Taxpayer-Funded Trump Ads Draw Complaints and Objections From Republicans

AdImpact estimates that the government has spent at least $2.5 million (£1.89 million) to air television advertisements featuring President Donald Trump. The government-funded spots have drawn complaints from Public Citizen and objections from Republican lawmakers over the use of taxpayer money.

At least three ads released on or after Sept. 23 carry a “Paid for by the U.S. Government” disclaimer. The campaign material discussed below was used before the 2024 election, while the midterm debate concerns the government-funded advertisements. One black-and-white advertisement, “Final Battle,” is nearly identical to an ad used by Trump's campaign before the 2024 election and includes the government sponsorship notice. In the black-and-white ad, Trump says, “cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists.” The earlier online campaign version urged supporters to text “TRUMP to 88022” to support his campaign.

The White House says the spots are patriotic, educational public service announcements rather than campaign advertisements. It argues that Trump is not on the ballot, the ads contain no call to action, and their purpose is to remind Americans to love and defend their country.

Axios, citing administration sources, reported that Trump personally selected the advertisements, which were produced inside the White House. An unnamed administration official told Axios that the advertising campaign was only the beginning, suggesting that additional government-funded Trump advertisements may follow.

Possible funding sources identified in reporting and by lawmakers include Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security. Public contract records did not establish that a named $20 million (£15.1 million) CBP media contract funded the advertisements.

The $2.5 million (£1.89 million) figure is an estimate of spending to air the ads. Separately, Senate Democratic appropriators said DHS appeared to have dedicated $20 million (£15.1 million) to the effort, while reporting described the Office of Management and Budget moving $20 million (£15.1 million) to a commemorative-events account. Those $20 million (£15.1 million) references describe an apparent dedication of funds and an account transfer, not air-time estimates; the reporting does not establish whether either amount overlaps with the $2.5 million (£1.89 million) estimate.

Public service or political promotion

The White House and Sen. Cynthia Lummis cite public announcements from the Bush, Obama and Biden administrations as precedent. They argue that presidents of both parties have used government-funded messages to explain policy and communicate directly with Americans.

The dispute, however, is not only whether earlier administrations used government-funded announcements, but whether these ads resemble outreach tied to a government program or service. Samuel Bagenstos argues that the Trump ads lack a clear connection to a government program or service. He and other legal and ethics specialists contrast the spots with earlier outreach about Medicare, insurance enrollment and vaccination, saying the current advertisements instead center on Trump and his political rhetoric. As an example of service-linked outreach, one 2015 advertisement ended by encouraging people to “sign up by Dec. 15.”

Critics and analysts have interpreted the government-funded advertisements as an effort to help Republican candidates or mobilize Republican voters in the midterm elections. They cite the timing, campaign-derived material, Trump's request that voters treat him as if he were on the ballot, and placements during sports programming as indicators of an electoral purpose.

That interpretation of an intended electoral purpose is distinct from Amy Walter's analysis of a possible political consequence. Walter said centering the ads on Trump could hurt Republicans in competitive races. Those candidates want to distance themselves from him and focus on their own contests, she said, rather than make the election more about the president than local concerns.

Legal questions and complaints

Annual appropriations restrictions prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for “publicity or propaganda.” The Government Accountability Office describes prohibited material as purely partisan, self-aggrandizing or covert.

Public Citizen calls the spots unlawful political propaganda under the restrictions on publicity or propaganda. The group filed complaints with the GAO and the Office of Special Counsel, and asked the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission to act to stop the advertisements. The complaints could prompt scrutiny or investigation, but they do not assure enforcement.

The appropriations restriction raises a separate question from potential Hatch Act issues. Trump is exempt from the Hatch Act, though questions remain about whether other federal personnel involved in the ads are covered. His exemption does not resolve whether the advertising complies with appropriations restrictions. If a Hatch Act violation is found, federal employees involved in producing or distributing the advertisements could face removal, suspension, reprimand or civil penalties.

On the prospects for enforcement, experts cited by PolitiFact forecast that it could be limited or slow rather than reach a determination about the advertisements' legality. They pointed to uncertainty about the law and the administration's responsibility for enforcing it. Congressional action was also described as unlikely in the immediate term.

Republican objections and Senate action

Sen. John Thune and other Republican critics distinguish the ads' message from their funding. They argue that even lawmakers who agree with the content should oppose using public money for advertisements that look political or promote a public official personally.

In contrast to those Republican critics, Lummis objected to Sen. Maggie Hassan's request to pass a resolution by unanimous consent, blocking the effort to declare that the advertisements should not be publicly funded.