Trump's Taxpayer Ads Face Propaganda Complaint

Public Citizen filed a complaint to federal regulators. The group says Trump’s government-funded ads are propaganda. They claim the spots violate federal law against using taxpayer funds for that purpose.

Three national television ads are running. They feature President Donald Trump. They celebrate what the administration calls a golden age of America. Each one ends with a tag that reads “Paid for by the U.S. government.” That line is meant to reassure. It also raises the question that will not go away.

Public Citizen, a nonprofit advocacy group, submitted the complaint to federal regulators including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. The group argues the ads are campaign advertisements that should not be produced or distributed with taxpayer resources. They also asked broadcasters to stop airing the spots and urged federal authorities to investigate whether executive branch officials improperly engaged in partisan political activity.

The timing is hard to miss. The ads began airing on September 23, 2026. They are running five weeks before the 2026 midterm elections. AdImpact, an advertising-tracking firm, says the three spots aired more than 2,700 times between September 23 and September 29. The cost is nearing at least $2.5 million in taxpayer money, according to the firm. Sources familiar with the funding say $20 million has been allocated for the campaign, with money coming from U.S. Customs and Border Protection within the Department of Homeland Security.

Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Chris Murphy asked Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to provide explanations regarding the spots. They said the administration had redirected $20 million from the department’s budget to the advertising campaign. “The administration’s justification for using American taxpayers’ money to broadcast these spots is as absurd as it is offensive,” they wrote in their letter.

One ad features Trump declaring that “America will never be a communist country” while a chorus repeats the words “love me.” That song, “Love Me,” is by recording artist Christian Berishaj, who performs as JMSN. His lawyers sent the White House a cease-and-desist letter saying the song was used without permission. Another spot combines images of Mount Rushmore with footage of Trump praising a “golden age of America.” A third describes a “final battle” against the “deep state” and closely resembles one of Trump’s 2024 campaign advertisements.

The White House has described the advertisements as public service announcements. They say the spots are intended to promote patriotism and educate the public rather than influence an election. That is the defense. It rests on the idea that these are normal government PSAs, the kind both parties have run for years.

The FCC chair, Brendan Carr, said the taxpayer-funded television ads featuring Trump are not improper and do not raise any red flags. Carr, a Republican who was named head of the agency by Trump in January 2025, told reporters there is nothing in the spots that strikes him to merit any sort of FCC review or any liability for any broadcaster for running a regular, normal public service announcement. He called the complaints the work of activist groups that have long pushed to weaponize the FCC’s license renewal process.

Anna Gomez, the sole Democrat on the FCC, said as a regular citizen she can see why people are thinking that these ads are political ads. She said she highly doubts that the agency is going to do much to investigate it, despite opening the door to exactly these types of investigations. She called it a glaring double standard when compared to past FCC investigations of complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC.

Public Citizen also filed complaints with the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. They allege the ads violate laws prohibiting the use of government resources for propaganda, the Hatch Act, and other related laws. The Hatch Act limits the partisan political activities of government employees. Federal law explicitly prohibits using appropriated public funds for government propaganda, self-aggrandizement, or partisan political advertising, according to the complaint.

Multiple legal experts consulted by The Associated Press said the ads appear to run afoul of federal statutes. Those include a law against congressionally appropriated funds being used for publicity or propaganda and a law that limits the partisan political activities of government employees. The Purpose Statute states that an agency’s authority to use its appropriations to communicate with the public about any administration priority must be firmly rooted in the language of the appropriation or the agency’s enabling or authorizing legislation. A government-wide provision of federal appropriations law provides that no part of any appropriation shall be used directly or indirectly for publicity or propaganda purposes.

Senator John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, said on CBS News that you cannot spend public money to promote yourself. That is the plain version of the concern. It does not require a law degree to understand.

The legal questions surrounding the advertisements remain unresolved. The FCC complaint is pending. The GAO and Office of Special Counsel have been asked to investigate. Broadcasters have been urged to stop airing the spots. None of that changes what has already been spent.

I have seen this pattern before. Not this exact set of ads. The feeling is familiar. Money moves. A defense is offered. The law is cited on both sides. The election gets closer. The question of what counts as propaganda does not get simpler with time. It gets harder, because more is at stake.

Federal regulators will decide whether to act. They may not. The ads may keep running. The midterms will happen. The bill for the campaign, if the $20 million figure holds, will be paid by people who did not choose to fund it. That is the part that sits wrong. Not the politics. The mechanics.

Public Citizen’s complaint is clear on what they believe the law says. The White House is clear on what they believe the ads are. The gap between those two statements is where this story lives. It is not a small gap. It is the kind that takes years to close, if it closes at all.