Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Tuesday accused President Donald Trump of running “corrupt propaganda ads” modeled on the tactics of Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. He demanded a formal investigation into the use of taxpayer money to air them and said he will file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. The post on X came less than a day after Trump reversed course and said he and his super PAC would pay for the ads going forward.
Schumer wrote that Trump “guts Medicaid, SNAP, and cancer research funding” while finding “millions of taxpayer dollars to air blatantly political ads.” He said he is demanding that all records related to the spending be preserved, and he accused Trump of illegal coordination with the MAGA Inc. super PAC. The post is the latest in a series of attacks from the New York Democrat on the advertising campaign, which has drawn criticism from both parties.
The Full Post
Schumer published the statement on X at 11:06 a.m. on Oct. 6, 2026. It reads in full:
“Donald Trump’s ridiculous, corrupt propaganda ads are straight out of Putin and Kim Jong Un’s playbook.
As he guts Medicaid, SNAP, and cancer research funding, he somehow finds millions of taxpayer dollars to air blatantly political ads.
I am demanding an investigation into this misuse of taxpayer funds, the preservation of all records related to it, and will be filing a complaint with the FEC about Trump’s illegal coordination with the MAGA Inc. Super PAC as he attempts to pivot from one illegal act to another.”
The post contains three distinct demands: an investigation into the use of taxpayer funds, the preservation of all related records, and an FEC complaint over alleged coordination between Trump and MAGA Inc. Schumer did not specify in the post which agency or office he wants to conduct the investigation, or when the FEC complaint will be filed.
Trump’s Reversal on Monday
Schumer was responding to NBC News reporting published Monday evening, which said Trump had announced that taxpayer dollars would no longer fund the television spots promoting him. Trump made the announcement on Truth Social after criticism from lawmakers of both parties, some of whom questioned whether using federal money for the ads was legal.
In his Truth Social post, Trump said the “Radical Left” was upset that he was “taking Ads, which I consider to be a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A., and paying for them with U.S.A. money.” He called that “a rather standard thing to do” but said he had “decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc.”
MAGA Inc. did not immediately say whether Trump and the committee would reimburse the government for ads that have already aired, and the White House did not answer that question either. A White House official said only that “MAGA Inc. will pay for the PSA ads moving forward.” The official added that “Presidential Public service announcements are nothing new,” and said administrations of both parties have used them “to explain policy and make the case for the nation’s direction.” The White House had earlier called the ads “clearly not political.”
What the Ads Cost and Who Paid
AdImpact, a political ad-tracking firm, has estimated that the government spent at least $10 million to air the spots. The ads portray Trump favorably and carried disclaimers saying they were paid for by the U.S. government. One of them was virtually identical to a 2024 Trump campaign ad.
The funding trail has been a central point of contention. NBC News reported last week that the money came from funds intended for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and that senior leaders at the agency were cut out of the decision. Public contracting records show that a Maryland-based firm, LMD Agency, was awarded a $20 million contract for the new ads, with the purpose listed as a “national media campaign.”
How the Dispute Built Over the Past Two Weeks
The ads began airing in September as a three-spot campaign across network and cable television and streaming services, including during NFL and college football broadcasts. By Sept. 28, the White House had spent days defending them as public service announcements, and criticism was mounting from both parties.
Schumer used a Senate floor speech that Monday to attack the latest spot. He called it “an absolute violation of what a democracy is supposed to look like,” and said, “Americans sat down to watch football, not to be force-fed Trump’s propaganda on their own dime.” He also wrote in an X post that using taxpayer dollars to run ominous campaign ads of the president “has been done before and is completely legal… in banana republics.”
Republicans also voiced objections. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters the ads “shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars.” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who is retiring, likened Trump to former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and said, “There’s no place for that sort of thing.” Legal experts have said the ads appear to run afoul of a federal law barring the use of appropriated funds for “publicity or propaganda” and a law limiting the partisan political activity of government employees.
Democratic lawmakers have pressed the matter beyond floor speeches. They wrote that “the American people are apparently paying for Donald Trump to create desperate pre-election propaganda,” and Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., has called for an independent investigation and potential legal action against administration officials involved. A fourth spot that began airing in recent days centers on the Iran war and uses quotes from Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a development that brings the Pentagon’s leadership and an active military conflict into the political advertising dispute.
Schumer’s Record on Trump, Putin and Kim
Schumer has repeatedly criticized Trump’s dealings with authoritarian leaders in statements posted on his official caucus website. In floor remarks on Trump’s foreign policy, he asked what the point was of the president’s meeting with Putin in Alaska, and warned that Trump was cementing himself “as a Neville Chamberlain of our time.”
In a separate statement on North Korea, Schumer said, “We need to be firm and deliberate with North Korea, but reckless rhetoric is not a strategy to keep America safe.”
Those earlier statements concerned foreign policy. Tuesday’s post applies the Putin and Kim comparison to domestic political advertising, a framing that fits his broader argument that Trump’s use of public money serves his own interests. In floor remarks on a nearly $2 billion Justice Department fund, Schumer said, “if there is taxpayer money on the table, Donald Trump wants a big cut of it.”
The FEC Complaint and the Legal Stakes
Schumer’s reference to “illegal coordination” with MAGA Inc. touches on a campaign finance question already before the FEC. On Sept. 14, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint alleging that Trump violated federal law barring officeholders from raising and spending “soft money,” based on his public statements about controlling and directing the spending of MAGA Inc. The group said the committee functions like a super PAC and has raised more than $400 million, almost entirely from a small group of ultrawealthy individuals, corporations and special interest groups.
Trump’s announcement that MAGA Inc. will now fund the ads could deepen that question rather than resolve it, since federal law restricts how closely candidates and officeholders may work with super PACs. It also leaves open whether the roughly $10 million already spent from federal funds will be repaid.
What Comes Next
Any formal oversight faces long odds in the near term. Both chambers of Congress are led by Republicans, which makes hearings or other accountability efforts before November’s midterm elections unlikely unless GOP leaders choose to pursue them. The complaint Schumer says he will file with the FEC would be a separate track, though the commission is an independent body whose enforcement timelines are often lengthy.
The political stakes are visible in prediction markets. As of Tuesday, Polymarket gives Democrats a 93% chance of winning control of the House in the Nov. 3 midterms.