In recent political developments, the financial implications of former South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s travel have stirred significant debate. As Noem engaged in political campaigning across the country, questions arose regarding whether taxpayers should bear the costs of her expeditions, which were not strictly tied to state affairs. Upon transitioning to her role in President Donald Trump’s Cabinet as Homeland Security Secretary, detailed travel records surfaced that provide insight into these expenses. The documents revealed that South Dakota covered over $150,000 for travel deemed personal or political, including trips to places like Palm Beach, Florida, where Trump resided prior to returning to office.
The state’s financial obligations primarily involved providing security for Noem during her extensive travels over her six-year gubernatorial tenure, totaling over $640,000. These costs encompassed various trips, such as a speech in Paris, a Canadian bear hunt with her niece, and a book tour in New York. Additionally, a dental visit to Houston, showcased by Noem on Instagram, cost taxpayers over $2,200.
These revelations have triggered unrest among certain Republican lawmakers in South Dakota, critiquing the use of state funds for what they perceive as Noem’s personal political gains. Former South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard voiced concerns that these expenses, funded by taxpayers, could have alternatively been covered by campaign finances. Similarly, GOP state senator Taffy Howard expressed dismay at the expenditure figures, describing the total as “an incredible amount of money.”
Tim Murtaugh, representing Noem, acknowledged that some travel lacked clear association with state business. He noted, however, that security expenses were state-covered due to potential threats against Noem as a high-profile official. Furthermore, Josie Harms, Noem’s successor’s spokesperson, asserted that security needs were a state matter and not solely under gubernatorial discretion.
While South Dakota holds relatively permissive disclosure standards regarding officials’ travel costs, scrutiny still arose. Cases involving other governors, such as Washington’s Jay Inslee and Florida’s Ron DeSantis, have sparked similar debates about state-funded political travel expenses. Murtaugh defended Noem’s position by pointing out perceived disparities in media scrutiny between Democratic and Republican governors.
Records, albeit redacted, showcased transactions supporting the claim that many of Noem’s expenses lacked direct connections to state business. Items such as luxury airline fees, late penalties, and unspecified entertainment expenses were among the scrutinized transactions. Despite these concerns, the legality of the expenses, related mainly to security, remains intact.
As Noem’s national presence grew, her travel habits maintained public attention. Despite prior accountability board requests to probe Noem’s state-plane use for political outings, investigations found no legal violations. The broader inquiries reflect South Dakota’s conservative fiscal ethos, with predecessors like Daugaard emphasizing frugality even in minor transactions.
The situation unfolds against a backdrop where Washington focuses on curbing governmental waste, while Noem guides a sizable federal agency. As the debates continue, the lines between personal political ambition and state responsibilities become focal points of ongoing discussions about ethics and transparency in public office.