U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) accused the White House on Tuesday of diverting money intended to defend the country against terrorism into television commercials promoting President Donald Trump. He called the move a threat to national security. The charge, posted on X, came hours before The Wall Street Journal reported that the ads were paid for with Department of Homeland Security funds.
The Post
Schiff published the message at 11:48 a.m. on Sept. 29, 2026. In full, it reads:
“The White House is using funds meant to protect the country from terror attacks to illegally fund campaign commercials.
Another flagrant example of how this administration’s rampant corruption and lawlessness hurt our national security.”
The senator attached the Journal’s story, headlined “Homeland Security Money Financed Pro-Trump Television Ads.” The article was written by Tarini Parti, Marianne LeVine and Michelle Hackman and was updated at 12:27 p.m. ET on Tuesday. The 12:27 p.m. update came after Schiff’s post, so the version he linked was likely an earlier one.
What the Journal Reported
According to the Journal, the Trump administration used federal funds from the Department of Homeland Security to finance the advertisements, which recently began airing on television. The report, based on people familiar with the matter, said 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 also reported that Trump personally pushed for the ads and has been involved in their creation, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Customs and Border Protection routinely runs television and radio spots discouraging foreigners from migrating to the United States and telling immigrants in the country illegally to self-deport, the Journal noted. The new ads focus on themes broader than the agency’s typical immigration focus. They also carry the unusual disclaimer “paid for by the U.S. government,” which has drawn public scrutiny in recent days.
The White House Response
The White House has described the spots as public-service announcements. “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,” the White House said. “The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic. We should be proud of our country.” DHS declined to comment and referred questions to the White House’s statement. The White House has also pointed to the Obama administration’s national advertising promoting Affordable Care Act subsidies and open enrollment in 2015 and 2016 as precedent.
The Ads Themselves
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. Trump declares, “America will never be a communist country,” while a choir sings the song “Love Me” in the background. Another spot is almost identical to a video Trump promoted on social media during his 2024 campaign. It shows black-and-white footage of Trump walking as his voice declares “the final battle,” and he vows to “throw off the sick political class that hates our country” and “rout the fake news media.” A third ad uses images of Mount Rushmore, with Trump narrating that “the United States of America is the most successful, most accomplished, most exceptional nation ever to exist in human history.”
By Sunday evening, the ads had aired nearly 90 times across national networks, including Fox, Newsmax, MS Now and CBS, at an estimated cost of $337,000, according to the ad-tracking firm iSpot.TV. On local stations, the ads logged 2,311 airings, according to AdImpact, which put the modeled cost at about $1.4 million. The Journal noted that Fox Corp. and its own parent, News Corp, share common ownership.
The $20 Million Question
On Tuesday, Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), the top Democratic appropriators, sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin. They wrote that “using government funding to create or air political ads like the ones that have been running over the last few days is illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars.” They said it appeared DHS had dedicated $20 million to the ads, using money provided to CBP in Republicans’ tax and spending legislation last year that was intended “for commemorative events relating to border security.” They demanded the ads come off the air immediately and asked whether a legal opinion had been issued on the funding.
Federal contract data reviewed by ABC News shows a $20 million contract was awarded the day after the funds were moved into a CBP account, to a Maryland-based advertising agency called the LMD Agency for a “National Media Campaign.” CNBC noted, however, that the public contract record does not specify what the campaign entails or establish that LMD worked on the Trump ads.
Gil Kerlikowske, who led Customs and Border Protection during the Obama administration, told the Journal that using the agency’s funds for ads of this kind is “totally unprecedented.” He said that in meetings with congressional appropriators during his tenure, it was clear that money appropriated by Congress had to go toward official duties, border protection and technology development.
Criticism Across the Aisle
The objections have not been limited to Democrats. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he likes the message but that it should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars, and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said it was “not even a close question.” Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said no public official should spend public money on private ads for themselves, and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina likened the spending to the tactics of Hungary’s former leader Viktor Orbán. Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, said the administration used Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill to pay for political ads after cutting Medicaid and social services and expanding deportation funding.
Schiff’s Record on Taxpayer-Funded Messaging and DHS Spending
Tuesday’s post continues a pattern in Schiff’s oversight work. In September 2025 he released a report on contract documents for 88-foot banners featuring Trump on federal buildings in the capital region, arguing they violated the longstanding ban on spending federal funds for “publicity or propaganda purposes.” In July 2026 he disclosed additional contracts for Trump banners, including $39,000 for Interior Department banners and more than $114,000 for banners at the Federal Aviation Administration. He said then that Congress had long outlawed spending tax dollars on propaganda and self-aggrandizement.
Schiff has also targeted DHS spending directly. On Jan. 30, 2026, he voted against additional funding for DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement without statutory reforms. Schiff said at the time, “I’m not giving ICE or Border Patrol another dime.”
Legal Questions and the Noem Precedent
Critics say the ads may violate the Hatch Act, which bars executive-branch employees from using their jobs to promote political causes. Democracy Forward, a legal nonprofit that has sued the administration before, said it has filed public-records requests. Its chief executive, Skye Perryman, said the ads raise questions about whether the administration unlawfully treated public funds as a “personal political war chest.” Public Citizen has filed a complaint with the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel, and the president himself is exempt from the Hatch Act, though some argue White House staff who facilitated the ads are not. CNN reported that Democratic appropriators called an earlier, similar video a “blatant violation” of Section 718 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, which bars federal funds from supporting propaganda.
DHS has faced scrutiny over ad spending before. The Journal noted that a campaign of more than $200 million promoting then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ultimately contributed to her ouster, after she suggested in congressional testimony that the president had signed off on it. Those remarks angered Trump and sped up the timeline for her firing, the Journal previously reported.
The National Security and Political Backdrop
The dispute arrives as the United States is in its seventh month of war against Iran, and just five weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections. The funds at issue are part of a $175 billion allocation Congress gave DHS in the “Big, Beautiful Bill.” Schiff’s argument is that money set aside for the homeland security mission is instead being spent on political messaging during a period of heightened security demands.
The political stakes are also high. Polymarket’s “Which party will win the House in 2026?” market currently gives Democrats a 93% chance. Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, noted he would gain subpoena power in November if Democrats win the House. Raskin said the ads “may be felony criminal theft and conversion of government property for political campaign purposes,” CNN reported. A Democratic House would be positioned to investigate the ads and how DHS funds were spent.