Full Breakdown
Taxpayer-Funded TV Spot Praises President Trump Ahead of Midterms
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
A 30-second television advertisement featuring President Donald Trump aired this week on networks including Fox News, Newsmax and CBS. The spot strings together rally footage, White House events, sporting moments and scenes with military personnel, set to R&B singer JMSN’s “Love Me.”
Legal Context and Funding Restrictions
Federal appropriations law, as incorporated in the funding bill signed by Trump earlier this year, bars the use of government funds for “unauthorized publicity or propaganda.” The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has interpreted this prohibition to cover communications whose primary purpose is self-aggrandizement, puffery or partisan promotion. Public Citizen filed a complaint with the GAO alleging the ad violates these statutes, the Hatch Act and related regulations.
White House Response
No indication was given that the ad was intended as campaign material.
Congressional and Advocacy Criticism
Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Jack Reed (D-RI), together with Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) added on social media that every taxpayer should be outraged, labeling the ad “totally, completely illegal.” Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) linked the advertisement to a broader pattern of “expensive vanity projects” that could have been spent on lowering costs for Americans.
Verbatim Quotes
- “ "Whether or not President Trump was personally involved in the ad, it was conceived, produced, and distributed by Trump’s White House staff," Public Citizen said.” — Public Citizen
- “What possible rationale could there be for using tax dollars to play that ad? This is just pure cult propaganda paid for by us.” — Bulwark Podcast
- “This taxpayer-funded political advertisement serves as yet another troubling example of President Trump’s growing list of expensive vanity projects—including the White House ballroom—that are estimated to cost over $1.8 billion, money that could have instead [been] spent lowering costs for Americans.” — Sam Stein