Taxpayer-Funded Trump Ads Draw Legal Scrutiny as White House Defends 'Patriotic' Spots

Three taxpayer-funded advertisements that glorify President Donald Trump are facing mounting legal and political criticism, with experts saying they appear to violate federal laws against government propaganda. The White House has spent days defending the spots, which have cost at least $1.4 million and are airing on network and cable television and streaming platforms across the country.

The ads, which began airing last Wednesday, feature clips of Trump discussing communism, scenic footage of Mount Rushmore, and a spot nearly identical to a 2024 Trump reelection campaign ad. All three end with the message: «Paid for by the U.S. Government.» The White House has not disclosed which part of the government is funding them.

Multiple legal experts consulted by The Associated Press said the ads appear to run afoul of federal statutes, including a law prohibiting the use of congressionally appropriated funds for «publicity or propaganda» and another limiting the partisan political activities of government employees. Richard Painter, a former White House ethics czar under Republican President George W. Bush, was blunt in his assessment. «You watch all three ads, they’re sheer propaganda,» he said. «This is increasingly looking like what authoritarian governments do to promote their leaders.»

The White House has pushed back forcefully, calling the ads public service announcements similar to those used by past administrations. Communications director Steven Cheung dismissed criticism as «Fake News» in a post on X, and the White House published a list of PSAs from previous Democratic and Republican administrations, including Bush’s Medicare law promotion, Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act ads, and Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign. «The announcements are very clearly not campaign ads; President Trump is not on the ballot and there is no call to action,» the White House wrote. «Instead, the announcements are a reminder for Americans to love their country and know why it’s worth defending — at home, at the border, and abroad.»

But legal ethics professor Kathleen Clark of Washington University in St. Louis said the new ads differ from those examples because they are not aimed at helping the public access specific government programs. «These ads are nothing more than government propaganda, aimed at helping Trump,» she said. Painter, who served during the Bush administration’s Medicare PSAs, said that campaign at least focused on a policy, even if it contained misleading information. By contrast, he said, Trump’s ads are not focused on any particular policy. «One of them is just about the evils of the deep state,» he said. «Another one of them is about communists and Marxists.»

The criticism has not been limited to Democrats. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters the ads should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars. «It would not have been something that I would have done,» he said. Sen. Mike Rounds, another South Dakota Republican, echoed that sentiment, noting that while the White House is not covered by the same guidance as Congress, «it’s not something that I would have done.»

The White House also cited the administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, both of whom used posters, radio, and film to rally the country during the World Wars. James Kimble, a communication professor at Seton Hall University who studies domestic propaganda, acknowledged that Wilson’s administration used propaganda but said most Americans no longer view those actions positively. «By almost any objective measure, looking back, we find what they did pretty repulsive,» he said.

The scrutiny comes as the Trump administration has increased spending on the ads, buying time on popular programs including college football and NFL broadcasts. According to AdImpact, which tracks media spending, the spots have cost more than $1.4 million so far, though the actual amount could be significantly higher depending on whether networks classified them as political advertising. With both chambers of Congress led by Republicans, any oversight would likely have to come from Trump’s allies, decreasing the likelihood of hearings or accountability efforts before November’s midterm elections.

3Views

Author

Derek Weston

Sports Writer

Derek Weston covers public affairs, politics, business, culture and daily news for Core Memo. The role focuses on verification, context, and clear explanations for readers.

All articles by this author