The controversy comes just weeks before the November midterm elections, and the timing of the ads is central to the larger debate.
The White House says the ads are intended to communicate the administration's message and not to sway voters.
These are patriotic public service announcements, not telling Americans how to vote.
The White House has denied that interpretation and still calls the spots public service announcements.
White House Expands Taxpayer-Funded Ad Campaign Featuring Trump
The White House has broadened a series of TV ads featuring President Donald Trump that use taxpayer-funded broadcasts the administration characterizes as public service announcements. The new ad has attracted particular attention to reusing footage and political rhetoric from one of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign ads. The 30-second ad, titled “Final Battle,” shows black-and-white video of Trump walking down a hallway while his voice talks about removing what he calls the “deep state,” “warmongers” and other political opponents from government. The ad ends with a disclaimer that it was paid for by the U.S. government.
The latest advertisements cost more than $300,000, according to AdImpact data cited by the Washington Post. It aired during shows like Saturday Nite Live, Fox News Sunday and college and NFL football games.
The spot is part of a series that began airing ahead of the November midterm elections. Previous spots promoted the administration’s policies, with Trump addressing taxes, manufacturing, law enforcement and communism.
The White House argues that the ads are not campaign material because Trump is not running for office and the commercials do not contain an explicit call to action. Officials say they are public service announcements.
But the deployment of government dollars to broadcast messages that feature the president has raised questions about where the line is between government messaging and political promotion. The new ad fuels that debate.
More Read
Taxpayer-Paid Ad Includes 2024 Campaign Footage
The main issue with the new ad is that it looks a lot like a video Trump put out during his presidential campaign in 2024.
The last version was pretty much the same black-and-white footage and political language, but it ended with a campaign message urging people to support Trump’s political effort. The government-funded version strips off the campaign branding and replaces it with the statement that the advertisement was paid for by the U.S. government.
Trump’s voice is heard over the ad saying he would get rid of the “deep state,” get the “globalists” out of government and defeat political forces he calls communists, Marxists and fascists. These themes are very similar to the political messages Trump used during his presidential campaign.
The White House says the new ad is unlike a typical campaign commercial in that it doesn't have a direct electoral appeal. Officials have also noted that past administrations have used taxpayer-funded advertising to disseminate information about government programs and policies.
Federal law, however, forbids the use of appropriate funds for publicity or propaganda not authorized by Congress. The Government Accountability Office has interpreted the restrictions to apply only to communications that are purely partisan, while agencies are allowed to use public money to explain and defend government policies. This is the difference that is now in dispute.
The issue is not just whether the government can advertize its policies. The question is whether an ad that features a sitting president so prominently, and recycles material originally created for his political campaign, crosses the legal line between government communication and partisan political activity. The White House has denied that interpretation and still calls the spots public service announcements.
Bipartisan Lawmaker Challenge Use of Taxpayer Dollars
Criticism of the ad campaign has not been confined to Democrats. Some lawmakers, from both parties, have questioned whether taxpayer money should be used for ads that prominently promote the president and his political message.
Democratic members of Congress have urged the White House to stop broadcasting the ads and to reveal information about how they were made and how much they cost. They argued that government resources should not be used to promote a president’s political image or campaign messaging.
Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy also challenged the practice. Public officials should not use public money for private advertisements promoting themselves, and rules likely exist against such spending, Kennedy said on CBS's Face the Nation.
Other Republicans have also expressed misgivings about the ads. The bipartisanship of the criticism is notable, because such disputes over government-funded political communication often split lawmakers along party lines.
The White House has defended the campaign, however, pointing to examples from past administrations. Officials have cited public information campaigns under presidents such as George W. Bush and Joe Biden, saying administrations have always used taxpayer-funded advertising to communicate with the public. Critics counter that those earlier campaigns were largely for a particular government program or public-health policy, not using material produced for a president’s election campaign.
That distinction could matter if the controversy prompts formal reviews of the ads. Questions could include what federal agency approved the spending, what legal authority was used to pay for the broadcasts, how the advertisements were produced and whether government employees or contractors were involved in their creation. Such details could decide how the campaign fares under federal spending and ethics rules.
Political Advertising Debate Heats Up Ahead of Midterm Elections
The controversy comes just weeks before the November midterm elections, and the timing of the ads is central to the larger debate. The White House says the ads are intended to communicate the administration's message and not to sway voters. Critics say the content and timing give a different impression.
The newest “Final Battle” ad is the third in a series of government-funded ads featuring Trump. One earlier ad, for example, included footage of Trump talking about communism, socialism and Marxism, while praising administration policies like tax cuts, manufacturing and law enforcement.
Another commercial featured Mount Rushmore and excerpts from Trump’s July speech commemorating the nation’s 250th birthday.
“These are patriotic public service announcements, not telling Americans how to vote,” the White House said. The administration also has contended that Trump is not running in the current midterm elections and therefore cannot be considered to be a candidate advertisement.
White House Maintains Ads Are Legitimate Public Service Announcements
Still, the use of public money raises questions about how government communication should operate during an election period. The problem is made worse when government messaging sounds like language, imagery or material used by a political campaign in the past, Mr O’Neill said.
Federal agencies need to be careful not to cross the line between informing the public about policy and promoting a political figure, as there can be important legal and ethical ramifications.
There will be more ads released, and more information will come about how they were funded and produced, and the debate is expected to go on. For now, the White House maintains the ads are legitimate public service announcements, even as lawmakers and ethics experts continue to debate whether the use of taxpayer money for Trump-focused messaging is in line with federal restrictions on government-funded propaganda and political activity.
Read more in our Politics section for similar stories and expert analysis.
Charlotte Reynolds
Political Journalist
Charlotte Reynolds is a political journalist with years of experience covering Congress, federal policies, elections, and political strategy. She provides in-depth analysis and commentary on national issues.
Trump Turns on Longtime Ally Jeanine Pirro Over Reversal in Lincoln Memorial Pool Case
No next article