EXCLUSIVE: The Department of Homeland Security says its international advertising push forced more than 2.2 million illegal migrants to leave the country and saved taxpayers billions, even as senators pressed officials over how the roughly $200 million campaign was contracted. The claim set off a partisan hearing where Democrats raised conflict and emergency-procurement concerns while DHS officials and allies pointed to dramatic fiscal and enforcement results. This article lays out the core claims, the fiscal math cited, and the procurement questions that drew fire during the Senate session.
Senators Adam Schiff and Peter Welch led tough questioning alongside Sen. John Kennedy about a lucrative ad contract tied to an agency campaign that featured the secretary. The line of inquiry zeroed in on the vendor relationships and whether the contract bypassed ordinary competitive rules during a declared border emergency. Republican defenders argued the political attacks missed the main point: the campaign appears to have changed behavior on a massive scale.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis told reporters the ads produced measurable departures and cash savings, pointing to footage shot at Mount Rushmore as part of the effort. She pushed back hard against critics, saying the results vindicate the strategy and sealing the border. Bis insisted the approach worked and should be judged by outcomes, not by partisan complaints.
“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. “The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”
DHS officials stressed the economics of the different options for handling removable migrants, noting how costly forcible removals can be. The agency cited an average ICE arrest and removal cost of $18,000 per case versus a $2,600 exit payment offered by Customs and Border Protection to incentivize departures. “Even with the costs of advertising and [U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)] $2,600 exit bonus, self-deportations are 70% cheaper than a forced ICE removal,” she said. “This ad campaign saved the U.S. taxpayers over $39 billion.”
Agency leaders also clarified that the exit bonus was optional and not every self-deportee accepted it, underscoring that the campaign’s impact did not rest solely on payments. The point pushed by DHS was straightforward: voluntary departures paid for through outreach are dramatically cheaper than detention, transport, and forced removals. That arithmetic frames why senior officials backed the outreach approach despite the political heat.
Independent research cited in the hearing painted a broader fiscal picture, arguing the net cost of illegal immigration to the country reached at least $150.7 billion at the start of 2023. The analysis estimated the annual cost per U.S. taxpayer at roughly $1,156 and calculated the average fiscal burden per illegal immigrant at about $8,776. Those figures were used to argue that any program cutting that burden, even with upfront costs, can deliver large net savings to American households and the federal budget.
Still, procurement questions dominated the hearing for lawmakers focused on process and oversight. Senator Welch claimed DHS awarded $143 million to a vendor that had been incorporated only days before receiving the contract and that the prime firm subcontracted significant work to the Strategy Group. That claim raised alarms for Democrats and independents watching for potential conflicts tied to former staff relationships and campaign connections.
Noem told senators she did not take part in the procurement decisions and said she believed competition occurred for the work. “I don’t believe it was [a no-bid contract],” Noem said. “I believe other companies competed for this, because there [were] two different vendors that were chosen.” Her answer aimed to put a firm administrative line between political appearances and contracting authority within DHS.
When the subcontractor angle came up directly, Noem pushed back on the framing and sought clarification from the chair. “Are you talking about the subcontractor on that contract,” Noem asked Welch. That exchange underscored the messy mix of policy, personnel, and politics that can swirl around high-profile national security buys, especially during an intense border debate.
Reports that followed the hearing noted that a former DHS staffer left the agency amid scrutiny over ties to an outside firm, and that an adviser to the secretary had previously worked with the same private group. Media accounts flagged those links while also saying it remained unclear whether any money flowed to specific individuals. Noem pledged to investigate the procurement trail and ensure accountability while defending the campaign’s results and its fiscal rationale.
