Pro-Trump TV ads funded with Customs and Border Protection money, official says

President Donald Trump’s administration funded television ads showing him in a favorable light using money intended for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an official and a top Republican senator confirmed to NBC News.

The source of funding for the controversial ads that the White House has called public service announcements was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees CBP, referred requests for comment to the White House, which did not immediately respond.

The unusual ads — one of which is nearly identical to a 2024 Trump campaign ad — include disclaimers that they were paid for by the U.S. government. The administration’s apparent use of taxpayer dollars to produce ads that resemble campaign ads has drawn bipartisan criticism.

“It’s a great message. I like that message,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters Monday of the most recent ad, “but it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Monday that only Trump would have “the audacity to force Americans not only to watch his propaganda, but to pay for it.”

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Sen. Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, confirmed the official’s account of the origin of the funds, saying “these were taken out of funding that was supposed to go to Customs and Border Protection” in Trump’s so-called big, beautiful bill, which Republicans passed along party lines in 2025.

Collins, who faces a tough re-election bid this fall, said the Appropriations Committee she chairs had no role in the money used by the White House. In fact, she said appropriations bills aimed at funding the government typically have restrictions prohibiting an account from being used for any other purpose.

“This is why the administration circumvented the appropriations process and used an account that was part of the reconciliation bill,” Collins said on Capitol Hill.

The first of the ads aired earlier this month and featured Trump describing how he wanted to “defeat communism,” set to the JMSN song “Love Me.” (JMSN’s lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter to the White House on Monday demanding it stop using its music.)

The second spot closely follows an ad from Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. It shows Trump walking down a hallway as he asks people, in voiceover, to join him in his “final battle” to “take down the deep state” and “expel the warmongers from our government.”

The political ad tracking firm AdImpact estimated that the administration spent more than $1.7 million to air these ads.

Earlier in Trump’s term, DHS used taxpayer dollars to release a series of ads featuring then-Secretary of State Kristi Noem encouraging immigrants living in the United States illegally to self-deport.

Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.Va., who voted to pass the megabill, questioned the wisdom of Trump’s decision when asked whether pulling the money from CBP was a good move.

“Well, if that’s exactly what happened, probably not,” Justice said, while adding that he was not an expert on the legality of that decision. “But at the same time, I don’t know the details to say, well, these dollars can be used this way, or they can’t be used this way. I don’t know. I just don’t know.”

“I can’t imagine how smart the people in the administration are and have done something that’s going to fly right in their face,” Justice said. “I can’t imagine that they did something that they know isn’t right or ethical or anything. I just couldn’t imagine that they would do that. They’re too smart for that.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who announced his retirement last year after clashing with Trump over the megabill, ripped the president’s decision to fund those ads with taxpayer dollars.

“I hate it. I tell you, it’s like Viktor Orbán talking to the Hungarian people. There’s no place for that kind of thing,” Tillis said, while adding that Trump could have used political resources if he wanted to run a political ad. “If it was, you know, a clear message that was going to appeal to as many people as possible, a real public service message, that’s good. But it wasn’t that.”