ع
The Trump administration has aired a series of television advertisements that promote the president and his policies while carrying a disclaimer that they were paid for by the U.S. government. AdImpact data cited across multiple outlets including The Washington Post and Reuters places spending on three such ads at nearly 1.5 million dollars after they ran during NFL games, Saturday Night Live and other high-profile programming. One spot features a chorus repeatedly singing love me against images touting Trump’s record while another recycles his 2024 final battle campaign theme warning against communists, Marxists and the deep state.
BBC Verify examined the advertisements and spoke with legal experts about whether Trump’s US government funded ads are illegal. Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, told Reuters that the spots are not the kind of thing the United States government can lawfully pay for under federal statutes. The New York Times reported that several ethics specialists contend the ads breach appropriations laws banning the use of taxpayer dollars for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by Congress.
The White House has maintained that the messages constitute public service announcements comparable to those released by past presidents. Administration officials stated the advertisements are not political because President Trump is not on the November ballot and they contain no direct call to action for voters. In responses to CBS News and other outlets the White House described the content as educational and unapologetically patriotic while emphasizing national achievements and resilience.
Lawmakers from both parties have criticized the use of public funds for the campaign. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, said he liked the message but it should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars according to The Associated Press. Democratic leaders including Senators Patty Murray and Jack Reed along with Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Steny Hoyer wrote to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles that this is the sort of government propaganda one might expect in North Korea, not the United States of America, and it is an egregious and illegal misuse of Americans hard-earned tax dollars while demanding the advertisements be removed and funds reimbursed.
The Campaign Legal Center argued through senior legal counsel Margaret Dylus-Yukins that a divisive campaign commercial paid for by the U.S. government defies the Hatch Act’s very purpose. The 1939 law bars most executive branch employees from partisan political activity in their official capacity although the president himself is exempt. Public Citizen filed a complaint with the Government Accountability Office asserting the ads violate both the propaganda prohibition and Hatch Act provisions with previous similar Trump administration cases yielding watchdog findings but limited enforcement.
Republican-aligned political groups have reserved at least 888 million dollars in midterm advertising compared with 666 million dollars for Democratic counterparts according to AdImpact figures reported by Reuters. Legal specialists including former special counsel Norm Eisen noted in The New York Times that annual appropriations bills since the 1950s have explicitly barred such uses of federal money. Painter urged Congress to demand reimbursement for the expenditures citing the danger of allowing government-sponsored propaganda in the United States.
