A federal judge stepped in Sunday night to halt a government-funded television ad campaign that critics say crossed a clear legal line — using taxpayer dollars to broadcast political messaging on behalf of President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon, based in New York, issued a temporary restraining order directing the Trump administration to immediately cancel any remaining airings of the ads, including spots scheduled for that same evening. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition that included Common Cause, a nonpartisan government watchdog group.
The Department of Homeland Security had drawn on $20 million in congressionally appropriated funds to produce and broadcast the ads, which began appearing on television in late September. Legal experts said that likely violated a federal law prohibiting the use of government-appropriated funds for “publicity or propaganda.”
The ads, far from neutral public service announcements, promoted Trump’s political themes ahead of the midterm elections. One featured Trump speaking about the dangers of communism. Another was a direct replay of a spot from his previous presidential campaign. A fifth ad, which began airing Tuesday, highlighted the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
What the Judge Ordered
Judge Rochon’s order was explicit.
“Defendants shall not enter into, renew, or expand any agreement authorizing the development, creation, dissemination, placement, or airing of the challenged advertisements”
during the two-week period covered by her ruling.
The Justice Department had argued in a court filing late Saturday that a restraining order was not needed because
“the alleged offending conduct will end tomorrow.”
Still, the judge moved forward with the order. The White House, when asked for comment, pointed reporters to an October 5 social media post from Trump in which he called the ads
“rather standard”
and announced he would shift to paying for them through his political fundraising account amid growing backlash.
A White House official confirmed there were no plans to reimburse the federal government for the money already spent.
Where the Money Came From
In a court declaration filed Saturday, senior DHS official Holly Mehringer stated that the funds came from a congressional appropriation
“available for, among other things, ‘commemorating efforts and events related to border security.'”
Critics argued that description had little to do with the content of the ads actually produced.
The White House maintained the spots were comparable to public service announcements used by past administrations to inform the public about government programs. However, the recent ads did not direct viewers toward any specific government services or benefits — a key distinction legal observers noted.
Bipartisan Pushback
Criticism of the ad campaign was not confined to one political party. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, was direct in his disapproval.
“It shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,”
Thune told reporters.
The Democratic National Committee filed a separate lawsuit against the administration over the ads.
Democracy Forward, the nonprofit legal organization representing the plaintiffs, released a statement after Sunday’s ruling.
“We are pleased the court acted swiftly to prevent more taxpayer dollars from being used for such blatantly unlawful political propaganda,”
the statement read.
“There is no legal justification — and no precedent — for the president to use the machinery of the government and funds set aside by Congress for other uses to influence electoral outcomes that further his own agenda.”