U.S. Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) accused President Donald Trump on Wednesday of spending millions of taxpayer dollars on propaganda ads while making no effort to lower Americans’ healthcare, gas or grocery costs. In a post on X, the Colorado Democrat described the spending as money “corruptly spent on himself.” The post came a little more than a month before the midterm elections and one day after reports that more of the taxpayer-funded spots are on the way.
What Crow Said
Crow published his statement on X on Sept. 30, 2026, at 5:33 p.m. The post reads in full:
“The President is spending millions of taxpayer dollars on propaganda ads.
No efforts to lower your healthcare, gas, or grocery bill.
Just more money corruptly spent on himself.”
Crow attached an Axios report from Sept. 29 that revealed how the ad campaign came together. The post places the ads in direct contrast with the cost-of-living pressures facing households, and it frames the spending as personal benefit to the president rather than public service.
The Axios Report Behind the Post
Axios reported that Trump is personally choosing which government-funded ads his administration airs ahead of the midterms. The ads are produced inside the White House, where a digital team that regularly turns out aggressive, war-room-style social media posts had been making videos Trump liked and began posting to his Truth Social account. Trump then decided he wanted the videos on television and picked which ones to air. The decision was made a couple of weeks ago, and the ads began airing Sept. 23.
An administration official told Axios, “This is just the beginning,” signaling that more spots are coming.
What the Ads Show
According to Axios, the administration has run three ads so far, each featuring Trump touting his record and echoing themes from his campaign rhetoric, including warnings about communism, socialism and Marxism. One closely mirrors a 2024 Trump campaign ad that vowed to take on the “deep state,” “globalists” and “warmongers.” The campaign sponsorship tagline was replaced with a disclaimer reading “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”
NBC News reported that the most recent spot shows Trump walking down a hallway as he asks viewers to join his fight to expel warmongers from government, and that it is nearly identical to the ad his 2024 campaign released. The ad features audio of Trump saying “this is the final battle.”
How Much Has Been Spent
According to an estimate by the ad-tracking firm AdImpact cited by Axios, the government has spent at least $2.5 million to air the ads. They have aired more than 2,000 times on broadcast networks and more than 50 times on cable. The largest single outlay was Fox’s NFL coverage over the weekend, with 340 airings. Axios noted that Republicans are also pouring millions into advertising during NFL and college football games to reach male voters.
Where the Money Is Coming From
An administration official told Axios that the Department of Homeland Security is placing the ad buys using money from an existing budget. The Wall Street Journal later reported that U.S. Customs and Border Protection money funded the ads, and that Trump personally pushed for them and helped create them. Democratic appropriators say DHS dedicated $20 million to the campaign.
Bipartisan Pushback
The criticism has not been limited to Democrats. Axios reported that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) praised the message of the ads but said taxpayers should not be paying for them.
Congressional Democratic appropriators sent a letter Friday to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles calling the ads “the sort of government propaganda one might expect in North Korea” and an illegal misuse of tax dollars.
The Legal Questions
Annual funding bills have routinely barred the use of taxpayer funds for “publicity or propaganda” since the 1950s, including the appropriations measure Trump recently signed. The president is exempt from the Hatch Act, though some argue the White House employees who facilitated the ads are not. Critics cited Section 718 of Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, which forbids federal funds from supporting propaganda, and said the ad appeared to violate other federal ethics laws as well.
Watchdog Complaints
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the DHS Office of Inspector General, arguing the ads likely violated multiple federal laws, including appropriations laws. Public Citizen filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission urging broadcasters to stop airing the ads, and separately asked the Government Accountability Office and Office of Special Counsel to investigate possible violations of the propaganda restrictions and the Hatch Act.
The White House Defense
A DHS spokesperson referred Axios to a White House statement defending the spots as public service announcements that are clearly disclosed and aimed at the country rather than at a ballot line. The White House also noted that previous Democratic administrations used government money for public service announcements. Time reported that during the Bush administration, one such campaign did violate the anti-propaganda measure. White House communications director Steven Cheung also defended the ads on social media Sunday.
Why Republicans Say the Controversy Helps
Axios reported that Republicans see the outrage as part of the point, because each time a network or cable show covers the ads, it gives them additional airtime for free. The administration official said that when CNN does a segment, it plays the entire ad. Axios also noted that the roughly $2.5 million spent so far is a tiny fraction of the $100 million-plus Trump’s political operation is putting into the midterms.
Crow’s Record on Corruption and Costs
Crow, who represents Colorado’s 6th District, is a former Army Ranger who served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he has introduced legislation aimed at corruption and the influence of dark money in U.S. politics. He has also said he regularly meets with constituents whose health insurance premiums have jumped from $300 to $1,500 a month, leaving them unable to afford coverage.
A Separate Fight With the Administration
Crow joined three other House Democrats, Chrissy Houlahan, Chris Deluzio and Maggie Goodlander, in introducing the “Drain the Slush Fund Act,” which would permanently block Trump allies who claim they were victims of “weaponization” from receiving taxpayer-funded payouts. All four lawmakers were targeted by the administration over a social media video the president disliked.
What Comes Next
The ad campaign is still expanding. With the midterms a little more than a month away, the administration official’s remark that this is “just the beginning” suggests more taxpayer-funded spots are coming. Whether they draw action from the inspector general, the Government Accountability Office or Congress remains to be seen, but Crow’s post shows Democrats plan to frame the ads around the same pocketbook issues driving the election.