President Donald Trump said taxpayer money will no longer be used for a series of nationally broadcast television advertisements promoting his administration, announcing that future costs will instead be covered personally or through MAGA Inc. after bipartisan criticism of the government-funded campaign.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
President Donald Trump said Monday that taxpayers will no longer finance a series of television advertisements featuring him and promoting his administration, reversing course after lawmakers and ethics experts from both parties questioned whether federal money was being used for political messaging weeks before the November congressional elections.
Trump defended the advertisements but said he would shift the cost away from the government and instead pay personally or use money raised through MAGA Inc., the super PAC aligned with him.
“The Radical Left is upset with the fact that I am taking Ads, which I consider to be a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A., and paying for them with U.S.A. money,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
“This is a rather standard thing to do but, rather than doing that, although nothing will make them happy, I have decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc.,” Trump added.
The decision followed mounting scrutiny over three advertisements that aired nationally, including during high-profile professional and college football broadcasts. The spots carried disclaimers indicating they were paid for by the U.S. government.
At least $11 million had already been spent airing the advertisements, according to Associated Press reporting. Democratic lawmakers have said the administration transferred $20 million in Department of Homeland Security funding for the broader advertising effort.
One advertisement features Trump declaring that “America will never be a communist country,” accompanied by a chorus repeating “love me.” Another pairs images of Mount Rushmore with footage of Trump describing what he calls a “golden age of America.”
A separate ad incorporated language and imagery resembling material used during Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, further fueling questions about whether a government-funded public-service campaign had crossed into political promotion.
The administration had drawn the funding from money provided to the Department of Homeland Security under a previous reconciliation law, according to congressional and media reports. An apportionment document showed $20 million transferred into an account designated for commemorative events, with money subsequently used for the advertisements.
Criticism came from both sides of the aisle.
Democratic Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Chris Murphy of Connecticut called the spending an “illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars” in a letter challenging the advertising campaign. They also pointed to existing restrictions on the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda.
Republican lawmakers also raised concerns. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Sens. John Kennedy and Thom Tillis were among Republicans publicly questioning whether taxpayer money should finance advertisements centered heavily on the president shortly before an election.
The White House had defended the spots as public-service messages highlighting administration policies rather than campaign advertisements. Trump similarly argued that the content promoted the United States rather than his own electoral interests.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, declined a request to investigate the advertisements and said he considered them permissible.
Other officials and watchdog groups disagreed. Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and George Whitesides of California requested independent investigations, while the advocacy organization Public Citizen filed a complaint questioning the legality of the campaign.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta separately called for an independent investigation Monday, describing the use of government funding for the advertisements as a misuse of public money.
The controversy also prompted questions under federal restrictions governing government propaganda and political activity.
Federal appropriations laws have long prohibited agencies from using taxpayer funds for certain forms of “publicity or propaganda” not specifically authorized by Congress. The Hatch Act separately restricts partisan political activity by many federal employees, although its application depends on who participated, what actions were taken and whether the communication constituted prohibited political activity.
Trump’s announcement avoids further taxpayer financing of the advertisements but does not by itself resolve whether money already spent will be reimbursed to the government.
It was not immediately clear Monday whether MAGA Inc. or Trump personally would repay the Treasury for previous expenditures or simply assume the costs of advertisements going forward.
MAGA Inc. has substantial financial resources available. The super PAC had accumulated more than $400 million by late summer, giving it ample capacity to purchase television advertising independently of the federal government.
The dispute has attracted heightened attention because the advertisements began airing shortly before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, even though Trump himself is not on the ballot.
A Reuters/Ipsos survey released Tuesday found broad public opposition to using taxpayer funds for election-related television advertising featuring Trump or members of his administration. Eighty-six percent of respondents opposed such spending, including 80% of Republicans surveyed.
The advertising campaign had reached viewers across multiple networks and markets, including broadcasts on major television outlets and during sporting events with large national audiences.
Administration officials maintained that the commercials were intended to promote government achievements and patriotic themes rather than solicit votes. Critics countered that their timing, presentation and similarities to campaign advertising made the distinction difficult to sustain.
Trump’s decision now shifts that debate.
Rather than continuing to defend taxpayer financing of the spots, the president has chosen to move future expenditures to private political funds or his own money while continuing to stand behind the substance of the advertisements.
The change eliminates the most immediate dispute over who will pay for future broadcasts, but questions remain over how the original federal funds were authorized, whether existing appropriations restrictions were followed and whether any of the taxpayer money already spent will ultimately be returned.
Original article
Comments