On Monday, former President Donald Trump reacted to mounting criticism by declaring he would personally foot the bill for a series of television spots dubbed “Patriotic Ads.” The ads, which have been broadcast on major networks, were initially paid for with federal funds, prompting a wave of accusations that the administration was using taxpayer money for what many consider campaign-style propaganda ahead of the midterm elections.
The president framed the controversy as partisan overreach, stating, “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…” The incomplete quote was released in a televised statement, and Trump added that he would gladly pay the money if officials ruled the spend unlawful.
Democratic lawmakers launch formal inquiries
Two senior Democrats—Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Representative George Whitesides of California—sent letters to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) on Wednesday, demanding an audit of the ad campaign. In their correspondence, they described the spots as “desperate pre-election propaganda” and warned that diverting public funds for a single individual’s image “is plainly illegal.” The pair cited a provision in the current year’s spending act that bars money from being used for “publicity or propaganda,” along with the Anti-Deficiency Act, federal criminal statutes on misuse of public money, and the Hatch Act which restricts political activity by executive-branch staff.
The first commercial aired on 23 September, featuring a montage of Trump-related imagery set to a chant of “love me,” while UFC president Dana White offered an endorsement. A follow-up spot, broadcast a few days later, combined rally footage with a narrative blaming a “deep state” for the nation’s woes. Both pieces concluded with fine print stating they were funded by the U.S. government. Raskin and Whitesides asked the GAO to identify the exact source and total amount of money expended, noting that similar ad spending in recent years has exceeded more than $200 million such as the Department of Homeland Security’s campaign under Kristi Noem.
Republican reaction and precedent of large-scale ad spending
Even within the GOP, the financing raised eyebrows. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, along with Senators Mike Rounds, John Kennedy and Thom Tillis, questioned the propriety of tapping public dollars for a former president who is not officially on the ballot. Their concerns were echoed by the Federal Communications Commission’s chair, Brendan Carr—a Trump appointee—who defended the ads as “appropriate.” The White House, meanwhile, labeled the spots as “educational and unapologetically patriotic,” insisting they serve a public-service purpose.
Critics highlight that the advertisements mirror language and claims from Trump’s campaign, including an assertion that the president “revived manufacturing.” A February report from the Joint Economic Committee contradicted that claim, documenting a loss of tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs during his second term. Moreover, at an August rally, Trump urged supporters to “pretend, please, that I’m on the ballot,” blurring the line between public-service messaging and overt political persuasion.
The controversy is not unprecedented. In the previous year, the Department of Homeland Security allocated a massive budget—exceeding $200 million—to promote immigration policies championed by then-Secretary Kristi Noem and President Trump. Noem testified in March that Trump had approved the campaign, a claim the president later denied, leading to her reassignment as special envoy for the “Shield of the Americas.” That episode, like the current “Patriotic Ads,” illustrates a pattern of expansive federal advertising that courts and watchdogs have repeatedly scrutinized.
As the investigation unfolds, the GAO and OSC are expected to issue findings on whether the ad spend violated any statutes. Should they determine the spend was unlawful, the administration could face restitution demands, and congressional leaders may pursue further legislative safeguards to prevent similar uses of taxpayer money in future election cycles.
