The Wall Street Journal reported on April 8, 2026 that the White House kept a $70 million Boeing 737 luxury jet — originally leased by DHS under Kristi Noem for supposed deportation flights — for use by Melania Trump and select Cabinet members. DHS itself no longer has access to its own jet.
The aircraft features a queen-size bed, showers, a full kitchen, four flat-screen televisions, and a bar. It seats 18 passengers. Marketing materials boast: “No expense has been spared and every detail has been meticulously executed.” DHS staffers nicknamed it the “Big Beautiful Jet.”
The corruption runs deep. Before Noem was fired, she and adviser Corey Lewandowski deliberately loaned the jet to Melania for flights between D.C. and New York — and called it an “insurance policy.” An administration official told Axios: “Because they flew the first lady on it, they think they're bulletproof.” The logic: if the spending was scrutinized, Melania's involvement would make it untouchable.
The jet's owner is Valkyrie Aviation Holdings Group, a Delaware shell company linked to William Walters — who donated $10,000 to a Noem-linked PAC weeks before her nomination. A DHS contracting officer found the procurement had “created an appearance of favoritism.” Five Walters-linked shell companies received hundreds of millions in DHS contracts during Noem's tenure.
The funding came from accounts designated for maritime border security, Coast Guard fleet upgrades, and deportation operations. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse confronted Noem at a hearing with images of the jet's bedroom: “What kind of deportee justifies being flown out of the country in a luxury jet with a bedroom and accommodations like this?” Noem claimed the bedroom was “being refurbished.”
Noem also purchased two Gulfstream G700s for approximately $172-200 million from Coast Guard accounts. Total luxury jet spending under Noem: over $300 million — from deportation funds, during a government shutdown, while TSA workers went unpaid.
Senator Chris Murphy said the purchases “constitute a violation of both the purpose statute and the Antideficiency Act.” Forty-plus House Democrats called it “fiscally and morally unjustifiable.”