Rosa DeLauro Questions Kristi Noem on $200 Million Border Security Ad Spend

Allegations of Political Advertising

• 💡 Rep. Rosa DeLauro questioned Secretary Kristi Noem regarding a $200 million ad campaign on border security, funded by American taxpayers.
• 🎯 DeLauro characterized the ads as a "thinly veiled propaganda ad" and a "political ad," citing the conservative KO Institute's view that it exemplifies wasteful government spending.
• 🗣️ A direct quote from Noem at CPAC suggests President Trump instructed her to appear in ads and thank him for "closing the border," which DeLauro labels as "politics at its worst."

Contract Awards and Funding

• 💰 DeLauro highlighted that on April 30th, DHS awarded an additional $6.7 million to the political consulting company People Who Think, bringing their total for this ad to $11.6 million.
• 💸 Another company, Safe American Media, received $35.5 million for the ad campaign.
• 🏦 Concerns were raised that funding originally appropriated for CBP and USCIS was used for these awards, suggesting a payout to Republican political consultants.

Contract Award Process and Justification

• ❓ DeLauro questioned whether the contracts were awarded through a competitive process and why the spending was excluded from the DOGE group's limitation on award spending.
• 🗣️ Secretary Noem countered that the ads are not costing $200 million and that President Trump wanted to ensure the truth about border security efforts was communicated, especially to countries experiencing large influxes.
• 📈 Noem stated that in countries where the ads have been shown, the flow of people has decreased.

BRICK Program and Authority

• 📉 DeLauro criticized FEMA's decision to cut the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRICK) program, citing Noem's claim of eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse."
• 🚫 FEMA reportedly failed to provide evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse in the BRICK program or the legal authority used to end it.
• ⚖️ DeLauro asserted that neither DHS nor the President has the legal authority to abrogate funds appropriated by the committee, emphasizing the constitutional "power of the purse."