Corruption · Public money · Updated October 13, 2026 · 86 sources
Paid for.
The question
Is public money being used to promote the president himself?
What the record shows
The government has put the president’s face or message in front of the public in at least four ways: banners of his face paid for by five federal agencies, a television ad carrying his message under the line “paid for by the U.S. government,” a 24-hour White House stream of its own highlights, and a White House app pushed onto federal employees’ work phones.
Federal spending laws have barred taxpayer spending “for publicity or propaganda purposes” since 1951. On October 12 a federal judge found the plaintiffs likely to succeed in showing the television ads violated that ban; the banners, the stream and the app have not been tested.
Sen. Schiff ↗Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security ↗
The newest examples began on the night of September 23, 2026: a thirty-second spot during conservative shows on Fox News and Newsmax. Images of the president, the “largest tax cuts in history,” a promise that “America will never be a communist country,” and a line of small text at the bottom: “paid for by the U.S. government.” The White House calls it a public service announcement. Within five days there were at least four spots, one of them a rerun of a 2024 Trump campaign ad, airing during NFL games.
Below: what each item cost and who paid, the record in order, the explanations set against the documents, who objected and who defended it, the rules that apply, and what to watch. Every fact is sourced. Every opinion is labeled.
A Republican senator, on the ad:
“It’s inappropriate. It’s not like they need a GoFundMe page to have the dollars to do that sort of ad and they could do it. But using taxpayer dollars, it feels like Viktor Orban.”
Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, September 2026
Everything outside the labeled take is reporting: 86 sources, each fact linked to where it came from, every quotation checked word for word. Our opinion comes near the end, set apart and easy to skip. How this page is built ↓
As of October 13, 2026
Where it stands
Status
A federal judge orders the taxpayer-funded ads off the air
On October 11, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the Southern District of New York halted the ads for 14 days in a suit brought by Common Cause, staying CBP’s $20 million purchase order and ordering remaining placements canceled. The Justice Department did not contest the merits; it argued the ads were ending anyway. By October 12, AdImpact counted $21,705,138 in government spending on five ads. Trump had said on October 5 that his super PAC would pay for future ads, and on October 6, asked about repaying what was spent, said, “we’ll decide.” The FAA banner contract runs through 2027.
What to watch
- Nov 3, 2026 Election Day. The ad ran six weeks before the midterms. Watch whether more spots carrying the government disclaimer run before the vote, and whether DHS answers the senators’ questions about the border money.
- Open The senators’ 48 hours. Sens. Murray and Murphy asked DHS on September 29 for a breakdown of the funds, copies of the contracts and who directed them, within 48 hours, copying the department’s inspector general. Hassan’s earlier questions on cost and contractors are also unanswered.
- Open GAO. Reps. Raskin and Whitesides asked GAO on October 1 to identify the money and rule on whether the ads are legal. GAO acts on congressional requests and says it is deciding whether to take this one. A GAO opinion would test the propaganda restriction directly.
- Oct 25, 2026 The court order runs out. Judge Rochon’s order lasts 14 days from October 11 unless the court extends it. The Democratic National Committee has sued separately.
- Open The other complaints. Public Citizen’s, filed September 25 with GAO and the Office of Special Counsel and September 29 with the FCC and FTC, and CREW’s, filed September 30 with DHS’s inspector general. The FCC chairman has said he sees no reason for review. None of the others has acted.
- Through 2027 The FAA banners. The FAA’s banner contract runs through 2027.
Who pays, and how much
The ledger
Each item, the part of the government paying for it, and the amount where one has been made public. Amounts are contract values and releases as reported, not necessarily what has been spent.
CBS News ↗Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security ↗AP ↗NBC News ↗USAspending.gov ↗
Paid byCustoms and Border Protection funds: CBP asked OMB for $20 million on September 19 and issued a $20 million purchase order to the ad agency the next day, the court record shows $21,705,138In order
The record
29 documented events over 7 months, from the first banners to the ad. Each links to its sources; each has its own address, so you can send someone a single moment.
September 2025 1 event
-
Sen. Adam Schiff’s office reported that the Agriculture Department spent $16,400 on two banners of Trump and Abraham Lincoln, and the Labor Department about $6,000 on banners including Trump’s portrait over the words “American Workers First.” A third contract, $33,726 at Health and Human Services, paid for “Make America Healthy Again” signs. Schiff called the spending illegal, citing prohibitions in federal spending laws since 1951 on taxpayer spending “for publicity or propaganda purposes.”
The Labor Department said its banners were made for Labor Day and the country’s 250th anniversary. The White House called Schiff a “serial liar.”
February 2026 1 event
-
Work crews hung a banner with Trump’s portrait and the words “Make America Safe Again” on the headquarters of the Justice Department. A department spokesperson: “We are proud at this Department of Justice to celebrate 250 years of our great country and our historic work to make America safe again at President Trump’s direction.” Former Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock: “Nothing says Justice is Blind like hanging a Dear Leader Banner at DOJ.”
March 2026 2 events
-
Trump fired Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after a scandal over a $220 million taxpayer-funded advertising campaign that featured her on horseback. The biggest no-bid contract went to a firm incorporated days before it was awarded. Noem had testified that Trump approved the campaign. A White House spokesperson told NBC News: “POTUS did not sign off on a $220 MILLION dollar ad campaign. Absolutely not.”
-
After cryptic teaser videos on its official accounts, the White House released an app with live-streamed briefings, press releases presented as news and an ICE tip line. CNBC reported that it “curates favorable news articles” and left out unfavorable data, such as rising oil prices.
May 2026 1 event
-
The federal chief information officer asked agencies to push the app onto government-issued phones. The FAA told its staff it “will automatically install ‘The White House’ application on all FAA-issued iPhones and iPads, as mandated by the White House.” David Nesting, a former deputy chief information officer at the Office of Personnel Management: “It’s just making sure all federal employees are forced to see the same propaganda they push.”
July 2026 1 event
-
Schiff found $39,000 in contracts for a banner at the Interior Department and $114,020 for the FAA, running through 2027. Records Politico obtained showed the Justice Department paid a $892,192.07 base contract for its banners and $54,768 more. Schiff: “an eight-story high Donald Trump head certainly qualifies as propaganda.”
The White House did not respond directly to questions about the contracts’ legality. Its spokesman said Schiff was willing “to trash the United States of America during its semiquincentennial celebration simply because he hates President Trump.”
September 2026 18 events
-
Three days after banning three news organizations, the White House launched “Trump TV: The Essentials Station,” a 24-hour stream of its own past video. Its head of digital strategy, Kaelan Dorr, called it “a livestream of the Administration’s greatest hits, unfiltered.” It opened, NOTUS reported, “with a two-month-old clip of the president speaking at Mount Rushmore.”
-
A thirty-second spot of the president’s record and message ran during conservative shows on Fox News and Newsmax, closing with the line “paid for by the U.S. government.” AdImpact put the buy at $14,000. The White House had posted a 15-second version on its official YouTube channel on September 13. It called the ad “educational and unapologetically patriotic” and did not say what agency paid for it.
Two Republican senators objected. Thom Tillis: “using taxpayer dollars, it feels like Viktor Orban.” John Kennedy: “I don’t generally like to see politicians use public money to pay for their own campaign ads.”
Associated Press ↗The Independent ↗Mediaite ↗The White House ↗
-
CBS News reported that the ad began running on national networks, CBS among them, and that a second government-paid ad, recounting the U.S. capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and featuring Trump and his top Cabinet officials, aired on CBS stations and other networks that evening. There are 30- and 60-second versions. The government produced the content and paid for the air time through an ad agency, CBS reported.
The musician JMSN said he never licensed the song: “I would never authorize my music to be used for ANY political agenda or campaign.” A White House official told CBS the ads “are clearly not political.”
-
Sen. Maggie Hassan asked chief of staff Susie Wiles for the cost, the contractors, the source of the funding and whether money was diverted from federal agencies. The top Democratic appropriators, Sens. Patty Murray and Jack Reed and Reps. Rosa DeLauro and Steny Hoyer, demanded that it be pulled: “This is the sort of government propaganda one might expect in North Korea, not the United States of America, and it is an egregious and illegal misuse of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.”
-
A minute-long ad began airing on Newsmax with video of Mount Rushmore at night and clips of Trump’s Fourth of July speech there: “This is only the beginning of the golden age of America.” The White House published “Presidential Public Service Announcements Are Nothing New,” calling the criticism “highly dishonest” and citing a Bush-era Medicare campaign, Obama’s EPA and Biden’s vaccination drive. NBC News noted that the Government Accountability Office had faulted the Bush campaign for not disclosing the government as its source and the Obama one for violating “publicity or propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions.”
-
Public Citizen filed a complaint alleging the ads violate the laws against using government resources for propaganda and, for the staff involved, the Hatch Act. Co-president Lisa Gilbert: “Taxpayer funds cannot pay for partisan political propaganda.”
-
A thirty-second black-and-white spot of Trump walking down a hallway, which the Associated Press called “virtually identical to one that aired in 2024,” ran during Fox’s broadcasts of two NFL games, CNN reported. Trump in it: “We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake news media, and we will liberate America from these villains once and for all.” NBC News reported that the government version drops the campaign ending and adds “Paid for by the U.S. government.” AdImpact put spending on the ads at more than $1.7 million.
-
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, on CBS’s “Face the Nation”: “I don’t think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves.” Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky: “Don’t worry, using taxpayer dollars to run ominous campaign ads of the President has been done before and is completely legal… in banana republics.”
-
The Wall Street Journal reported, and NBC News, the Associated Press and CNBC confirmed, that the ads are paid for with Customs and Border Protection money from the 2025 reconciliation law rather than annual appropriations. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, confirmed it on the record, saying “it was taken out of funding that was supposed to be for Customs and Border Protection.” DHS referred questions to the White House. Sens. Patty Murray and Chris Murphy wrote that “it appears DHS has dedicated $20 million to this outrageous scheme” and asked for answers within 48 hours. CNBC found a $20 million CBP contract for a “National Media Campaign” awarded September 20, one day after the budget office released $20 million to CBP under a “Commemorative Events” line; the public record does not yet tie that contract to these ads.
Wall Street Journal ↗NBC News ↗AP ↗CNBC ↗Senate Appropriations Committee ↗USAspending.gov ↗
-
CNN, citing one source familiar with the matter, reported that Trump personally drove the ads, including helping select the imagery and videos, and two Trump advisers told CNN they are made in-house by the White House video team. The Journal, citing people familiar, reported he pushed for them. Both accounts rest on anonymous sources.
-
Majority Leader John Thune: “It’s a great message. I like the message, but it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars.” Sen. Thom Tillis: “I hate it. I tell you, it feels like Viktor Orbán talking to the Hungarian people.” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle answered the criticism by calling Trump “the unequivocal leader, best messenger, and unmatched motivator for the Republican Party.”
-
Public Citizen asked the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to “direct broadcasters to stop broadcasting” the ads, arguing that because Trump is not a candidate, stations are free to refuse them.
-
An administration official told Axios that “The Department of Homeland Security is placing the ad buys using money from an existing budget,” and Axios reported that Trump “is personally selecting which government-funded ads his administration is airing ahead of the midterms,” with more to come. AdImpact counted 2,766 airings from September 23 to 29 on Fox News and the four broadcast networks, CNN reported, with about 30% of the spending on NFL and college football games.
-
On the Senate floor, Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming blocked Sen. Maggie Hassan’s resolution declaring that such ads “should not be paid for by the United States government.” “When a Democratic president tells Americans what to do, it’s a public service,” Lummis said. “When this president tells Americans that liberty is worth defending, it’s suddenly a problem.”
-
In the Oval Office, Trump said, “Now, if somebody said that that’s wrong, I’ll gladly pay the money, but these are ads for the country,” and, “I’m not promoting a candidate. I’m not promoting myself because I’m not running for office.” It was his first comment on the campaign.
-
A fourth spot carrying the government disclaimer began airing. In it Trump says, “This regime will soon learn that no one should challenge the strength and might of the United States,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says, “We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it.” Which funds paid for it has not been confirmed.
-
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, dismissed Public Citizen’s complaint: “There’s nothing in there that strikes me to merit any sort of FCC review.” Anna Gomez, the commission’s only Democrat, said she “highly” doubts the FCC “is going to do much to investigate it.”
-
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked the inspector general to examine possible violations of the Antideficiency Act, the Purpose Statute and the government-wide ban on “publicity or propaganda” in the 2026 appropriations law.
October 2026 5 events
-
Reps. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and George Whitesides asked GAO to identify the “sources, accounts and total amount” spent and to rule on legality, and the Office of Special Counsel to determine who should be held accountable. It is the first request from members of Congress to GAO, which had told Ars Technica that its “work is done at the request of congressional committees or subcommittees or is statutorily required by public laws.” The letter says “stealing taxpayer dollars to pay for Mr. Trump’s narcissistic ego trips is plainly illegal.”
Both agencies confirmed receiving it, the Daily Beast reported. GAO spokesperson Sarah Kaczmarek: “GAO has a process it goes through to determine whether we do work and when, which we are working through right now.”
Reuters (via U.S. News) ↗Washington Examiner ↗The Daily Beast ↗Ars Technica ↗
-
CNN reported that the administration has created at least 13 campaign-style ads, including “God Made Trump,” shown at Republicans’ midterm convention, and obtained clips from a Dropbox account “run by LMD, the agency that has been given the government contract for the ad buys.” The Washington Post reported that to add $20 million to DHS’s “commemorative events” line, OMB drew on money the 2025 law gave CBP; a House budget committee report said that line was intended for “Line-of-Duty death memorials, Department or agency anniversaries, and commendation ceremonies.”
The New York Times reported, citing people familiar with the matter, that “President Donald Trump personally instructed his budget director to use taxpayer money for TV ads praising him and his presidency.”
CNN ↗Washington Post ↗The New York Times (via The Seattle Times) ↗
-
After criticism from both parties, Trump posted, “This is a rather standard thing to do but, rather than doing that, although nothing will make them happy, I have decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc.” A White House official told CBS News the post “was not referring to reimbursing the federal government” for ads already bought.
Asked the next day whether he would repay the money already spent, he said, “we’ll decide,” the AP reported.
-
In Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the Southern District of New York stayed CBP’s $20 million purchase order and OMB’s reallocation of the money and ordered the government to cancel remaining placements, “including those placements for the evening of October 11, 2026,” for 14 days. The Justice Department had argued an order was unnecessary because “the alleged offending conduct will end tomorrow.”
In her opinion the next day, Rochon wrote that “Defendants do not contest the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims” and found the plaintiffs likely to succeed in showing the ads “were disseminated to support Republican candidates and impact the midterm elections.” She called DHS’s statement that it had “no plans” for more buys “equivocal” and cited Trump’s October 5 post calling the spending a “standard thing to do.”
Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Securit… ↗Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security ↗AP ↗NBC News ↗CBS News ↗
-
The plaintiffs told the court that, by AdImpact’s data, the ads “ran in nearly 400 spots on programs that began airing at 7 p.m. Eastern last night,” after the order took effect, including during CBS’s “60 Minutes” and ABC’s “America’s Funniest Home Videos,” and kept running the next day. The government’s status report explained that “Agency counsel did not become aware of Government counsel’s email until this morning” and said, “The undersigned apologizes to the Court and the plaintiffs.” The plaintiffs said they “do not presently seek contempt sanctions.” The judge set a conference for October 14.
Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security ↗Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security ↗CNN ↗Washington Examiner ↗
Checked against the record
The claims and the record
What the administration, its allies and the ad itself say, in their own words wherever they put it that way, next to what the documents and the reporting show.
Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security ↗The Hill ↗GV Wire (Reuters) ↗
Both sides, in their own words
Who objected, and who defended it
The strongest version of each side, quoted. Republicans are among the objectors: a senator and a former congresswoman, and a second senator is quoted at the top of this page.
Objected
“It’s a great message. I like the message, but it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars.”
Sen. John ThuneSenate Majority Leader, Republican of South Dakota
“I don’t think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves.”
Sen. John KennedyRepublican of Louisiana, on “Face the Nation”
“Don’t worry, using taxpayer dollars to run ominous campaign ads of the President has been done before and is completely legal… in banana republics.”
Rep. Thomas MassieRepublican of Kentucky, on the campaign-ad rerun
“Not only is this a terrible waste of Americans’ hard-earned money, it is clearly against the law”
Sen. Adam SchiffDemocrat of California, on the banners
“Nothing says Justice is Blind like hanging a Dear Leader Banner at DOJ.”
Barbara ComstockFormer Republican congresswoman, on the Justice Department banner
“You know who else does this? Russia, China, and Iran to name a few.”
Stephanie GrishamTrump’s press secretary in his first term, on Trump TV
“This is the sort of government propaganda one might expect in North Korea, not the United States of America”
Sens. Patty Murray and Jack Reed, Reps. Rosa DeLauro and Steny HoyerThe top Democratic appropriators, on the ads
“America cannot have state TV”
Weijia JiangCBS News, former president of the White House Correspondents’ Association
Defended
“Now, if somebody said that that’s wrong, I’ll gladly pay the money, but these are ads for the country”
President TrumpIn the Oval Office, September 30
“When this president tells Americans that liberty is worth defending, it’s suddenly a problem.”
Sen. Cynthia LummisRepublican of Wyoming, blocking a resolution against the ads
“the unequivocal leader, best messenger, and unmatched motivator for the Republican Party”
Davis IngleWhite House spokesperson, on the criticism of the ads
“educational and unapologetically patriotic”
The White HouseIn a statement on the ad
“The President is not on the ballot and the ads don’t have a call to action.”
A White House officialTo CBS News, on the ads
“Don’t let the Fake News get away with their lies about our epic Public Service Announcements that have been running on tv.”
Steven CheungWhite House communications director
“We are proud at this Department of Justice to celebrate 250 years of our great country”
A Justice Department spokespersonOn the banner at its headquarters
“The banners were originally displayed for Labor Day. After tremendous positive response, we’re reinforcing the material at no charge to taxpayers”
Courtney ParellaLabor Department spokesperson, on its banners
“a livestream of the Administration’s greatest hits, unfiltered”
Kaelan DorrWhite House head of digital strategy, on Trump TV
“It’s a complete disgrace that Pencil-Neck Adam Schiff is willing to trash the United States of America during its semiquincentennial celebration simply because he hates President Trump.”
Davis IngleWhite House spokesman, on Schiff’s banner findings
What governs the money
The rules
The restrictions that apply to public money spent on a president's image. None has been tested against any of this; no ruling on it is on the record.
- Since 1951
The propaganda restriction
Federal spending laws have barred taxpayer spending “for publicity or propaganda purposes” since 1951, according to Schiff’s report. The statutes do not define propaganda, the report notes, but “prior prohibited uses of funds have been classified as self-aggrandizement, purely partisan materials, or covert propaganda.” On September 25 Public Citizen asked the Government Accountability Office to find that the ads violate it; GAO has not responded publicly.
- Hatch Act
Limits on federal employees
The Hatch Act limits partisan political activity by federal employees. It does not apply to the president. Rep. Jamie Raskin’s point about the ad is that it would be a violation “for any government employees who worked on it or used government resources to make it.”
- Mar 2026
The administration’s own precedent
A $220 million taxpayer-funded ad campaign featuring a cabinet secretary ended with her firing. DHS had invoked a national emergency declaration to skip competitive bidding.
Reading the record
Our take
Our take — opinion, not reporting
Each item here has a defense on its own terms. A president may publish video, and agencies may mark an anniversary. Put together, they describe what the propaganda restriction exists to prevent: public money spent to keep one politician’s face and message in front of the public, most visibly in the weeks before an election.
The ads began as the smallest line in the ledger and are now the largest, and they were always the plainest. One uses the president’s campaign themes, a convention clip and a song that repeats “love me”; another is his 2024 campaign ad with the campaign ending cut off. Both carry a government disclaimer. Republicans in both chambers saw the problem at once. The money turned out to be border-security funds, which a Republican senator confirmed before the administration did. When the spending reached court, the government did not defend its legality, and a federal judge stopped it.
The anniversary defense deserves a fair hearing, and the banners answer it themselves. They carry the sitting president’s portrait and his own slogans, one of them on the headquarters of the department meant to be independent of him, and one contract runs into 2027.
Standards
Method
Where this comes from
- This page is built from 8 Trump Tracker entries, each through the tracker’s validation protocol: two independent sources for any core claim, primary documents preferred, single-sourced claims labeled.
- This page answers one question, about public money promoting the president. The White House ballroom, which raises a different one, about donors and access, has its own page. For the wider catalog of Trump’s name and face on government, from the passport to the $250 bill, see the research site’s Government as Brand page.
- Right-leaning outlets are cited where they covered the story, including Breitbart and the Washington Examiner.
How it is checked
- An automated check runs on every change: every link on this page must appear in a seed entry’s sources, and every quotation must appear word for word in a seed entry. Either failure blocks the page.
- Before publishing, each quotation and figure was also checked against the saved text of the specific source attached to it. That check found errors in four of the underlying tracker entries, which were corrected there first and are listed under Corrections.
- One source, a paywalled Washington Post article on the ad, could not be read in full. Nothing on this page rests on it alone.
- Where an account rests on anonymous sources, the page says so where it appears.
What we mean by the record
- It means what the documents say: contracts, releases, rulings, sworn testimony and the text of what was published. It does not mean our reading of them.
- Our opinion is confined to the labeled take near the end of the page. It is set apart and easy to skip; you do not have to share it to use the rest.
- An amount in the ledger is a contract value or a release of funds as reported. It is not necessarily what has been paid out.
Corrections
- Corrections are made openly. This log covers the page and the tracker entries it draws on.
- September 24, 2026Before this page was published, its sources were checked against the saved text of each article. The 2025 banner entry it draws on described the Labor Department’s banner as 88 feet long. The 88-foot signs were Health and Human Services’ “Make America Healthy Again” banners, which this page does not count as spending on the president’s image. The ad entry has also been brought up to date with the White House’s statement defending the ad.
- September 28, 2026Earlier versions of this page said that, as of September 25, no complaint or request for a GAO opinion was on the record. Public Citizen had filed one with GAO and the Office of Special Counsel that day. The ledger’s figure for the ads, $14,000, was AdImpact’s estimate of the first buy; it has been replaced with AdImpact’s running estimate, more than $1.7 million.
- September 25, 2026This page was narrowed to one question, whether public money is promoting the president himself. The White House ballroom, which it first included, now has its own page, since its story is about donors and access. The administration’s answers on the banners were added.