When “Urgency” Becomes a DHS Contracting Shortcut

Kristi Noem wants a retraction. Taxpayers should want the receipts.✈️

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said it urgently needed planes for deportations. So urgently that it bypassed competition.

The New York Times reports that DHS approved buying five aircraft from Daedalus Aviation Corporation on Kristi Noem’s last morning as secretary: a $108 million luxury Boeing 737, two Gulfstreams totaling $106 million and two older passenger jets at $45 million each.

But according to the Times, DHS lacked crews to fly the aircraft purchased for deportations. Most remained largely idle. DHS now says four passenger airliners will carry government leaders and members of Congress overseas instead…

What then, exactly, was so urgent?

I’ve worked on both sides of federal contracting: drafting proposals, coordinating bid teams, building competitive pricing structures, and reviewing contracts from the government side. I understand why some situations require speed, and why review matters.

What I want explained is what justified the shortcut here.

My Deep Dives have been free. Going forward, they’ll be for paid subscribers, but I’m keeping this one open because taxpayers deserve answers. If you value reporting informed by experience inside government, become a paid subscriber and help support this work.

Daedalus chairman William Walters contributed $10,000 to American Resolve, a PAC supporting Noem. He says he did not know of that association. Apparently, the website’s giant “Kristi Noem” heading was too subtle.

Noem disputes the donor characterization and says the purchase was finalized under her successor, Markwayne Mullin. The Times distinguishes Noem’s March approval from Mullin’s April transfer of ownership. Daedalus defends its prices by citing limited aircraft availability and tight deadlines.

How the process is supposed to work…

The government defines its requirements. Companies submit proposals describing their approach, qualifications, and price. Reviewers compare them against the stated criteria to determine best value, not always the lowest price. Capability and reliability matter, too. Competition gives the government options: better prices, faster delivery, different approaches. Lawful exceptions allow restricted competition when delay would cause serious harm or only one supplier can meet the need.

Even under the urgency exception, agencies must seek offers from as many potential suppliers as practicable. For a sole-source award, the government loses the comparison between bids. However, the agency must still justify its choice and determine that the price is fair and reasonable.

For this contract, published data identify a noncompetitive award, one offer, and an urgency exception. DHS said it urgently needed deportation aircraft. Inside a government agency, “urgent” is a powerful word. Ordinary questions can start sounding like obstacles to the mission. But that is precisely when officials should ask: Why this company? Why this price? What harm would considering alternatives cause?

Claiming urgency does not establish that skipping competition was justified.

What was so urgent?

For award 70QS0326C00005002, an independent reproduction of USA spending data shows obligations growing from about $139.9 million to $463.6 million, including a $303.2 million addition on March 24. These are commitments, not necessarily cash already paid. Did the original urgency rationale cover that expansion? Who approved it, and on what evidence?

Delay alone does not prove misconduct. A fleet needs crews, maintenance, and approvals. But what operational plan supported skipping competition? When could the planes perform the mission used to justify purchasing them? And what review supported assigning four of the passenger aircraft to a different purpose? These are exactly the questions I would have asked when reviewing these purchases from the government side.

And the bedroom?

In February, it was reported that ICE was seeking approval to purchase the luxury 737 for $70 million. DHS said it would serve two missions: deportation flights and Cabinet-level travel. It also said at least one bedroom was being converted into seating to prepare the plane for deportations.

Noem repeated the dual-mission explanation to senators in March and said she thought they were removing a bedroom. Executive travel was part of the public explanation before the purchase. But according to the Times, DHS ultimately agreed to pay $108 million. Daedalus says the government paid to replace one bedroom with a conference room. The other bedroom, bar, and luxury fittings remained.

A conference room. What happened to the deportation seating?

What explains the jump from the $70 million request to the $108 million agreement? Different terms or services may explain it. Show us the records.

Who approved that configuration? What did conversion cost? Did the written justification cover both missions, and what made them urgent enough to bypass competition? Who reviewed this?

Competitive negotiated procurements use expert evaluation teams; advisory panels are optional. Sole-source awards still require documented justification, certification, and approval. For an urgency justification at this dollar level, standard Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rules require written approval by the agency’s senior procurement executive.

Who defined the need, evaluated the aircraft, and determined the price was reasonable? Who approved the March expansion? How were legal and ethics concerns resolved?

Publish the review chain: names, roles, dates, findings, and signatures.

A secretary’s policy approval does not replace required procurement approvals. Did those reviews happen–or did someone treat Noem’s sign-off as sufficient? Because that would be interesting, too.

I have seen what happens when those safeguards fail. I served as a witness in an inspector general investigation involving a federal contractor and an agency’s chief procurement officer. That investigation resulted in someone going to prison.

That does not establish a crime occurred here. It explains why I take these questions seriously and want an independent investigation.

The price deserves an explanation.

The Times reports that Daedalus bought the Gulfstreams for about $83 million combined and sold them to DHS for $106 million. The luxury 737’s previously advertised asking price was below $90 million. Its actual sale price to Daedalus was not disclosed. Six aviation experts consulted by the Times put typical values for the older passenger planes at $15 million to $30 million each. DHS paid $45 million each. Daedalus did not explain those individual prices.

And where was Corey Lewandowski in all of this?

Remember him?

Noem brought him into DHS as an unpaid special government employee. Yet reporting described him directing personnel and contracting. My sources at DHS say he was the gatekeeper: meetings with Noem and sign-offs went through him. Her approval policy for spending above $100,000 concentrated decisions in the same office where, those sources say, he controlled access.

By March, an inspector general inquiry into his contractor dealings was reportedly underway. The watchdog declined to confirm or deny it. His office denied directing companies to hire anyone; his lawyer denied demanding contractor payments.

Unpaid does not mean uninfluential. What did Lewandowski review, recommend, or influence—and under what authority? Who made the final decisions, and where are the records?

Current DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has apparently since reversed Noem’s approval policy.

And what about the other contracts?

For an operation supposedly rooting out waste and fraud, an awful lot of spending needs explaining. Where are the DOGE bros on this one? Suddenly allergic to a spreadsheet?

Start with the $220 million advertising campaign. Senate oversight materials identify two no-bid awards. There’s that shortcut again. $143 million to Safe America Media and $77 million to People Who Think. Safe America Media was incorporated just seven days before its award. Seven days. Man, why didn’t I think of this? A subcontract went to the Strategy Group, which had worked on Noem’s gubernatorial campaign and whose CEO is married to her then-DHS spokesperson. Interesting…

DHS said it did not select subcontractors. But it invoked the “border emergency” Trump lingo to bypass competition for the ads. Apparently, even the advertising needed an emergency exception. What harm would competitive bidding have caused?

Even Republican Senator Thom Tillis is calling her out. On 60 Minutes, he recently singled out the $200 million-plus ad campaign featuring Noem on horseback.

Noem’s response? "Thom Tillis attacks me because I was effective."

Effective at what, exactly?

She claimed $40 billion saved through voluntary departures and $15 billion from cutting contracts. Those numbers deserve receipts, too.

Then there is Salus Worldwide Solutions, a Walters-owned company with a contract worth up to $915 million supporting voluntary departures. That award involved limited competition. Government court filings described concerns that Salus helped shape the requirements and received information unavailable to competitors. Officials approved a conflict waiver after citing mitigation measures, urgency, and national security.

Senators also sought records on allegations that a Salus representative conditioned subcontracting work on hiring Lewandowski as a consultant. He denies soliciting or receiving company compensation during his DHS tenure. The allegations remain unproven.

And Naples? After months of delays securing FEMA assistance for its hurricane damaged pier, the mayor enlisted Sinan Gursoy, a donor of at least $25,000 to Noem’s gubernatorial campaign. Records obtained by ProPublica show that after he contacted Noem, more than $11 million in assistance moved onto an expedited track. DHS denied political favoritism.

This was disaster assistance, a different mechanism from contracting. But why should a community need a donor’s phone number to get things moving?

There’s also the spending just below Noem’s $100,000 personal review threshold. In November 2025, POGO reported eleven awards since August between $99,999 and $99,999.99, compared with seven over the preceding decade. Apparently, those last few cents were doing some heavy lifting.

DHS called them routine operational purchases. The amounts alone do not prove wrongdoing. Were awards structured to avoid her sign-off?

And those savings claims?

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently found DHS’s separate $10.5 billion cost-avoidance claim to be overstated. It counted maximum potential contract spending, while DHS continued buying needed services elsewhere. Canceling permission to spend money is not the same as saving it. If taxpayers saved billions, show us how.

Kristi, show us the records.

If Noem and the Trump administration want to answer the criticism, release the records.

DHS under Mullin can publish the contract, amendments, no-bid justification, price analysis, operational plan, and approval history. They can explain lawful redactions, account for payments, deliveries, and aircraft still awaiting use.

Furthermore, federal rules generally require require posting an urgency justification within 30 days of award, subject to applicable disclosure protections. DHS still has not released the aircraft contract and refused to release the justification, citing "national security" and "other security risks."

I’ve traveled on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s aircraft and other government planes. Some have small sleeping compartments for officials working through long flights. I understand the practical need for a place to rest. Nothing I traveled on came close to this level of luxury.

Two bedrooms, marble showers, a bar, and a manta ray skin table? Come on.

I also understand protecting sensitive information. Explain what requires protection and release what can lawfully be disclosed. "National security" does not answer why taxpayers paid this price for these planes. Congress and inspectors general should follow the money and determine whether the exceptions were justified, the reviews were adequate, and anyone improperly benefited.

You can’t make rooting out waste and fraud your sales pitch, then act offended when people examine your own spending.

Kristi Noem wants a retraction. Taxpayers should want the receipts.

Until next time,

—Olivia