Democrats took the Trump administration to federal court Wednesday over a series of television advertisements that cast the president in heroic terms and are paid for by the government rather than a campaign. The suits set up a legal test of how far a sitting commander in chief can use appropriated money to promote his own record less than four weeks before the midterm elections. Two separate lawsuits were filed within hours of each other, and both ask federal judges to stop the use of federal funds to pay for the spots.
Two Lawsuits, One Day
The Democratic National Committee was first to sue. Its complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and names President Donald Trump, the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget as defendants. The committee alleges the ads are illegal government-sponsored propaganda and accuses Trump of personally directing them. It asks the court to declare the ads illegal and to stop the use of federal funds to pay for them. The complaint calls the campaign “a blatant violation of the statutory ban on the use of appropriations for ‘publicity or propaganda purposes.'”
DNC Chair Ken Martin announced the suit in a statement. “Donald Trump is misusing millions of taxpayer dollars to fund pure propaganda ads in a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November — so we’re suing him,” Martin said. He tied the ads to economic pressure on households. “As gas and grocery costs rise and his approval numbers continue to crater, this president has stooped to taking money from a fund intended for memorials for Americans killed in the line of duty to promote his failed policies,” he said. “Americans deserve better than to have their hard-earned tax dollars used for Trump’s illegal schemes.”
A second complaint followed later in the day from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward. It was filed on behalf of the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, a New York public employee union and a Democratic state legislative candidate in Alabama. That suit also alleges an illegal misuse of funds. Skye Perryman, who leads Democracy Forward, said taxpayers “shouldn’t have to foot the bill for the president’s politics.”
Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, said his organization does not trust that Trump will keep future ads off the public payroll. He pointed to a new ad that began airing Tuesday as proof the government-sponsored spots were still being scheduled. “Even if he said that moving forward, he plans to have his super PAC pay for this, that’s not enough for us,” Noureldin said. “We are not going to take the president’s word for it.”
How the Campaign Was Funded
The Department of Homeland Security awarded a $20 million contract for the campaign, and the money comes from a $175 million package Congress gave the department as part of Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda. House Democrats said OMB Director Russ Vought moved the funds on Sept. 19. Two Democratic senators, Patty Murray of Washington and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin that the money was meant for Customs and Border Protection. They said the money appeared to have been redirected from funding intended for commemorative events related to border security. The DNC’s complaint accuses Trump of directing Customs and Border Protection to carry out the campaign.
The ads began airing in September and have already cost more than $12 million to run, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact. The spots appeared during popular programming, including college and National Football League games. Each carries a disclaimer that it was paid for by the U.S. government. AdImpact had put the spending at more than $2.5 million over the first seven days of the three-ad run, and warned the true figure could be higher depending on how networks classified the spots.
A Rare Bipartisan Backlash
The ads drew criticism from both parties within days. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, said: “It’s a great message. I like the message. But it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars.” Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, compared the spots to those used by Hungary’s former authoritarian leader Viktor Orbán. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said on the Senate floor: “Americans sat down to watch football, not to be force fed Trump’s propaganda on their own dime.”
Trump’s Pledge, and What Followed
Trump responded to the criticism on Monday. He defended the ads as “positive promotion for our Great U.S.A.” but said he would begin paying for them through his MAGA Inc. super PAC going forward. The White House later clarified that the PAC would cover future airings, not the spots that had already run.
The next day, a fifth ad began airing with a notice that it was paid for by the U.S. government. It promoted Trump’s military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro earlier this year, and it featured clips of Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The same day, Trump told reporters he had not committed to reimbursing money already spent. “We’ll decide,” he said, adding that “the ads were really good.”
A person familiar with the campaign, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the ad buys placed before Trump’s pledge will end this week. Outside groups will begin paying after that, the person said.
The Legal Question
Legal experts have said the ads run afoul of a federal statute that bars the use of congressionally appropriated money for “publicity or propaganda,” and possibly other federal laws. The watchdog group Public Citizen filed complaints last week urging regulators and broadcasters to pull the ads and calling for a federal investigation. It cited 5 U.S.C. §3107, the federal law against using taxpayer funds for propaganda, along with related appropriations provisions and the Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by federal employees.
The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements like those past administrations ran to promote policies. But the current spots differ from many earlier public service announcements because they are not aimed at helping the public use specific government programs. One of them is a near replica of an ad Trump ran during his 2024 reelection campaign.
What Comes Next
The defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuits, and the White House pointed to the president’s earlier remarks about using his super PAC. Democracy Forward had already opened an investigation into the ads and filed records requests for communications and financial paperwork about the campaign. House Appropriations Democrats Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Henry Cuellar of Texas have said they would work to uncover and reverse such uses of funds if their party wins control of Congress in the Nov. 3 election.