Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• DHS purchases five aircraft at markup from Kristi Noem donor on her last day as secretary — On Kristi Noem's final day as secretary of homeland security, the Department of Homeland Security purchased five aircraft at a considerable markup from one of Noem's political donors. The most expensive aircraft—a Boeing 737 converted into a private jet featuring marble showers and a manta ray skin-covered table—cost the department $108 million. The timing and pricing of the purchase raise questions about whether the transaction was conducted at fair market value and whether Noem's personal political relationships influenced a major government procurement decision.

Supporting reports

• Army announced armored vehicle "excess," but Congress continued funding; defense contractor employees donated to key appropriators — The U.S. Army announced last year that it had enough of a specific model of armored vehicle and that further deliveries would be "excess." Despite this, Congress continued funding the vehicle. In the weeks after the appropriations bill passed, employees of AM General or its parent company donated tens of thousands to key appropriations committee members, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA). After the Army's "excess" announcement, employees and the company's PAC donated over $58,000 to committees associated with Collins. The Intercept notes there is no indication this was part of a formal pay-to-play scheme, but it demonstrates how Collins's campaign account has grown with help from defense contractors doing business with the government.
• Congress funds armored vehicle despite Army rejection; manufacturer floods Congress with donations — After the U.S. Army announced it did not need additional units of a specific armored vehicle, Congress passed funding for the vehicle anyway. In the weeks following the funding passage, executives at the manufacturing company donated heavily to key members of Congress, including Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). The sequence suggests potential quid pro quo dynamics between defense contractors and congressional appropriators, raising concerns about whether defense spending decisions are driven by military need or corporate influence.