Taxpayer-funded Trump ads face scrutiny before midterms

Television commercials featuring President Donald Trump and promoting his political themes are being broadcast nationally with federal money, drawing criticism from lawmakers in both parties ahead of November’s midterm elections. CNBC reports that the campaign is under scrutiny over whether it breaches restrictions on taxpayer-funded publicity and propaganda.

One commercial places Trump prominently on screen as he declares that the United States will not become a communist country. Images of the president are paired with messages about tax reductions described as historically large, while a repeated musical refrain supplies the soundtrack.

The spot appeared on network television over the weekend, including CBS’s Face the Nation and college football broadcasts. Advertising intelligence firm AdImpact estimates that the government has spent almost $920,000 on its airtime so far. A closing disclaimer identifies the sponsor as the U.S. government, although the specific federal source of the money has not been disclosed.

A campaign message presented as public service

The White House has defended the advertisements as public service announcements rather than campaign material. A spokesperson said the purpose was to encourage Americans to value their country and understand what should be defended within the United States, at its borders and overseas. The administration also characterized the production as educational and openly patriotic.

Critics argue that the content closely tracks the Republican campaign’s language before the midterms. Republican candidates have sought to portray Democrats as communists, while highlighting the administration’s legislative achievements, including the tax-cutting law formally promoted as the One Big Beautiful Bill. Those same ideas feature in the government-funded commercial.

Democrats hold an advantage in recent national public polling, according to the article, with slightly more than five weeks remaining before voting. Their stated objective is to take control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, where Republicans currently hold majorities.

A second advertisement uses another set of political themes associated with Trump. In it, he presents the moment as a final struggle and promises to remove perceived opponents from government and free the country from them. The material originated as a digital advertisement used by Trump’s campaign during his 2024 presidential bid. It predates the war in Iran, according to CNBC’s account, but is now being shown on television with public funding.

AdImpact puts the cost of broadcasting that commercial at more than $362,000. It has run during Sunday NFL games and on Fox News Sunday. Together, the two campaigns represent well over $1 million in reported taxpayer-funded airtime.

Lawmakers question the legal basis

The central dispute is whether the spots serve a legitimate government purpose or amount to political promotion. Federal appropriations rules have long restricted the use of public money for publicity or propaganda inside the United States unless Congress has authorized it.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, a New Hampshire Democrat, raised the issue in a letter sent Thursday to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Hassan argued that the commercial lacked an evident official purpose and could violate the ban on using appropriated funds for a broad propaganda effort intended to help a political party or candidates.

She also linked the spending to what she described as the president’s costly personal projects, including a proposed White House ballroom. The ballroom has been estimated to cost more than $1.8 billion, she said, arguing that such money could instead help reduce expenses for Americans.

Senior Democrats on the congressional Appropriations Committees joined the criticism. Those panels control federal spending and have regularly supported language barring propaganda in government funding legislation. They said that if Trump wanted advertisements designed to win public affection, he should finance them privately.

The latest funding law contains language extending the restriction to money used either directly or indirectly, including through private contractors, for domestic publicity or propaganda not previously approved by Congress.

Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana also voiced reservations during an appearance on Face the Nation. He said public officials, including Trump, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Kennedy himself, should not use government money for advertisements promoting themselves. His position, he added, differs from that of the White House.

The dispute therefore reaches beyond the ads’ tone or timing. It concerns whether an administration can use public funds to broadcast messages that resemble election arguments while describing them as patriotic education. With control of Congress at stake, the advertisements have become an early test of how federal communications rules apply to presidential messaging before a national vote.