Donald Trump promised to stop using taxpayer money to run campaign-style ads celebrating himself and his administration in the run-up to the midterm elections. But the ads tagged “Paid for by the U. S. Government” have continued blanketing national airwaves, despite shifting explanations and promises of changes from the White House. So, this week, the Democratic National Committee filed suit against the Trump administration.
The suit asks a judge to stop Trump’s ads, calling them propaganda that marshals government resources in support of the President’s party—as it seeks to keep control of Congress. “This use of Congressional appropriations for partisan purposes violates the clear command of federal law,” the DNC lawsuit claims. “Fundamentally, the ads undermine free and fair elections. ”
Despite Trump’s claims they are simply public service ads, the ads offer red meat to the base Trump’s trying to mobilize: promises that he will protect us from communism. Shots of the border wall. Trump, looking steely-eyed into the camera, asking viewers to help him “liberate America from these villains once and for all” and “expel the warmongers from our government. ” It’s not just ironic that Trump would make that claim about warmongers; it’s also a rehash of a campaign ad he ran while running for president in 2024.
When the ads began running—with airings focused on weekend sports games—they immediately provoked a reaction from both sides of the aisle, with the obvious campaign message making even some Republicans uncomfortable. The lawsuit joins one filed by watchdog group Common Cause last week, which asks a judge to intervene because the law pretty clearly says federal tax dollars can’t be used to pay for propaganda. That’s the actual language of the law—this year’s appropriation’s bill, pushed through by Trump’s own party and signed by him, clearly states: “No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used directly or indirectly, including by private contractor, for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress. ”
The ads were funded by a $20 million appropriation to the Department of Homeland Security. While it’s notoriously difficult to determine exactly how much has been spent on ad-buys, some recent estimates top $12 million. Common Cause’s lawsuit, filed jointly with a Democratic House candidate from Alabama, argues that it doesn’t matter what Trump says about the ads being public service: It’s clear what’s he’s up to. “What’s more, although the ads don’t specifically name Democratic candidates, they disparage issues and positions that Trump and Republican candidates have tried time and again to tie to Democratic candidates,” the suit claims. “So despite the White House’s insistence to the contrary, common sense demands what any viewer understands: These ads are not public-service announcements—they are personal publicity and political propaganda through and through. ”
Trump himself has wavered on the ads—first defiantly saying they were public service, amid reports he had demanded them himself, and later saying that his super-PAC, MAGA Inc., would pay for the ads. But as a new ad about the capture of Nicolas Maduro began running, Trump said that his super-PAC would fund future ads, but that would not count the ads that have already run. “The U. S. government is not supposed to be in the business of putting out ads that have political propaganda,” says Cynthia Brown, senior ethics counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
At the end of the day, Brown says, the oversight responsibility for ensuring tax dollars aren’t used for propaganda comes down to Congress, which controls the appropriations and writes the appropriations law that Trump’s ads seem to violate. Federal agencies have inspector generals offices to police their spending, but this is coming from Trump directly—”So we don’t have as many oversight mechanisms, except for Congress,” Brown says. “Congress needs to exercise its power of the purse and find out and demand answers. ”
The New York Times reported over the weekend that the ads came at the behest of Trump personally, who okayed the federal spending on the ads, while simultaneously considering whether his super PAC, MAGA Inc., which appears to be sitting on as much as $415 million, should pay. According to the Times, Trump has spoken possessively of the super PAC money, saying, “This is my money that I control. ” And Trump has, over the years, repeatedly seemed to conflate his political cash with his own pocketbook, and the ads seem to be repeating another pattern Trump has engaged in before—mixing and matching money to solve his problems. Famously, Trump used his charity’s money to settle lawsuits, and used his foundation as a political tool throughout the 2016 election—activities that led to his having to personally pay $2 million in damages to settle a lawsuit over the misuse of funds.
