Press "Enter" to skip to content

Democrats sue Trump administration over taxpayer-funded advertisements

Key takeaways:

  • The DNC asks a federal judge to block further use of appropriated funds for ads it says promote Trump and disadvantage Democratic candidates.
  • NBC News reported a $20 million campaign contract; AdImpact estimates cited by the outlets put airtime spending at at least $10 million through Monday and more than $12 million so far.
  • Trump pledged Monday to stop using government funds for the ads, but government-paid spots continued airing afterward.

The Democratic National Committee sued the Trump administration Wednesday over advertisements promoting President Donald Trump that were paid for with taxpayer money, asking a federal judge in Washington to bar further use of government funds for the campaign.

The lawsuit says the ads amount to illegal government-sponsored propaganda and give Republican candidates an unfair advantage by adding public money to their resources. It names Trump, the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget as defendants.

The DNC cites a provision Trump signed into law this year barring the use of congressionally appropriated funds for unauthorized domestic “publicity or propaganda.” It also invokes the Anti-Deficiency Act, which restricts spending beyond congressional appropriations, and the Purpose Statute, which limits federal spending to purposes Congress has approved. The complaint alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act as well.

“President Trump personally directed this illegal activity,” the complaint says, alleging that the White House developed the campaign, the Office of Management and Budget shifted $20 million to pay for it, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection carried it out. NBC News reported that federal money for the ads came from funds intended for CBP and that the agency’s leadership was excluded from the decision to run them.

The ads began airing last month and drew criticism from lawmakers in both parties. One reused material from Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, The Guardian reported. The lawsuit says the first ad showed FIFA President Gianni Infantino awarding Trump a “FIFA peace prize,” an image the DNC argues supports its claim that the ads improperly glorify the president.

NBC News reported that a Maryland firm received a $20 million contract for the campaign. Ad-tracking firm AdImpact estimated at least $10 million had been spent to air the ads through Monday, according to NBC News. The Guardian reported that AdImpact put the amount spent at more than $12 million so far.

Trump said Monday that government funds would no longer pay for the ads and that he and his political action committee, MAGA Inc., would cover the costs going forward. He did not say whether taxpayers would be reimbursed for ads already aired. The Guardian reported that the White House said Tuesday the committee would not reimburse those costs.

Several ads continued to run after Trump’s announcement with disclaimers identifying the U.S. government as the payer. The White House would not tell NBC News whether they had been paid for before or after his pledge. A person familiar with the campaign told NBC News that the earlier ad buy would end this week, after which outside groups would pay. The Guardian reported that a newly unveiled fifth ad, celebrating Trump’s military intervention in Venezuela, was also government-funded.

The complaint describes eight more ads prepared for broadcast and cites a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday in which 86% of Americans, including 80% of Republicans, called taxpayer-funded television ads featuring the president around an election inappropriate.

DNC Chair Ken Martin said Americans should not have their “hard-earned tax dollars used for Trump’s illegal schemes.” The White House referred NBC News to Trump’s Monday post. It has previously called the ads “clearly not political,” saying they remind Americans to love their country. Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr said last week they did not warrant FCC review and were not “anything at all out of the ordinary.”

Sources

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap