U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) accused President Donald Trump and the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday of violating the Constitution and federal law after reports that DHS money financed a series of pro-Trump television advertisements. The senator’s broadside came in a post on X, where he declared that no federal agency should be paying for political messaging.
Hickenlooper published the statement at 2:17 p.m. on Sept. 30, 2026. The post read in full:
“No government agency should fund political ads. Full stop.
The president and his cronies at DHS are trampling the Constitution and ignoring the law once again.”
The Report Behind the Post
Hickenlooper attached a Wall Street Journal report by Tarini Parti, Marianne LeVine and Michelle Hackman, updated Sept. 29. According to the Journal, the Trump administration used Department of Homeland Security funds to finance a set of pro-Trump ads that began airing last week. The Journal cited people familiar with the matter.
The money came from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the DHS arm that oversees the Border Patrol and customs and immigration at airports, the Journal reported. The agency routinely runs ads discouraging foreign migration and urging people in the country illegally to self-deport. The new spots, however, center on themes broader than immigration. A person familiar with the matter told the Journal that Trump personally pushed for the ads and has been involved in their creation.
What the Ads Show
One ad, a version of which was posted on the White House YouTube channel, features dozens of images of the president at White House events. In it, Trump declares that America will never be a communist country while a choir sings “Love Me.” Another is nearly identical to a video Trump promoted on social media during his 2024 campaign, showing black-and-white footage of him walking as his voice refers to “the final battle.” A third shows Mount Rushmore while Trump describes the United States as the most successful and exceptional nation in human history.
By Sunday evening, the ads had aired nearly 90 times on national networks including Fox, Newsmax, MS Now and CBS, at an estimated cost of $337,000, according to the ad-tracking firm iSpot.TV. AdImpact counted 2,311 airings on local stations, backed by an estimated $1.4 million. The ads carry the disclaimer “paid for by the U.S. government,” which has drawn scrutiny in recent days.
The White House Defense and the Legal Questions
The White House has described the spots as public-service announcements meant to remind Americans why their country is worth defending at home, at the borders and abroad. It called them educational and patriotic. DHS declined to comment and pointed to the White House statement. Critics contend the ads may violate laws including the Hatch Act, which bars executive-branch employees from using their positions to promote political causes.
Gil Kerlikowske, who led Customs and Border Protection under President Barack Obama, told the Journal that using the agency’s money for ads of this kind is unprecedented. He said his meetings with congressional appropriators made clear that funds had to go to official Customs duties, border protection and technology development.
Appropriators Demand the Ads Come Down
In a letter Tuesday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote that using government funds for such ads is “illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars.” The two top Democratic appropriators said DHS appeared to have dedicated $20 million to the campaign, drawn from money Congress provided CBP in last year’s Republican tax and spending law for “commemorative events relating to border security.” They asked that the ads be pulled immediately and requested that DHS say whether any legal opinion had backed the funding.
The criticism has not been limited to Democrats. The Journal reported that some Republicans have also objected to the use of taxpayer dollars. Democracy Forward, a legal nonprofit that has sued the administration in the past, said it has filed public-records requests about the ads. Its chief executive, Skye Perryman, said the spots raise questions about whether public funds were treated as a “personal political war chest.” Public Citizen also filed a complaint with the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel, arguing that a taxpayer-funded Trump ad bearing the “paid for by the U.S. government” disclaimer violates the Hatch Act and related laws.
A Pattern at DHS
The controversy follows an earlier DHS advertising push. Under then-Secretary Kristi Noem, the department ran a campaign featuring Noem herself, awarded under fast-tracked contracts worth up to $200 million. House Democrats Bennie Thompson and Gerald Connolly opened an investigation in March 2025, alleging the campaign was directed by Trump and steered to firms tied to Republican operatives. Axios later reported that DHS had spent at least $51 million on the ads in 2025, making it the most expensive political ad campaign of that year. DHS disputed that the ads were political.
Politico later reported that two firms with ties to veteran political operatives collected at least $23 million in commissions on the roughly $220 million campaign. The Journal reported that the campaign contributed to Noem’s ouster after she suggested during congressional testimony that Trump had signed off on it. DHS defended the campaign at the time, saying it drove 2.2 million self-deportations.
Hickenlooper’s Record on DHS
Hickenlooper has been one of the department’s sharpest Senate critics this year. When Trump fired Noem on March 5, 2026, the senator issued a statement saying: “Under Secretary Noem, ICE separated families, arrested and killed U.S. citizens, and ignored the Constitution. Good riddance. But make no mistake: ICE and Trump’s inhumane immigration agenda needs a complete overhaul.” His office said he had previously called on Noem to resign after the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and that he voted against DHS funding that day because it failed to overhaul ICE.
On March 27, after the Senate unanimously passed a bill to pay TSA agents and fund FEMA without new money for ICE, Hickenlooper said: “The Republicans accepted what we offered weeks ago: pay TSA workers without a single dime for ICE. But the fight does not stop here. ICE is still out of control: agents hiding behind masks, ignoring warrants, and answering to no one. We won’t give up until this agency is totally overhauled.” His office noted he had voted ten times in recent weeks to pay TSA agents, pay Coast Guard officers and fund FEMA, and that he voted no on Mullin’s nomination as Noem’s successor.
What Comes Next
As of Wednesday, DHS had not commented beyond pointing to the White House statement, and the ads continued to draw scrutiny in Congress and from watchdog groups. The Murray-Murphy letter posed questions to DHS about the legal basis for the spending. Democracy Forward’s records requests and Public Citizen’s complaint could produce further disclosures.
Hickenlooper’s post did not name a specific legal provision or announce a legislative response. It set out his position in two sentences: no government agency should fund political ads, and the president and DHS are, in his words, trampling the Constitution and ignoring the law once again.