In the weeks leading up to the November midterms, the White House has rolled out a series of taxpayer-funded advertising spots that foreground former President Donald Trump. The campaign, billed by officials as a series of public service announcements has ignited a debate in Washington over whether government money may be used to promote a partisan figure.
Senator John Kennedy’s interview on CBS raises legal doubts
During a Sunday appearance on Face the Nation Republican Senator John Kennedy was pressed by host Margaret Brennan about the propriety of broadcasting Trump-focused commercials. Brennan reminded Kennedy of his March criticism of former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, who had spent roughly $220 million on a self-promotional ad series. Kennedy called that move “masterclass dumb” and said he had publicly called her out.
When Brennan described a new 30-second spot that aired on major networks and cable, featuring a black-and-white montage of Trump’s second term and a voice-over praising him as “the toughest, most resilient person I ever met,” she asked whether it represented an appropriate use of tax dollars. Kennedy replied, “I don’t think any public official … should spend public money … on private ads for themselves. Now, the White House sees it differently, but I think there ought to be a rule that you can’t – well, there probably is a rule – you can’t spend public money to promote yourself.” His remarks echo concerns voiced by Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin that staff involved may have breached the Hatch Act which bars federal employees from partisan campaign activities.
The ad’s content and its broadcast footprint
The controversial spot, purchased through the firm Medium Buying, was shown during a Saturday college-football broadcast between Ohio State and Illinois on Fox, and later on Fox News Sunday. The 30-second video opens with a stark, monochrome image of Trump staring into the camera, overlayed with the closing riff of a speech he delivered repeatedly in 2023-2024. He declares, “This is the final battle. With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state…” The narration culminates in promises to “rout the fake news media” and “liberate our country,” language designed to resonate with his evangelical base. The screen ends with the disclaimer “Paid for by the US Government,” making the partisan nature of the piece unmistakable. The same clip was posted on Trump’s Truth Social account in both 2023 and 2024, and replayed on giant screens at the Republican National Convention on July 18, 2024, where it was identified as material provided by the Republican National Committee.
Congressional leaders demand an immediate halt
In a coordinated effort, four senior Democrats—Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), Sen. Patty Murray (WA), Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD-05), and Sen. Jack Reed (RI)—sent a sharply worded letter to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. The letter cites Section 718 of Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026 which explicitly forbids the use of federal funds for any domestic propaganda not authorized by Congress. The lawmakers also reference the Hatch Act and broader federal ethics statutes, arguing that the ad constitutes an “egregious and illegal misuse of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.” They demand that the administration “immediately take this ad off the air,” discipline the employees responsible, and provide a detailed accounting of every dollar spent on production and airtime.
The senators stress that this is not an isolated incident, noting previous breaches of appropriations law by the current administration and pointing to a systemic failure of the Office of Management and Budget to enforce compliance. Their request for transparency and accountability underscores a growing bipartisan push to restore the boundary between government communication and partisan campaigning.
Beyond the immediate legal questions, Kennedy added another point of contention: he opposes the practice of naming public buildings after living politicians, a rule that already exists in his home state of Louisiana. While his comment was not accompanied by a legislative proposal, it highlights the broader cultural debate over how elected officials are honored while still in office.
Both the Senate interview and the congressional letter illustrate a mounting challenge to the White House’s strategy of leveraging public resources for political gain. If the administration fails to heed the demand for removal, it could face enforcement actions under the appropriations law and potential criminal investigations under the Hatch Act. The episode also raises lingering questions about the definition of a “public service announcement” when the content is unmistakably partisan, and whether future administrations will be permitted to blur that line.
