Donald Trump uses $20 million in taxpayer funds for TV ads praising his presidency

The administration of US President Donald Trump has allocated $20 million from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funds for a national television advertising campaign featuring and praising the president, according to people familiar with the matter and federal spending records.

The advertisements have aired across cable and network television, including during major sporting broadcasts and other high-profile programmes. The spending has triggered criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, who have questioned whether public money can legally be used for advertisements that promote a sitting president.

The White House has defended the campaign, describing the spots as educational public service announcements rather than political advertising. It has pointed to the absence of an explicit appeal to vote for Trump or another candidate as evidence that the advertisements are not campaign material.

How the $20 million was allocated

Federal budget records show that $20 million was moved into a US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) account on September 19 under a category for “commemorative events”. The following day, DHS awarded a $20 million contract to Maryland-based LMD Agency for a “National Media Campaign”, according to federal contract data.

The money came from funds Congress had allocated to CBP. Reporting by The Washington Post said the wider funding package was intended for purposes including border-security upgrades, drug-trafficking enforcement and commemorative events for officers killed in the line of duty.

At least $2.5 million had been spent on three of the advertisements by early October, according to AdImpact, which tracks advertising expenditure. A fourth advertisement was subsequently aired, with the overall allocation remaining $20 million.

Ads feature Trump and administration policies

The advertisements have prominently featured Trump and themes associated with his presidency.

One spot shows Trump walking through a hallway in monochrome footage while discussing what it calls a “final battle” against the “deep state”, “globalists” and what he describes as a political class hostile to the country. Another advertisement uses images of Trump and highlights his administration's tax policies.

A later advertisement focuses on the US war with Iran and features footage of the military, alongside audio from Trump and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. The advertisements carry a disclosure stating that they were “Paid for by the US Government”.

One of the advertisements also closely resembles a 2024 campaign video produced for Trump, according to reporting on the campaign.

White House rejects political advertising claims

The White House has rejected accusations that the advertisements amount to campaign material.

In a September 25 statement, the administration said the advertisements were not campaign ads because Trump is not currently on the ballot and the videos contain no call to action. It described them as a reminder for Americans to value and defend their country.

Trump also defended the spending, saying the advertisements were intended “for the country” rather than to promote himself or another candidate. He said he was not running for office and therefore was not seeking votes for himself.

The White House has also cited previous administrations' use of nationally broadcast public service announcements to communicate government policies and programmes.

Bipartisan criticism and legal questions

The spending has nevertheless generated criticism from lawmakers in both parties.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, said the message itself was positive but questioned why it should be paid for with taxpayer money. Democratic lawmakers have called for investigations into how the funds were transferred and used.

Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Chris Murphy wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin seeking information about the expenditure. House Democrats have also asked federal watchdogs to examine the campaign.

The controversy centres partly on federal restrictions governing the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda. Legal experts cited by FactCheck.org said the advertisements could raise questions under those restrictions, although the precise legal status would depend on how the campaign and its funding are interpreted.

FCC says advertisements do not warrant review

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, a Republican appointed by Trump, said the advertisements did not raise concerns requiring FCC review.

Carr said he saw no basis for broadcaster liability for airing what he described as ordinary public service announcements. FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, took a different view, arguing that the administration's campaign could influence the November midterm elections.

The advertisements are airing in the weeks leading up to the 2026 US midterm elections, adding to scrutiny over the timing and use of government funds.

The dispute over the campaign is therefore focused on both the purpose for which the money was appropriated and whether the content of the advertisements crosses the line between government communication and political promotion. No final legal determination has been reported on those questions.