In late September 2026, the White House continued to expand a set of television advertisements paid for by federal taxpayers, which clearly publicized the President Trump and his policies and marked “Paid for by the U.S. Government”. This group was first aired on Wednesday at Fox News Channel, then extended to national cable and broadcasting networks like Newsmax and CBS, with some 30-second and 60-second versions. Advertising expenditures rose rapidly from about $14 million initially to $430,000 on Friday by the Media Expenditure Tracking Agency AdImpact, with follow-up reports mentioning a total cost of at least $443,000 and an additional one-minute version of the Trump Rashmor speech. The allocation committee of the Democrat Senate and House has written to Susie Wiles, Chief of Staff of the White House, requesting an immediate halt to advertising, an indication of the source of funds and their use, and a breakdown of the total amount spent by taxpayers. Members of Parliament and former officials within the Republican Party have publicly objected to such advertisements as “totally wrong” and have added them to another controversy on the Republican body in the Senate, at a time when they are seeking to stabilize the situation before the midterm elections.
At the heart of the ad was an advocacy film with JMSN song "Love Me" as background music. The video clips a number of scenes during the second term of Trump, including a lecture gathering, pardoning turkeys, White House Christmas decorations, photos with the FIFA trophy, a flag around, accompanying military leaders, and the exterior of the Taj Mahal. The screen text will never be a commonist country and lists policy statements such as "Largest Tax Cuts in History" "Reigning American Manufacturing" "Defind Law and Order and Police". The ad ended with a quote by Dana White, CEO of the Ultimate Fight Championship, calling Trump "the toughest, toughest man I've ever seen." Another ad recreated the slogan of the campaign in 2024 around the theme “final battle” of Trump and clearly marked “Paid for by the U.S. Government” at the bottom of the screen. It has been reported that such material had previously appeared on the Trump Truth Social Account, together with statements made in 2023 and 2024 in collaboration with fund-raising of supporters. Advertising channels began with Fox News and Newsmax, and were then extended to radio and television networks such as CBS, moving from a limited initial period of time to a broader national delivery.
The change in advertising costs is one of the priorities of the outside world. Initial media reports indicated that the advertisement had cost approximately $14 million at the initial launch of Fox News and Newsmax. With the increase in coverage, AdImpact's tracking data increased advertising expenditure to approximately $430,000 and noted that if television networks classified the broadcast as party political advertising stock, total expenditure could rise further. Subsequent reports further mention that the cost of advertising activities by Friday amounted to at least $443 million and that a one-minute version based on the Trump Rashmore speech had been added. These figures are estimated by the Media Expenditure Tracking Agency rather than by the White House, which officially publishes accounts. The Democrats have asked the White House to provide complete cost records for the production and broadcast of advertisements, the source of funding and a statement of government objectives, details of which are not currently made public by the White House.
In a letter addressed to Susie Wiles, the leading allocation committee of both Houses of Democrats claimed that the advertisement violated section 718 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2026, fascicle E. This article is a long-standing general provision prohibiting any appropriation directly or indirectly for the purposes of “publicity or propaganda” in the United States without prior authorization from Congress, including through private contractors. The Democratic Party stated that the advertisement had no clear official government purpose and was suspected of using federal funds for political propaganda, which might conflict with the restrictions on the use of funds allocated for propaganda aimed at helping political parties or candidates. The New Hampshire Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan asked for a record of advertising costs, air costs, funding sources and government objectives. For its part, Congressman Jamie Raskin of the Maryland Democratic Party stated on social platforms that this might involve provisions in federal criminal law on the misappropriation of government property for political purposes, and that the involvement of government employees in the production or use of government resources could constitute a Hatt Act violation, as well as a violation of several federal ethical norms regarding the exclusion of government resources from political activities. The common demand on the Democratic Party is to stop advertising and to provide Congress with funds to use the details.
The White House defended this group of advertisements as “public service announcements” and compared them with television campaigns used in the past by the Government to promote or explain such topics as Medicare prescription drug benefits, medical corrections, COVID vaccines, etc. According to the White House, the President is not currently on the ballot, so this is not a campaign advertisement, but rather an educational component. Trump himself has stated that this is not a campaign ad because he is not on the electoral list; he claims that it is an education where taxpayers pay, watch him and learn to like him, one of the greatest public services ever. Officials in the executive branch also stated that the advertisements provided very high value for money because taxpayers acted as both financiers, target audiences and “products” to be communicated. The White House did not accept the cut-off request, nor did it publish the details of the funds, but instead insisted that advertising was part of the public information campaign of the Government.
It is not only within the Democratic Party that the matter is criticized, but also within the Republican Party. Some Republican senators and former officials have publicly stated that such advertisements are “totally wrong” and have pointed out that the latest edition of the ad, written directly on the screen, “Paid for by the US Government”, is more a partisan product than the first edition. It has been reported that such advertising material, originally produced for the Trump 2024 campaign, was later turned into a government-funded broadcast. Some media sources have mentioned that Trump ' s disputes of this kind are simmering on Republicans in the Senate, who are trying to find breathing space before the midterm elections. Former officials such as Mick Mulvaney also criticized the advertisement. For Republicans in the Senate, the ad was both a controversial point in the way in which policy was implemented and a source of attacks by opponents, especially in the run-up to the mid-term elections and the sensitive phase of the elections.
For taxpayers and the general audience, the immediate question of this group of advertisements is whether federal funds are being used for political propaganda and whether government-labeled advertisements that viewers see on television are public service messages. For the Congressional Democratic Committee and the Supervisory Authority, the focus is on whether the use of funds is in accordance with the prohibition of section 718 and whether the White House is required to provide a breakdown of expenditures and a decision to stop the broadcast. For employees involved in advertising or in the use of government resources, Hatch Act and the Federal Code of Ethics may pose a compliance risk, especially if government agents are directly involved in the production or distribution of content of a political nature. For television networks and media buyers, the classification of the broadcast as a party political advertising stock has implications for the cost structure and subsequent billing patterns, as well as for whether advertising is considered an exception to public service advocacy. For Republicans in the Senate, it is one of the political burdens that they will have to deal with in the run-up to the mid-term elections, which could be a source of campaign attacks and could trigger intra-party discussions about the use of government resources at borders.
The most critical point is whether the White House accepts two requests from the Democrats' Grant Board: first, to immediately suspend the ads, and second, to provide Congress with a full list of taxpayers’ funds for the production and broadcast of the ads, their sources of funding, and a statement of government objectives. To date, the White House has not accepted these two requests, but has continued to define advertising as a public service announcement and has maintained that the President is not on the ballot and is therefore not a campaign advertisement. The Democratic Party, for its part, indicated that it would continue to follow up on the whereabouts and legal basis of the funds and that some parliamentarians had also referred to the provisions of Hatch Act and the Federal Penal Code on the misappropriation of government property for political purposes, but those claims were still at the stage of charges and challenges rather than the final conclusions that had been found. At the same time, the scope and cost of advertising is still changing, with AdImpact showing an increase in expenditure from an initial level of approximately $14 million to over $430,000, followed by reports of at least $443,000 and a one-minute version of accession. For readers interested in this matter, it is possible to note whether the White House has published a detailed list of funds, whether there are any further parliamentary inquiries or procedural actions, and whether the television network has adjusted the classification and costing of such advertisements. For government employees or those involved in the use of government resources, the uncertainty at this stage is whether federal employees are involved in the production of content or the transfer of resources, and attention needs to be given to whether there is a formal inquiry or description of the Hatch Act or federal ethics requirements that follow. For both voters and the audience, the logo of the ad clearly stated that the United States Government paid for it, so that it could be viewed separately from general political campaign advertisements, while noting the continuing debate between the White House and the Congress Democratic Party on the lines of “public service announcements” and “government propaganda”.