Lawmakers call for action against ‘blatantly illegal’ taxpayer-funded ads promoting Trump | Trump administration

The Trump administration is facing growing questions over whether it illegally used taxpayer money to air television ads promoting Donald Trump five weeks before the U.S. midterm elections.

Two congressional Democrats, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and George Whitesides of California, have asked federal watchdogs to investigate the ads.

Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and Whitesides wrote to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Office of Special Counsel (OSC) on Wednesday, calling the ads “desperate pre-election propaganda.”

The first ad originally aired on September 23. It shows dozens of images of Trump as a singer repeats “love me” and UFC President Dana White praises the president. A second ad, released a few days later, combined footage of Trump with audio from a rally criticizing the “deep state.” Both end with small print indicating they were paid by the U.S. government.

“President Trump is clearly desperate to get the American people to like him, an issue that is beyond your jurisdiction,” Raskin and Whitesides wrote in their letter. “But stealing taxpayer dollars to pay for Mr. Trump’s narcissistic selfishness is simply illegal.”

Lawmakers asked the GAO to identify the source and total amount of the money used, and issue a judicial ruling on whether the ads violated the law. They asked the OSC to investigate and determine who should be held responsible.

Lawmakers say the ads can violate four sets of laws and cited a provision in this year’s spending law that prohibits funds for “advertising or propaganda,” as well as the Anti-Deficiency Act, federal criminal laws on misuse of public money and the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act exempts the president but covers executive branch personnel, and lawmakers argue that employees must have helped produce the ads.

Raskin and Whitesides reject the White House’s description of the ads as public service announcements. They claim that almost every claim they make is false and that they are virtually identical to the Trump campaign’s 2024 ads. For example, they claim that one ad credits Trump with boosting the manufacturing sector, even though the United States lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs during his second term, according to a February report from the Joint Congressional Economic Committee.

They also dispute the White House’s argument that the ads are not political because Trump is not on the ballot, even though at an August rally he urged his supporters to “pretend, please, that I’m on the ballot.”

A White House spokesperson called the ads “educational and unapologetically patriotic.” Trump said Wednesday he would “gladly pay the money” if the ads were found to be inappropriate.

Some Republicans also expressed concerns. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senators Mike Rounds, John Kennedy and Thom Tillis questioned the use of public money, while Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, said the ads were appropriate.

These ads are not the first administrative advertising expenditures to attract scrutiny.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security, led by Kristi Noem, spent more than $200 million on ads promoting itself and Trump’s immigration policies. In March, Noem said Trump had approved the campaign (which the president denied to Reuters), then fired her as secretary, relegating her to special envoy for “Shield of the Americas.”