As the midterm elections approach, the Trump administration has rolled out a wave of taxpayer-funded television advertisements highlighting the president and his policy goals, drawing sharp accusations of unlawful propaganda from Democratic lawmakers.
According to Politico, one such spot debuted on Fox News and Newsmax on September 23. Set to the song “Love Me” by JMSN, the commercial features monochrome footage of Donald Trump paired with a voiceover declaring, “Together we will defeat communism, socialism and Marxism in America,” alongside snapshots from his presidency and the 2024 campaign trail.
In response, a coalition of Democratic legislators sent a formal letter on September 24 to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, demanding that the broadcasts cease immediately due to alleged violations of federal law.
“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,” the lawmakers wrote.
A second commercial features Trump asserting, “This is the final battle,” adding, “With you at my side we will demolish the deep state” and “expel the warmongers from our government.”
Meanwhile, a third minute-long spot repurposes footage from Trump’s July address at Mount Rushmore commemorating the nation’s 250th anniversary, where he hailed the U.S. as “the most successful, most accomplished, most exceptional nation ever to exist in human history.”
Each advertisement carries the explicit disclaimer: “Paid for by the U.S. government.”
Data from ad-tracking firm AdImpact, cited by The New York Times, indicates that upwards of $1 million has likely been funneled into running these broadcasts, though the specific government agency funding them remains undisclosed.
The White House has strongly defended the initiative, arguing that the clips function as standard public service announcements (PSAs) rather than political campaigning. Officials insisted that previous administrations routinely utilized PSAs “to explain policy and make the case for the nation’s direction,” pointing to George W. Bush’s Medicare television campaign, Barack Obama’s push for Affordable Care Act subsidies, and Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccination drives as precedents.
Even so, legal and campaign-finance experts consulted by PolitiFact expressed skepticism regarding the administration’s classification of the ads.
Legal Experts Question PSA Designation
Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan, noted that unlike traditional public service announcements—which typically guide citizens on how to navigate or benefit from government initiatives—these spots serve a different purpose entirely.
“By paying for the ads with government funds, the Trump Administration is violating the statute imposing a government-wide prohibition on using federal funds to pay for ‘publicity or propaganda,’” Bagenstos stated. “It’s basically impossible to come up with a respectable argument to the contrary. All these ads do is aggrandize Donald Trump.”
While federal law lacks a formal statutory definition for “publicity or propaganda,” the restriction is regularly written into annual omnibus appropriations bills. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), this prohibition generally targets three categories of activity: self-aggrandizement, covert propaganda, and overtly partisan messaging.
Brett Kappel, an attorney specializing in government ethics, likewise questioned whether the Trump administration’s spots meet the criteria for legitimate PSAs.
Kappel explained that determining the legality of the broadcasts hinges on which specific federal agency is footing the bill and whether that agency’s governing appropriations legislation bars the use of funds for publicity or propaganda.
Origins Trace Back to 2024 Campaign
The black-and-white “Final Battle” spot—which aired during major sporting events and television broadcasts on September 26 and 27—is not entirely new. Virtually identical versions were deployed by Trump during his January 2024 and October 2024 presidential bids, though those earlier iterations concluded with direct requests for votes or text messages.
While the Hatch Act places strict limits on the political activities of federal employees, Bagenstos pointed out that proving a violation is more difficult here because Trump himself is not running in the midterm elections, despite his party’s deep political stakes.
Stanley Brand, a distinguished fellow in law and government at Penn State Dickinson Law, noted that enforcement under the Hatch Act ultimately hinges on proving the advertisements constitute forbidden “propaganda”—a term left undefined within the statute itself.
Furthermore, experts noted that because the current administration holds authority over enforcing federal rules like the Hatch Act, the practical likelihood of any punitive enforcement action remains near zero.
PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.