2026-10-03 · contested story
Trump Directed Use of Taxpayer Money for Ads Praising His Presidency
In late September 2026, the Trump administration began airing a series of television advertisements promoting President Trump — including one set to JMSN's song 'Love Me,' one featuring Mount Rushmore footage, and one that was a near-identical repurposing of Trump's 2024 campaign ad — each carrying the disclaimer 'Paid for by the U.S. Government.' Reporting later revealed Trump personally directed OMB Director Russell Vought to find the money within the government, resulting in a $20 million contract awarded Sept. 20 to LMD Agency using Department of Homeland Security / Customs and Border Protection funds drawn from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The ads aired on Fox News, Newsmax, CBS, and during NFL games just weeks before the November midterms, drawing bipartisan criticism as a possible violation of federal laws against using appropriated funds for 'publicity or propaganda purposes' and the Hatch Act. The White House defended them as 'public service announcements' that are 'educational and unapologetically patriotic.'
How each side frames it
left
"this ad campaign should provide a definitive answer: no, absolutely not."
"The ad is not educational—it's just a hype edit for a president who deserves none"
"This one announces pure right-wing vibes."
"THIEF-IN-CHIEF"
"an egregious and illegal misuse of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars"
center
"The ads have sparked scrutiny from both sides of the aisle over whether government spending is involved in electoral politics."
"Campaign finance experts said the commercial likely does not violate election law, even as it generated scrutiny on social media for appearing to be a campaign ad."
"The unusual ad, which says it was paid for by the U.S. government, aired on Fox News in major TV markets"
"The White House maintains they are like the ones used by past presidents, though those previous ads promoted particular policies, not Oval Office occupants."
"This advertisement looks like puffery"
right
"President Trump personally instructed his budget director to use taxpayer money for TV ads praising him and his presidency, setting in motion a $20 million contract that used funds from the Department of Homeland Security"
"To apparently seek to skirt such provisions in appropriation funds, the Trump administration is using money from the One Big Beautiful Bill"
"Lawmakers of both parties have criticized the new series of ads for their inherently political nature and the use of taxpayer dollars."
"[No on-topic coverage found]"
"Don't let the Fake News get away with their lies about our epic Public Service Announcements that have been running on tv."
What each side left out
The left left out — covered by the CBS News & Seattle Times / AP & Variety
- Legal experts who say the ads likely do NOT violate election law
- The White House's cited precedents (Obama ACA, Biden COVID, Bush Medicare, H.W. Bush/Schwarzenegger PSAs) presented neutrally
The left left out — covered by the The Post and Courier & @bulldoghill reposting NYT
- The specific funding mechanism via the $20M LMD/DHS/OBBBA contract (hardest sourcing)
The center left out — covered by the Rolling Stone & Daily Beast & Common Dreams & Mother Jones
- Characterizing the ads flatly as 'propaganda' or Trump as a 'thief' in the outlet's own voice
The right left out — covered by the None in gathered sources — only quoted White House/Cheung statements via center/left outlets
- Any independent right-wing editorial defense of the ads
- Sustained argument that the PSAs are legitimate executive communication
- Rebuttal to the Hatch Act / propaganda-law allegations from a conservative legal perspective
The right left out — covered by the CNBC & Mediaite & The Guardian & Scripps News
- The GOP senators' criticism (Kennedy, Thune, Rounds, Tillis, Collins) is reported mostly by center/left outlets, not amplified by right media in the sources
What's actually true?
[verified] Trump personally instructed OMB Director Russell Vought to find taxpayer money for ads praising him, setting in motion a $20 million contract using DHS funds.
[verified] On Sept. 20, DHS/Customs and Border Protection awarded a $20 million contract to LMD Agency, with funds drawn from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
[verified] The ads carried the disclaimer 'Paid for by the U.S. Government.'
[verified] The White House defended the ads as 'public service announcements' that are 'educational and unapologetically patriotic.'
[verified] One ad was virtually identical to a 2024 Trump campaign video that originally urged viewers to 'Join President Trump's Fight for America.'
[verified] Republican senators including John Kennedy, John Thune, Mike Rounds, Thom Tillis, and Susan Collins criticized the ads.
[verified] Artist JMSN (Christian Berishaj) did not authorize use of his song 'Love Me' and is pursuing legal options.
[verified] Federal appropriations law bars appropriated funds being used for 'publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.'
The narrative clash
Whether the ads are clearly illegal
Left: They're illegal. They're clearly illegal. This is simply a campaign ad. It doesn't promote any particular policy.
Right: Campaign finance experts said the commercial likely does not violate election law... 'It doesn't appear to be supporting or endorsing a candidate for public office,' said Richard Briffault, a law professor at Columbia University.
Whether the ads are comparable to past presidents' PSAs
Left: Unlike its predecessors, Trump's supposed PSA says and does very little beyond extolling Trump. Usually, a public service announcement announces something.
Right: Examples cited by the White House include George W. Bush's administration airing a campaign about a Medicare law and the Biden administration running one about COVID-19 vaccinations.
Whether Trump approved earlier DHS/Noem ad campaign
Left: the domestic and international versions of the ad feature Noem repeatedly lavishing praise on Trump... part of an administration-wide propaganda blitz
Right: Trump pushed back then on suggestions that he had approved that ad. 'I wasn't thrilled with it. I spent less money than that to become president,' he told NBC News in March.
40 sources analyzed
Charlie Kirk USA Today CNBC The Seattle Times ABC News - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos Rolling Stone The Washington Post Deadline The Damage Report The Guardian CBS News The Post and Courier The Spokesman-Review MS NOW NBC News Variety Politico The Daily Beast Mediaite Yahoo CNN Common Dreams Orange County Register the-independent.com National Review Mother Jones AP News The New Republic Newsmax The Hill Fox News WSJ Fox News The Daily Signal National Review New York Post National Review Fox News Boston Herald New York Post