of Noem and the administration, however, argue that the focus on Naples is misplaced. They point to her efforts in other disaster-stricken areas, including bipartisan cooperation in New Mexico, as evidence of a broader commitment to recovery and resilience. The Department of Homeland Security maintains that Noem’s interventions are driven by the needs of affected communities, not by political calculation.
As the debate rages, the underlying issues remain unresolved. The question of how best to allocate scarce federal resources in the wake of increasingly frequent and destructive natural disasters is not going away. For residents of Naples, the rebuilt pier will stand as a testament to the power of political connections—for better or worse. For those in Texas and other hard-hit regions still waiting for relief, the controversy is a reminder of the high stakes and human costs of bureaucratic delay and political maneuvering.
Whether the Naples episode will spur meaningful reform in disaster management policy or simply fade into the background of America’s ever-churning political landscape remains to be seen. For now, the story serves as a stark illustration of the ways in which politics, privilege, and public service can collide—sometimes with life-and-death consequences.
