A storm is brewing in Washington over a proposed $50 million jet slated for Secretary Kristi Noem, igniting fresh political theatrics on Capitol Hill.
At the center of the outrage are two Democrats—Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey—who fired off a letter this week demanding answers from the Department of Homeland Security over the planned aircraft purchase.
Framed as a matter of fiscal responsibility and frontline readiness, their criticisms are cloaked in concern for the U.S. Coast Guard. But underneath the surface, the uproar is beginning to look more like another calculated effort to score political points rather than solve real problems.
And conveniently absent from their letter is any acknowledgment of how years of underfunding and mismanagement—under both Republican and Democratic leadership—have contributed to the sorry state of U.S. Coast Guard aviation assets.
The controversy centers around a budget request within the Department of Homeland Security that includes funding for a new Gulfstream G550 jet. That figure—$50 million—was enough to send some Democrats into full attack mode.
According to the letter sent by Thompson and McIver, this jet would replace one of the two Gulfstream aircraft currently at the department’s disposal.
They argue that the funding for this jet would siphon off resources from other urgent Coast Guard needs, such as the aging aircraft used in search and rescue operations or missions to intercept drug traffickers in open waters.
“Simply put, your purchase of a new jet would directly diminish the availability of other USCG aircraft to carry out critical missions,” they wrote to Secretary Noem.
It’s a strong accusation, but one that relies heavily on surface-level optics. The authors paint a dramatic contrast between the luxurious image of a new Gulfstream jet and the supposed hardship faced by under-equipped Coast Guard pilots.
But what they conveniently fail to mention is that this isn’t the first time the DHS has flagged the deteriorating condition of its aviation assets—and not just the Gulfstream.
In fact, the current aircraft Noem uses for travel was acquired in 2002, making it over two decades old. According to DHS officials, it is now operating far beyond its intended lifespan.
Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, didn’t mince words. “This is a matter of safety. Much like the Coast Guard’s ships that are well beyond their service life and safe operational usage, Coast Guard’s aircraft are, too.”
Her comments reflect what many insiders already know—this isn’t about luxury, it’s about logistics. Keeping a 20+ year-old plane running, especially one used for government operations, poses serious safety risks and operational limitations.
But Thompson and McIver aren’t buying it. Instead of acknowledging the broader problem of infrastructure decay across military branches and support agencies, they zero in on Noem, suggesting she’s pursuing the aircraft for personal comfort.
They imply, without direct evidence, that the aircraft is for Noem’s exclusive use and question the need for any executive official to travel in style.
Yet they say nothing about the fleet of aircraft available to other Cabinet members, nor the private flights often used by congressional delegations on taxpayer money—trips that regularly include bipartisan groups of lawmakers, including Democrats who are now clutching their pearls at the sight of a budget line item.
And if there’s anything that reveals the political opportunism behind this entire saga, it’s the way Democrats attempt to link the move to former President Donald Trump.
In their letter, Thompson and McIver write, “We know President Trump has set a high bar for wasteful luxury travel by government officials with his unconstitutional attempt to personally acquire a $400 million jet from a foreign government. That does not mean members of his Cabinet must follow suit.”
The reference is to a long-dismissed controversy involving a potential Air Force One upgrade, but invoking Trump’s name here is transparent.
The aim is to turn what should be a conversation about aviation readiness and Coast Guard modernization into yet another partisan punch-up, complete with hyperbole and misplaced historical grievances.
Apparently, for Democrats, Trump’s shadow is always a convenient boogeyman when they’re trying to redirect attention from their own inaction.
And speaking of inaction, where were these concerns when Coast Guard modernization projects languished for years without adequate funding? Under both the Obama and Biden administrations, the Coast Guard frequently received the smallest budget increases among the military branches.
Helicopters dating back to the 1980s and 1990s are still in service, and parts for those same aircraft have become so scarce that maintenance crews are forced to scavenge from decommissioned models.
The Government Accountability Office has been raising alarms about this for years, including in reports that explicitly detail how the Coast Guard’s outdated fleet hampers readiness.
Yet no such letters demanding immediate intervention were sent by Democrats when their own party controlled the purse strings and prioritized climate spending over defense logistics.
Instead, now that a Republican Secretary is in the spotlight, the outrage machine kicks into full gear.
During a recent appearance before the House Appropriations Committee, Coast Guard Admiral Kevin Lunday was grilled over the jet. Rep. Lauren Underwood, a Democrat from Illinois, voiced her dismay over what she called a “last minute addition” to the fiscal 2025 spending plan.
“I was horrified last Friday when we received a last minute addition to your spend plan for fiscal ’25, a new $50 million Gulfstream 5 for Secretary Noem’s personal travel coming from the Coast Guard budget. She already has a Gulfstream 5, by the way, this is a new one.”
But Lunday pushed back, pointing to critical issues with the aging aircraft. “It’s old, and it’s approaching obsolescence and the end of its service life. The avionics are increasingly obsolete, the communications are increasingly unreliable, and it’s in need of recapitalization, like much of the rest of the fleet.”
His remarks underscore the larger problem—a crisis of aging assets not limited to one aircraft or one Secretary, but part of a decades-long failure to invest in U.S. military and support aviation infrastructure.
Despite this, Democrats continue to frame the jet as a symbol of elitism, while pretending that grounded aircraft and maintenance nightmares didn’t become standard operating conditions under their watch.
The selective outrage over the budget request ignores that Noem and DHS are attempting to address the very issues Democrats have ignored. It’s not about personal jets; it’s about restoring functionality to a department whose air assets are hanging on by threads.
And yet, that nuance is lost in the firestorm. Public perception is everything in an election year, and Democrats are keenly aware that painting Noem as jet-setting while Coast Guard members scrounge for helicopter parts is a narrative that will stick. But like most narratives engineered for maximum outrage, it lacks context, honesty, and solutions.
Meanwhile, DHS has reiterated its position. In a second statement on Friday, the agency doubled down: “This is a matter of safety. Much like the Coast Guard’s ships that are well beyond their service life and safe operational usage, Coast Guard’s aircraft are, too. This Administration is taking action to restore our Nation’s finest maritime Armed Service to a capable fighting force. DHS responds to official correspondence through official channels.”
That should have been the end of it—a straightforward explanation from the agency responsible for the request. But with Democrats sensing an opportunity to slam both Noem and by extension, Trump, they’re unlikely to let it go.
In their final jab, Thompson and McIver write, “Your desire to travel in luxury should not eclipse the need for USCG service members to fly safely and conduct lifesaving missions.”
Ironically, that’s precisely what the new aircraft is meant to support: safety, reliability, and the kind of modern functionality the entire Coast Guard has long lacked. But you wouldn’t know that from the headlines, because it’s easier to cast Republicans as villains than to confront bipartisan failures.
If Democrats want to have a genuine conversation about aviation readiness and Coast Guard capability, let’s have it. But they’ll need to bring more than partisan barbs and misdirected anger.
They’ll need to acknowledge their role in decades of neglect, and finally put the needs of service members above political theater. Until then, their outrage rings hollow.
