President Donald Trump’s recent television advertisements, which carry a “Paid for by the U.S. Government” disclaimer, are facing intense scrutiny from lawmakers across the political spectrum over concerns they may violate federal laws prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for political purposes.
The first ad, a black-and-white 30-second clip titled “This is the final battle,” features footage of Trump walking down a hallway while he warns against various groups, including the “deep state,” “warmongers,” “globalists,” and “Marxists.” The video was originally posted on his Truth Social platform in 2023 with a campaign finance disclaimer; the current version, however, lists the U.S. Government as the sponsor. According to reporting from CNN and CNBC, citing data from AdImpact, the ad has cost taxpayers over $362,000 and aired during NFL games and Fox News Sunday.
A second advertisement, which has spent nearly $920,000 to date, uses the song “Love Me” by JMSN alongside a montage of images highlighting Trump’s policy achievements such as tax cuts and manufacturing growth. JMSN publicly stated that he did not authorize the use of his music for any political agenda. A third ad, running for approximately one minute, showcases scenic views of Mount Rushmore intercut with clips from Trump’s Fourth of July speech.
The ads appear to be part of a broader Republican effort to defend congressional majorities in the upcoming November midterms. However, they have drawn sharp rebukes from members of Trump’s own party. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana stated that no public official should spend public money on private ads for themselves, while Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina compared the tactic to the authoritarianism seen under former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, calling it “inappropriate.”
Republican Representative Thomas Massie also criticized the ads, noting on social media that using taxpayer dollars for ominous presidential campaign ads is a practice typically associated with “banana republics.”
Democratic lawmakers have been equally vocal. In letters sent to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Senators Maggie Hassan and Andy Kim questioned the legality and ethics of the ads, with Hassan arguing the “Love Me” spot lacks a clear official government purpose. A letter from Democratic members of the appropriations committees described the advertising as “government propaganda” reminiscent of North Korea.
The White House has defended the expenditures, releasing a statement on September 25 that characterized the spots as “public service announcements” rather than political material. Officials told TIME that the ads do not feature a call to action and that the President is not on the ballot. A spokesperson added that the campaign aims to “remind Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending.”
Legal experts and watchdog groups point to federal appropriations bills dating back to the 1950s that ban the use of funds for “publicity or propaganda.” The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has interpreted this to prohibit purely partisan or self-aggrandizing content, though it allows for policy advocacy. Public Citizen filed a complaint with the GAO and the Office of Special Counsel last week, alleging violations of the Hatch Act, which restricts the political activities of federal employees.
In its defense, the Trump administration has cited similar advertising campaigns undertaken by previous presidents, including George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, arguing that promoting national pride should be classified as “public education” rather than propaganda.
Leave a Reply