Kristi Noem’s travel expenses spark controversy as taxpayers foot the bill for her political trips

As Kristi Noem, the former Governor of South Dakota, campaigned for former President Donald Trump and built her political profile, she became embroiled in controversy over the expenses related to her extensive travel. The costs of these travels, many of which were connected to her political ambitions, were largely covered by South Dakota taxpayers. An Associated Press (AP) investigation revealed that the state paid over $150,000 for trips with little to no connection to official state business. These expenses were mainly attributed to the security required for Noem’s protection during her travels, but the nature of the trips raised questions about whether they were primarily for Noem’s personal or political benefit. Some of her more expensive trips included a stay in Palm Beach, Florida, where former President Trump lived, and a trip to Paris to attend a right-wing conference.


The release of these travel records triggered outrage from several Republican lawmakers in South Dakota, a state typically known for its fiscal conservatism. Many expressed concern over the amount of taxpayer money being used to fund Noem’s political pursuits. Former South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard stated that Noem could have used campaign funds for these costs instead of burdening taxpayers. Senator Taffy Howard also voiced disbelief over the extent of the expenditures, calling them excessive. This backlash was especially significant as it came at a time when the Trump administration was focused on reducing government waste and fraud. The controversy deepened when Noem, now appointed as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), faced accusations that she was using state funds for her personal and political ambitions at a time when she was positioning herself as a potential 2024 vice-presidential candidate.


Noem’s spokesperson, Tim Murtaugh, defended the expenses, explaining that while Noem personally paid for the travel costs of her trips, the state was responsible for covering her security due to the potential threats against high-profile public figures. Murtaugh maintained that these security details were necessary regardless of whether Noem’s travel was related to state business. The defense was met with skepticism, as critics argued that state resources were being used for trips that clearly benefited Noem’s political career, not the state. While security concerns for public officials are valid, many questioned whether the travel costs should have been funded through her campaign, as they were tied to her political ambitions.


South Dakota's lax disclosure requirements for travel expenses have also contributed to the controversy. Public records related to Noem’s trips were heavily redacted, which made it difficult for the public to fully understand the extent of the spending. Governors in South Dakota from both parties have used state funds for travel expenses, particularly for security, but Noem’s travel expenses seemed to raise more questions than previous administrations. This lack of transparency led to further criticism, especially as Noem’s political activities appeared to intertwine with her state duties, raising concerns about the ethical implications of using taxpayer dollars for personal or political gain.