Taxpayer-Funded Trump Ads: What the Law Actually Says

by Lane Howard

Donald Trump is not on the ballot this November. But you would not know it from your TV.

The White House has started airing ads that promote the president. Each one ends with the same line: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” That means you paid for them.

Before the midterms, voters deserve the facts. So here is what we know, what we don’t, and why it matters.

What are these ads?

At least three television ads have aired in recent days. They echo Trump’s campaign themes. They promise to take down the “deep state” and the “fake news” media. One uses the song “Love Me” by JMSN over a montage of Trump photos and videos.

The ads are running in two media markets. Both include key districts in the midterm elections.

The White House calls them “public service announcements.” Critics call them campaign ads.

How much do they cost?

Reporting by Time, citing CNBC and AdImpact data, puts the cost of the “Love Me” ad at nearly $920,000. That figure covers one ad, and the total is likely higher.

Senator Maggie Hassan wants more detail. She has asked the White House where the money came from. She also wants to know which contractors, agencies, and employees were involved.

Are taxpayer-funded Trump ads illegal?

This is where accuracy matters. No agency or court has ruled yet. Anyone who says “it’s definitely illegal” is getting ahead of the facts.

Still, the legal questions are serious. Here is how they break down.

The Hatch Act. This law limits political activity by federal employees. However, it largely exempts the president. The exposure falls on staff who made or aired the ads.

Appropriations law. Federal money cannot fund “purely partisan” or “self-aggrandizing” propaganda, according to past Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings. But agencies may promote their own policies. That gray area is the heart of this fight. Forbes has a helpful explainer on the laws involved.

The disclaimer. The “Paid for by the U.S. Government” tag means the ads are not covert. That may help the White House. It also cites earlier administrations’ public service campaigns as precedent.

Who is complaining?

On September 25, Public Citizen filed a complaint with the GAO and the Office of Special Counsel. The group says the ads focus on Trump’s campaign rhetoric, not government services.

The criticism is not only Democratic. Republican Senator John Kennedy said on Sunday that no public official should spend public money on private ads for themselves.

Democrats have been louder. Representative Jamie Raskin called the ads likely “felony criminal theft and conversion of government property.” That is his legal opinion, not a court finding.

Will anyone be held accountable?

History offers little comfort. Public Citizen says it has filed a dozen Hatch Act complaints over the past year. It says none has been answered.

Last year, lawmakers demanded investigations into agency websites that blamed Democrats for the shutdown. On September 25, the Office of Special Counsel finally responded. It said some of that messaging may have crossed the line. Even so, it declined to discipline anyone, because employees had relied on an earlier advisory. Federal News Network has more.

So a ruling before Election Day is far from certain.

What voters should take away

Here is what is solid. The ads exist. They were paid for by the government. Watchdogs and lawmakers from both parties have raised legal concerns.

Here is what is not settled. No one has proven a violation. The GAO and the Office of Special Counsel have not decided.

You can hold both ideas at once. Taxpayer-funded Trump ads raise real questions, and the answers are still pending. Watch what the GAO does next. It will tell you whether the rules mean anything.

---

SOURCES

• Public Citizen complaint
• Public Citizen news release
• Time: Trump’s taxpayer-funded ads draw bipartisan criticism
• Forbes: why critics say the ads are unlawful
• The Independent (via inkl): Kennedy and other reaction
• Office of Special Counsel: shutdown messaging assessment
• Federal News Network: OSC won’t fully investigate