Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has come under fire after news broke that she had received an $80,000 payment from a dark money nonprofit while she was serving as governor of South Dakota. The payment, which was described as a “fundraising fee,” went to a private LLC owned by Noem and has prompted significant ethical concerns around public disclosure, political fundraising, and the swathe of gray lines between public service and personal profit.
The Source of the Controversy
At the heart of the allegations is a payment from the American Resolve Policy Fund, a dark money nonprofit that raised more than $1.1 million in 2023. Some of that money, 10 percent, or $80,000, was documented as being paid to a private company called Ashwood Strategies, which Noem, in her second term, had incorporated in Delaware. The company is named for one of Noem’s horses, and it apparently was established to manage personal activities that she is said to have pursued separate from her official schedules, according to a ProPublica investigation.
There are no stated policy activities by American Resolve other than running pro-Noem social media accounts that we’re aware of, which adds another wrinkle as to the legitimacy of the exchange. As a nonprofit organization it is not required to reveal its donors, raising the possibility of private interests literally enriching a sitting governor.
Legal vs. Ethical: Noem’s Response
Kristi Noem has denied any wrongdoing definitively, and her lawyers say the payment was made by both federal and state laws. In a statement to the media, Noem’s attorney said she had “fully complied with the letter and the spirit of the law” and that her federal disclosures had faced scrutiny from relevant ethics officials. The lawyer did not answer why the $80,000 payment did not appear in her official financial disclosure form, a fact that many ethics experts say should have raised red flags.
Noem’s office says that since the firm was formed for personal, and not in her role as governor, those earnings have required no public disclosure. Critics are not convinced. Former South Dakota Senate President Lee Schoenbeck, a Republican, said the setup “clearly violates the intent of the law,” which caps payments for governors’ compensation above their official state salary, except for money from businesses established before they took office. “The governor is not supposed to have a private side business the public doesn’t know about,” Schoenbeck said.
Broader Concerns Over Political Influence
The case has brought broader scrutiny of the way dark money and obscure funding networks can directly enrich public officials. Such a provision, Daniel Weiner, an attorney with the Brennan Center for Justice, said, diminishes public trust. “If the donors to these nonprofits are not just holding the keys to an elected official’s political future but are also directly, literally paying their bills, that’s new and disturbing,” he said.
That the defense Kristi Noem invokes is strictly a matter of disclosure rules would not matter politically, though it would have taken a hit. She has already come under fire over past financial decisions, such as spending more than $150,000 in taxpayer funds on travel for personal as well as political purposes. These excursions ranged from a bear hunting trip in Canada to a book tour and even visits for dental work in Houston.
Political Repercussions
Kristi Noem burgeoning national profile and deep connections to Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign already had put her on the map as a figure of consequence in conservative politics. Her appointment to the post of Homeland Security Secretary earlier this year was widely viewed as a political payoff and a means of consolidating loyalty within Trump’s inner circle. Now, as this scandal plays out, her political future may be more tangled.
