USA · updated 1h ago · 3 min read
Trump Administration Moves DHS Funds Into CBP for $20 Million Pro-Trump TV Ads
DHS redirected $20 million to CBP funds to air pro-Trump television ads. Ads aired nationwide in prime slots, including NFL broadcasts, drawing bipartisan criticism.
White House frames the ads as public service, not politics.
8 of 10 outlets skipped it: funds routed via CBP “commemorative events” account.
19outlets compared
Same story, two versions
tap a side to read it in full
Washingtonpost
“‘Sadly, it takes strong bipartisan pushback, as well as the loud and clear voice of the American people, to get this administration to reverse course when it is breaking the law or doing something wrong,’ Hassan said.”Read the original ↗
FactCheck.org
“It said, ‘The announcements are very clearly not campaign ads; President Trump is not on the ballot and there is no call to action.’”Read the original ↗
The dispute hinges on whether the same content is propaganda or legitimate PSA policy messaging.
Taxpayer-Funded Trump Ads
The Trump administration used funds from the Department of Homeland Security to air TV ads featuring President Donald Trump, and sources said the money was moved into a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) account for "commemorative events."
Federal budget records indicated the money was moved into a CBP account for "commemorative events" on Sept. 19, and federal contract data showed a contract of $20 million was awarded the next day to the LMD Agency, a Maryland-based advertising agency for a "National Media Campaign."
AdImpact estimated the federal government has spent at least $1.7 million to air three different TV ads featuring Trump in recent days, and the ads began airing days later.
The White House defended the ads as “public service announcements” in a statement saying, "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."
Senate Appropriations Committee Democrats responded by sending a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin demanding he answer questions about the breakdown of the funds and whether the ads are expected to continue.
Republicans Push Back
Senate majority leader John Thune told reporters on Capitol Hill, "I like the message, but it shouldn't be paid for by taxpayer dollars," as the ads aired in top timeslots including during last weekend's NFL games.
Senator Thom Tillis said, "I hate it," and he argued that the commercial "didn't make sense to me," while also saying, "You want to run that ad? We got plenty of resources."
Senator Mike Rounds said, "It's not something that I would've done," and he criticized the ads as taxpayer-funded while they carried the disclaimer "Paid for by the U.S. Government."
A White House communications director Steven Cheung posted on X, "Don’t let the Fake News get away with their lies about our epic Public Service Announcements that have been running on tv," as the White House insisted the videos were public service announcements.
Legal experts told the Associated Press that the ads appear to run afoul of federal statutes, including a law against congressionally appropriated funds being used for "publicity or propaganda."
Legal Questions and Next Steps
Democrats and ethics experts argued the ads violate federal budgeting and ethics laws by using taxpayer money for "propaganda," and they also raised the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from engaging in political activities during their work hours.
Richard Painter said the ads could be "a crime justifying impeachment" against the president, while the White House continued to defend the commercials as “public service announcements” that "clearly are not campaign ads."
The controversy also drew attention to how the ads were timed and distributed, with one account saying the messages began airing on Wednesday, September 23, and that all three ended with the phrase “Paid for by the United States Government.”
Sen. Maggie Hassan tried to pass a resolution declaring that such ads "should not be paid for by the United States government," but Sen. Cynthia Lummis blocked the attempt on the Senate floor.
The dispute left the legal boundary unresolved in the sources, with one account stating there is "no GAO ruling, no completed audit, and no court decision on this specific campaign."