A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to stop using taxpayer dollars to pay for political advertisements extolling the president’s policies ahead of the midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Roston in New York issued a temporary restraining order initially blocking the practice through Oct. 25 but later extended the freeze until Nov. 8.
The U.S. Department of Justice later apologized to Roston because an ad aired after the order had taken effect.
President Donald Trump also faced criticism for using the song “Love Me” in one of the spots without permission. Singer JSMN said the song was used “illegally” by the president.
“I’ve built my career independently outside of any major system and have made it a point to not sacrifice my artistic integrity,” he posted on Instagram. “I don’t have a publicist or anything, so being forced in a situation like this and having to comment is ridiculous. I am looking at lawyers and handling this internally.”
Judge Roston’s Oct. 11 ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by a watchdog group, two unions and a political candidate for state office. The group is represented by Democracy Forward, Campaign Legal Center Action, and Public Integrity Project Action.
The action claimed the Department of Homeland Security improperly entered into a $20 million contract for national television ads extolling Trump’s policies and attacking his Democratic rivals.
“The ads are overtly political,” according to the lawsuit against DHS, the Office of Management and Budget and the executive office of the president.
“One ad is repurposed from Trump’s 2024 campaign, and it includes a voiceover of Trump promising to ‘demolish the ‘deep state,’ ‘drive out the globalists,’ and ‘liberate America’ from ‘villains’ like ‘the sick political class’ and ‘fake news media.’”
Other ads attack “socialism” and praise the president’s war with Iran as among the most effective in history. The campaign aired after Trump stumped for Republican candidates around the country and are made to sound as if he were running for office himself, plaintiffs Common Cause, Employees International Union Local 32BJ, Empire PAC and Alabama House of Representatives candidate Robert Hunter charge in the litigation.
Screencap of one of the Trump ads
“These ads mirror those that voters are used to seeing during the height of campaign season, with a jarring difference: Each ends with a disclaimer — ‘Paid for by the U.S. Government’ — that suggests that the federal government has taken sides in the upcoming midterm elections.”
Roston concluded that Common Cause, et al. v. DHS, et al. stands a strong chance of demonstrating that the advertising expenditure exceeded congressional limits on federal spending and violated publicity and propaganda rules.
“Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits, will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, the balance of the equities tips in their favor, and an injunction serves the public interest,” she said.
Roston dismissed DOJ’s argument that the lawsuit was moot because it was filed as the advertising campaign was coming to its scheduled end.
According to The New York Times, Trump was so eager to see the ads that he directed OMB Director Russell Vought to find government funds for the project. The money was eventually taken from DHS and, more specifically, from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which awarded the contract to a Maryland marketing firm.
“Mark Paoletta, the budget office’s counsel, and Will Scharf, the White House counsel, both said it would be legal to use DHS funds,” The Times reported. “The president and Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, both spoke with Markwayne Mullin, the Homeland Security secretary, about the ads.”
Trump later defended the campaign as appropriate and patriotic in a recent Truth Social post.
“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. 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.”
The White House issued a statement citing advertising purchased under previous administrations to justify Trump’s partisan advertising campaign. However, the public service announcements about public health, anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts did not include presidents openly promoting themselves or criticizing opponents.
“When prior Administrations utilized the airwaves, it was called ‘public education.’ When this Administration promotes pride in our country, many of those same voices call it ‘propaganda,’” the White House said. “Patriotism isn’t partisan. These public service announcements are unapologetically American, clearly disclosed, and aimed at the country — not a line on the ballot.”
Plaintiffs and their attorneys argued that taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance Trump’s personal public relations campaign.
“The widespread, cross-partisan outcry against these ads shows that Americans across the political spectrum don’t want their hard-earned tax dollars wasted on self-promoting propaganda while they’re struggling to afford gas and groceries,” Common Cause President Kase Solomón said.
And the whole thing “reeks of corruption,” added 32BJ SEIU President Manny Pastreich. “As a union representing nearly 200,000 working people who have been hurt by this administration’s anti-immigrant and anti-worker policies, we plan to use every tool at our disposal to fight back against attempts to undermine our democracy.”
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman said the ad buys were illegal and harmful to the country. “American taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for the president’s politics. The ads are contrary to decades of clear Congressional requirements that prevent partisan ads being funded through taxpayer dollars.”
The Common Cause lawsuit isn’t the only action the administration is facing over the ads. The Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint requesting the U.S. Office of Special Counsel determine if the ad campaign violated the Hatch Act, a 1939 law prohibiting federal employees from using government positions to engage in partisan activity.
In addition, Democracy Forward has asked the DHS Inspector General and OSC to examine the use of federal funds as a potential violation of the act.