It seems now-ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was, unsurprisingly, up to some shady business during her final days as DHS head, and she really does not want the New York Times to talk about it.

NYT recently released a bombshell new report revealing that, as Noem was already on her way out the door, the agency just so happened to purchase five airplanes from a political donor at a truly astronomical markup, in a "windfall" contract that was approved on Noem's final day. The Times also notes that the chairman of Daedalus Aviation Corporation, William Walters, donated $10,000 to Noem's American Resolve PAC in 2024.

Imagine that...

The report notes that, according to the company, "Mr. Walters did not know the group was associated with Ms. Noem at the time." Still, a quick look at the PAC's archived homepage clearly shows that promoting Noem was quite literally the entity's sole purpose.

"The Department of Homeland Security agreed to pay the donor’s firm $108 million for a Boeing 737 airliner that had been converted into a massive private jet, complete with a stand-up bar, two bedrooms, marble showers, and a table covered in manta ray skin,” the NYT report reveals, further adding that the firm had just bought the plane a few months before the sale at a cost of less than $90 million.

DHS additionally purchased two luxury Gulfstream jets and two Boeing 737 passenger planes, also at a significant markup. The Times notes that Noem, who now serves as a special envoy at the State Department after being canned from DHS, "declined to answer specific questions about the sale or the price that her agency paid."

But despite being unwilling to comment on her plane purchase, Noem was certainly willing to pitch an all-out temper tantrum over the Times' report, taking to her X account to call the report "factually incorrect" and "libelous."

"In response to the DISHONEST NYTimes about their factually incorrect article today," Noem wrote in her lengthy post, "I write to formally request the retraction entirely or explicit correction of the article titled ‘Kristi Noem’s Agency Gave Her Donor a Lucrative Contract Just Before She Left.'"

She went on to blow a solid three paragraphs of hot air:

The article’s characterization of the individual as a “donor” (confirmed not to be the case) is materially misleading and, as unsupported by the factual record, conveys a false implication of a direct financial relationship obviously intended to influence official action.

Accuracy is fundamental to responsible journalism. If the individual did not personally make political contributions to Secretary Noem, or if the term ‘donor’ instead refers indirectly to unrelated entities or legally distinct contributions, the article simply fails to meet the standards of precision expected of The New York Times.

Numerous times clarifications were made to the journalists responsible for this libelous story. Such wording unfairly prejudices readers and creates an inference of impropriety that is not supported by the underlying facts.

In response to the DISHONEST @nytimes about their factually incorrect article today…

I write to formally request the retraction entirely or explicit correction of the article titled 'Kristi Noem’s Agency Gave Her Donor a Lucrative Contract Just Before She Left.'

The article's characterization of the individual as a "donor" (confirmed not to be the case) is materially misleading and, as unsupported by the factual record, conveys a false implication of a direct financial relationship obviously intended to influence official action.

Accuracy is fundamental to responsible journalism. If the individual did not personally make political contributions to Secretary Noem, or if the term 'donor' instead refers indirectly to unrelated entities or legally distinct contributions, the article simply fails to meet the standards of precision expected of The New York Times.

Numerous times clarifications were made to the journalists responsible for this libelous story. Such wording unfairly prejudices readers and creates an inference of impropriety that is not supported by the underlying facts.

— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) October 4, 2026

You'll notice that Noem did not actually challenge any of the reporting surrounding the shady contract itself.

The nefarious contract has followed her successor into his new position, as new DHS head Markwayne Mullin reportedly "explored backing out" of the obviously corrupt deal, going so far as to consult on the matter with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, "who shared his concerns about the possible financial ramifications." However, despite the apparent reservations, the purchase proceeded as planned.