Donald Trump is being pummeled by Democrats and Republicans alike after it was revealed that the White House has spent nearly $1.7 million in taxpayer funds on campaign-style TV ads promoting the president ahead of the midterm elections.
The three ads, which have aired across major television networks and streaming platforms, feature Trump prominently while touting his policies, praising his record and echoing themes from his political campaigns.
The White House insists the spots are legitimate public service announcements. But that defense is facing growing scrutiny — and not just from Democrats.
Several Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, have questioned why taxpayers should be paying for the advertisements.
“It shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Thune said.
Sen. Mike Rounds, another South Dakota Republican, was similarly skeptical.
“It would not have been something that I would have done,” Rounds said.
The first advertisement began airing last Wednesday.
It features footage of Trump talking about defeating communism, along with onscreen messages promoting his administration’s tax cuts, manufacturing policies and law-enforcement agenda.
The second ad followed days later, featuring nighttime footage of Mount Rushmore and excerpts from Trump’s Fourth of July speech celebrating the country’s 250th anniversary.
Then came the third — and perhaps most controversial — spot.
The ad shows Trump walking down a hallway while warning about a “final battle” against “globalists,” “warmongers” and the “deep state.”
It is strikingly similar to a video Trump released during his 2024 presidential campaign.
All three spots carry the same disclosure: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”
The White House has not identified which federal agency is paying for the advertisements.
And the price tag is moving quickly.
AdImpact initially estimated that the three advertisements had generated more than $1.5 million in spending. ABC News later reported an estimate of at least $1.7 million, illustrating how quickly the campaign has expanded.
White House communications officials have described them as public service announcements designed to promote patriotism and highlight the administration’s policies.
The White House has also pointed to previous administrations, including those of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, that spent government money on public-service campaigns.
Those earlier campaigns included advertising about Medicare benefits, Affordable Care Act subsidies and COVID-19 vaccinations.
But critics say there is a fundamental difference.
Traditional government PSAs generally tell Americans how to access a government program or respond to a public-health issue.
These advertisements prominently feature Trump himself and use political rhetoric associated with his campaigns.
One of the spots is particularly difficult to separate from Trump’s political messaging because it closely resembles a 2024 campaign video.
Federal appropriations laws restrict the use of government money for certain forms of “publicity or propaganda,” while the Hatch Act places restrictions on political activity by federal employees.
Several legal experts have said the advertisements raise concerns under those laws.
Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer under Republican President George W. Bush, called the advertisements propaganda and argued that they go well beyond traditional government public-service messaging.
Other ethics experts have similarly questioned whether taxpayer-funded communications should be used to showcase a president’s political message rather than explain a specific government service.
Democratic lawmakers have demanded that the ads be taken down and have sought information about how much taxpayer money has been spent producing and airing them.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the latest spot “an absolute violation of what a democracy is supposed to look like.”
But Republicans have also started speaking out.
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on CBS’s Face the Nation that no public official should spend public money on private advertisements for themselves.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has also criticized the campaign, while Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., mocked the administration’s use of taxpayer dollars for presidential advertising.
And Thune’s criticism may carry particular weight because he is the Senate majority leader.
The controversy comes roughly five weeks before the 2026 midterm elections, and with the White House is still refusing to identify the agency paying for the spots.
