This week the federal government bought President Trump at least two campaign commercials. The White House calls them public service announcements. I call it propaganda, and I’m in good company.
The first 30-second spot aired on Newsmax and Fox News carrying the tag “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” AdImpact, which tracks media buys, estimated the cost at about $14,000. Not even a rounding error in a government budget.
The ad features Trump’s voice, the American flag (of course), military aircraft and a montage of the president at rallies. Red block letters boast of the “LARGEST TAX CUTS IN HISTORY.” And over and over: America Will Never Be A Communist Country. Red herring, anyone?
Although not credited, the closing tribute comes from UFC CEO Dana White. The same clip completes a Trump ad paid for by Securing American Greatness, a 501(c)(4) dark money group that supported his campaign in 2024.
The soundtrack is JMSN’s “Love Me.” JMSN posted on Twitter/X that he never licensed the track. Color me surprised.
CBS reports that different ads ran on the network on Thursday, ads that featured the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. On that network, there were both 30- and 60-second buys.
In the same article, the reporter compared these campaign ads with a 2021 PSA that featured all living presidents except Trump urging Americans to get their COVID-19 vaccination. That was a PSA with a real public health purpose.
The White House refused to answer questions about how the ad was produced.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) called the ad inappropriate and said by “using taxpayer dollars, it feels like Viktor Orban.” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said “I don’t generally like to see politicians use public money to pay for their own campaign ads.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) called it a Hatch Act violation. However, the Hatch Act exempts the president and vice president. It might affect staffers who produced the spot, but the office that enforces the act answers to the president.
On Thursday, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) wrote the White House chief of staff with “deep concerns about the Trump Administration’s use of taxpayer dollars and its compliance with federal laws that prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the promotion of a political party or candidate.” She asked for costs, agencies involved, funding source, legal review, contractors who might be involved and everywhere the ads ran.
What the law says.
Since 1952, Congress has used appropriations bills to prohibit federal agencies from using funds for “publicity or propaganda purposes” unless authorized. This was not authorized, but Trump has been treating the Treasury like a personal checkbook without congressional objection.
The Government Accountability Office, Congress’ nonpartisan watchdog, has long interpreted that ban to cover messaging that is “self-aggrandizement,” “purely partisan” or “covert.” The “Paid for by the U.S. Government” tag eliminates covert. But an ad starring the president and capped by a tribute that mirrors a political group’s Trump ad lands on each of the other two.
The White House defense? The president isn’t on the ballot, and the ad has no call to action. My first instinct was that the Supreme Court might buy that: no “vote for,” no ad. But “call to action” is a campaign-finance concept. The propaganda ban is a different animal. It asks what the spending was for, and it covers messages designed to help a party, not just a candidate.
Who has standing to sue?
Here’s the real problem. Enforcement is basically a joke.
The GAO can issue an opinion. And there is precedent, kinda sorta. In 2004 the GAO ruled that the Bush administration produced “covert propaganda” with Medicare video segments that featured hired actors impersonating reporters. The Justice Department disagreed, and that was the end of that.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled taxpayers have no standing on executive expenditures, most recently in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2007).
The one party with an airtight claim is JMSN. The artist can sue the federal government for copyright infringement in the Court of Federal Claims. So the singer of “Love Me” has a better shot at accountability than taxpayers do.
Congress still holds the purse. It could hold a hearing demanding someone explain who produced these ads and with what money. Whether it will is another matter. And even if it does, it will be long after the election.
Which leaves the rest of us to fume. Early voting has started. Get your ballots in as soon as possible.
Proofreading and research with Claude. First published at Substack.