White House Defends Taxpayer-Funded Pro-Trump Ads as Public Service

The White House on September 29, 2026 defended a series of taxpayer-funded advertisements featuring President Donald Trump that aired on Fox News, describing them as public service announcements after Democrats and some Republicans said the spots amounted to illegal government-funded political propaganda ahead of the November midterm elections.¹²⁵

Funding and classification

The Department of Homeland Security allocated $20 million in taxpayer funds toward the advertisements, according to reporting confirmed across multiple outlets. Funds were moved into a Customs and Border Protection account originally labeled for commemorative events, and a $20 million contract for the campaign was awarded to LMD Agency under a National Media Campaign, drawn from a 2025 tax and spending bill that provided $6.2 billion for border security.²⁵⁹

A White House spokesperson said the spots were meant to encourage patriotism, stating, "These public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad." A separate White House statement described the ad as "educational and unapologetically patriotic," adding, "We should be proud of our country."⁸⁹

The Independent and PBS News reported that, unlike public-service announcements from earlier administrations, these spots do not direct Americans toward any particular government program, and France 24 and ABC News cited legal experts who concluded the campaign runs afoul of statutes barring government-funded propaganda.²⁵⁶⁹

Broadcast and spending details

The Guardian reported that an initial 30-second spot recapping highlights of Trump's second term ran in New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, Washington DC and Chicago, costing the administration at least $443,000 to broadcast. A second spot, originally produced for Trump's 2024 campaign and built from a Truth Social fundraising pitch, was broadcast across the country on Fox while Ohio State and Illinois played football.¹

PBS News cited AdImpact figures showing $2.5 million in ad spending over a single week, and ABC News separately reported that the government had put at least $1.7 million toward broadcasting three distinct Trump-focused television spots. The second ad reused audio from a campaign rally recorded before the start of the war with Iran and had previously been shown on giant screens at the 2024 Republican National Convention.⁵⁹¹

Legal and political objections

House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin argued the spot might run afoul of the Hatch Act, saying, "The ad may be felony criminal theft and conversion of government property for political campaign purposes." Senator Maggie Hassan similarly wrote that "The advertisement raises deep concerns about the Trump Administration's use of taxpayer dollars and its compliance with federal laws."¹⁸

Criticism extended across party lines. Republican Senator John Kennedy said there ought to be a rule against spending public money on private political ads, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the ads should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars. Senator Thom Tillis compared the tactics to those used by former Hungarian leader Viktor Orban. Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Chris Murphy wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, saying, "We should not have to remind you that using government funding to create or air political ads like the ones that have been running over the last few days is illegal."¹⁵

Senate Democrats sent a letter to Mullin demanding answers, arguing in it, "The American people deserve answers about how this president is literally stealing their tax dollars to air campaign ads celebrating himself." House Democrats, including Rosa DeLauro and Henry Cuellar, said they would work to reverse the spending if they regain control of Congress.⁹⁵

Watchdog complaints

Public Citizen submitted one complaint to the FCC, FTC and television broadcasters calling for the ads to be pulled, plus a separate filing with the Government Accountability Office and Office of Special Counsel accusing the administration of breaching propaganda and Hatch Act rules. The group's Lisa Gilbert said, "That the Trump administration not only failed to acknowledge and investigate last week's illegal ad, but instead doubled down and released a second piece of taxpayer funded political propaganda during the mass-viewing moment of Sunday football is appalling and alarming," adding that "These illegal ads should immediately be pulled from the air, and the White House's many apparent violations of the law should be investigated."¹¹

Public Citizen's Craig Holman said, "This administration's repeated and flagrant violations of the law, including the Hatch Act, are an affront to taxpayers and our democracy," and noted that "The FCC and other oversight agencies are charged with ensuring this type of abuse of taxpayer funds does not happen." Broadcasters are required to maintain a public file on political ads they air, and failing to uphold such duties can result in license revocation, according to the complaint.¹¹

Music rights dispute

Musician JMSN said his song "Love Me" was used in the ad without permission. "I would never authorize my music to be used for any political agenda or campaign," he said, adding, "I am looking at lawyers and handling this internally."¹⁸

Wider spending pattern

The Guardian reported that former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had separately spent $220 million in government funds on advertising to bolster her public image, and that the White House is expanding its taxpayer-funded advertising campaign to promote Trump's political agenda ahead of the midterm elections. Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought moved the funds used for the ad campaign, according to PBS News.¹⁵