Taxpayers are now footing the bill for a series of television ads that look and sound like campaign spots for President Trump, raising fresh questions about the use of public funds for political purposes. The ads, which carry a "Paid for by the U.S. Government" disclaimer, have aired in recent days, according to AdImpact, a media tracking firm.
The first spot promotes Trump's fight against "socialism and communism and Marxism." A second recycles portions of his July 4 speech at Mount Rushmore. But it's the third that has drawn the sharpest criticism: it is nearly identical to an ad Trump ran during his 2024 presidential campaign, with the campaign disclaimer swapped for a government one.
"This is the final battle," the ad declares. "With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state, expel the warmongers from our government, we will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the communists."
The irony is stark: the president is touting his expulsion of "warmongers" even as his administration is engaged in military action against Iran. Sagar Enjeti, a former Rising host, tweeted, "Did I really just watch a US Government paid ad of Trump saying he drove warmongers out of Washington?"
Critics point out that taxpayer money is being used both to promote the president's anti-war message and to fund the conflict he initiated. "Make it make sense," wrote Lindsey Granger, a NewsNation contributor and co-host of The Hill's commentary show "Rising," in her on-air commentary.
Even some Republicans are uncomfortable. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday: "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."
The White House insists the ads are "public service announcements" designed to remind Americans what makes the country worth defending, and argues there is no call to action. But ethics experts have raised concerns to The New York Times, with Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, calling the spending a potential "abuse of power" and "an impeachable offense."
The ads may also run afoul of the Hatch Act, which bars government employees from engaging in political activity in their official capacity. While the president is exempt, any federal workers involved in producing or placing the ads could be in violation. Ethics lawyers have flagged the ads as a possible impeachable misuse of funds.
This is not the first time the administration has faced scrutiny over taxpayer-funded messaging. Earlier this year, the White House was criticized for using government resources to promote the president's agenda. And with the midterms approaching, the stakes are higher. Republicans are already facing tough headwinds, and using public money for what looks like campaign advertising could backfire.
The president's decision to reject an Iran ceasefire and continue strikes only adds to the contradictions. Trump has signaled more talks and possible strikes, while simultaneously presenting himself as the leader who expelled warmongers.
For now, the ads remain on air, and taxpayers are picking up the tab. Whether they cross the legal line is a question that may ultimately be decided in court or by Congress. But as Painter noted, the precedent is troubling: using public funds for personal political gain undermines the very principles the ads claim to defend.
