Published
October 7, 2026
The government-paid TV ads promoting President Donald Trump that began airing in September 2026 have drawn complaints that they break a long-standing federal ban on spending appropriated money for publicity or propaganda. No court case over the ads had been filed as of October 7, 2026, and the White House maintains they are lawful public service announcements.
The Ads and How They Were Paid For
Starting September 23, 2026, a series of television spots built around President Trump began running on cable news, broadcast networks, streaming services and weekend football coverage. Each one closes with the same tag line: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” Public service announcements usually name the agency that bought them; these name no agency at all.The content varies. One spot pairs clips of the president vowing to defeat communism with on-screen claims about tax cuts, manufacturing and policing. One sets images of the president to the song “Love Me” by the singer-songwriter JMSN. Another uses footage from the president’s Fourth of July speech at Mount Rushmore, a fourth concerns the war with Iran, and one closely tracks an ad from his 2024 reelection campaign, according to the Associated Press and The New York Times. CNN reported that at least 13 spots had been produced in all.
The money came from Homeland Security funds. According to The New York Times, on September 19 the Office of Management and Budget moved $20 million of U.S. Customs and Border Protection funding into a budget category for commemorative events tied to the president’s 2025 tax and spending law. The next day, federal records show, CBP awarded a $20 million contract for a national media campaign to LMD, a marketing firm in Columbia, Maryland. The Times, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that the president personally told budget director Russell Vought to find the money, and that OMB’s general counsel and the White House counsel both concluded that using the DHS funds was legal.
Spending grew quickly. Estimates from the ad tracker AdImpact went from about $1.4 million on September 28, as reported by the AP, to about $5.5 million by October 2 and roughly $10 million by October 5.
The Federal Ban on Publicity or Propaganda
For decades, Congress has carried a short provision in each year’s appropriations law: no part of any appropriation may be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States that Congress has not authorized. A separate permanent statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3107, adds that appropriated money may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless it was specifically appropriated for that purpose.Neither text defines propaganda. The working definition comes from the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s auditing agency, which issues legal decisions on how agencies spend money. GAO has read the ban to reach three kinds of government messaging:
- Self-aggrandizement: material whose purpose is to puff up the image of an agency or an official rather than inform the public.
- Purely partisan material: messaging designed to aid a political party or candidate.
- Covert propaganda: material that hides the government’s role as its source.
GAO has also long held that agencies may inform the public about their programs and policies, and may defend them, without crossing the line. The question in any given case is which side of that line a message falls on.
How GAO Has Applied the Ban Before
GAO has found violations under administrations of both parties, though the best-known findings rested on the covert-propaganda branch:- In 2004 (B-302710), GAO found that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services broke the ban with prepackaged video news segments promoting the new Medicare drug law that did not tell viewers the government had produced them.
- In 2005 (B-305368), GAO found that the Department of Education broke the ban when it paid, through a public relations firm, for commentator Armstrong Williams to promote the No Child Left Behind Act without disclosing the arrangement to his audience.
- In 2015 (B-326944), GAO found that the Environmental Protection Agency broke the ban, and an anti-lobbying provision, with social media campaigns for its waters of the United States rule.
Each of those cases involved promoting a specific policy. The current ads disclose that the government paid for them, so the covert-propaganda branch does not obviously fit. The complaints instead focus on the other two branches, arguing that ads centered on the president himself, airing weeks before the November 2026 midterm elections, are self-aggrandizing and partisan.
The White House’s Position
The White House calls the spots public service announcements and says they are lawful. In a September release and in statements since, it has argued that there is no call to vote for anyone, that the president is not on the ballot, and that the ads remind Americans to love their country and know why it is worth defending. It points to earlier administrations’ paid campaigns, including ads promoting the 2003 Medicare law under President George W. Bush, Affordable Care Act enrollment under President Barack Obama and COVID-19 vaccination under President Joe Biden, and to the wartime posters and films of the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations.Critics quoted by the AP, including Washington University law professor Kathleen Clark and former Bush White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter, answer that those earlier campaigns pointed the public to a specific program or benefit, while these ads do not. No agency, court or GAO decision has ruled on either side’s reading.
The Funding Question: Was the Money Spent for Its Purpose?
A second statute, 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a), requires that appropriations be applied only to the objects for which they were made. Complaints filed with GAO and the DHS inspector general argue that money Congress provided for border security and related CBP operations was redirected to a media campaign Congress never funded.The answer depends on the wording of the underlying appropriation and on whether the commemorative-events category the money was moved into was itself authorized, which only the budget documents can settle. If GAO or an inspector general concluded that the spending broke a purpose restriction, the agency could also face a finding under the Antideficiency Act, which requires agencies to report violations to the President and Congress. Neither body had issued a finding as of October 7, 2026.
The Hatch Act Does Not Reach the President
The Hatch Act limits partisan political activity by federal employees, but its definition of a covered employee in 5 U.S.C. § 7322 expressly excludes the President and the Vice President. That makes the Hatch Act a question about the staff and officials who produced, approved or placed the ads, not about the president himself.The Office of Special Counsel enforces the Hatch Act for executive branch employees. Public Citizen, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Representatives Jamie Raskin and George Whitesides have each asked OSC, along with GAO, to investigate.
The Copyright Dispute Over “Love Me”
JMSN, whose legal name is Christian Berishaj, says he never licensed “Love Me” for the ad. In late September 2026, lawyers for the artist, including Norm Eisen’s group Democracy Defenders Action and the law firm Ballard Spahr, sent a cease-and-desist letter to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles alleging copyright infringement. The letter demanded that the ad be pulled from all scheduled airings and online postings and that the White House account for every place it ran, according to CBS News.Copyright claims against the federal government follow a special route. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), when the United States, or a contractor acting with the government’s authorization or consent, infringes a copyright, the copyright owner’s exclusive remedy is a suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for reasonable compensation, including the statutory minimum damages available under the Copyright Act. Of every party involved, the songwriter has the clearest path to court, because the claimed injury is personal and concrete. No such suit had been filed as of October 7, 2026.
Why There Is No Lawsuit Over the Spending Itself
None of the statutes at the center of this dispute gives a private citizen a right to sue. The publicity-or-propaganda ban and the purpose statute are enforced inside the government, through GAO decisions, inspector general reviews and Congress. GAO’s decisions carry weight with agencies and appropriators but do not by themselves order anyone to stop spending or repay money.The courts are also hard to reach. Since Frothingham v. Mellon in 1923, the Supreme Court has held that a person’s status as a federal taxpayer is generally not enough to establish Article III standing to challenge how federal money is spent, and it reaffirmed that limit in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation in 2007. A viewer who objects to the ads, or a taxpayer whose money paid for them, has no clear route to a federal judge.
Criminal statutes, such as the federal law against converting government money or property, 18 U.S.C. § 641, which Representative Raskin cited, can be enforced only by the Justice Department. A search of federal dockets on CourtListener on October 7, 2026, found no case filed over the ads or the contract.
Complaints Filed So Far
- September 24: The top Democrats on the Senate and House appropriations committees wrote to the White House asking that the ads come down and for an accounting of what was spent.
- September 25: Public Citizen asked GAO and OSC to investigate, citing the propaganda ban, 5 U.S.C. § 3107 and the Hatch Act. It later filed a second complaint with the FCC and FTC and asked broadcasters to stop airing the spots.
- September 29: Senator Maggie Hassan sought unanimous consent for a Senate resolution stating that the ads should not have been paid for with federal money. Senator Cynthia Lummis objected, which blocked it.
- About October 1: Representatives Raskin and Whitesides asked GAO and OSC to investigate possible violations of the Hatch Act, the Antideficiency Act and laws against misusing public funds.
- October 5: California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a complaint with GAO and OSC.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has separately filed a complaint with the DHS Office of Inspector General alleging that the funding violated appropriations law.
The criticism has not split cleanly along party lines. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters the ads should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars, and Republican Senators Mike Rounds, John Kennedy and Thom Tillis and Representative Thomas Massie also objected publicly. House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the ads.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
The Switch to Super PAC Money
On September 30, asked about the ads, the president said that if anyone said they were wrong he would “gladly pay the money.” On October 5, he announced that MAGA Inc., the super PAC aligned with him, would pay for the ads from then on. White House officials said the group did not plan to reimburse the government for spots that had already aired, according to reporting by Axios and The New York Times.Stopping federal payments going forward does not resolve whether the roughly $10 million already spent was lawful; GAO, OSC and the inspector general can still review it. How the super PAC arrangement would work has not been explained publicly. Ads bought by a political committee generally carry that committee’s own “paid for by” disclaimer under federal campaign finance rules, so the “U.S. Government” tag line would not fit a spot the government no longer pays for. Some watchdog groups have argued that the new arrangement raises legal questions of its own.
What Happens Next
The open items are a GAO decision on the publicity-or-propaganda and purpose questions, any OSC findings on individual employees under the Hatch Act, the DHS inspector general’s review of the contract, and whether JMSN files a copyright claim in the Court of Federal Claims. Congress can also act through the appropriations process, for example by attaching an explicit prohibition or a repayment requirement to a future spending bill.None of those paths runs through a class action. There is no settlement fund, no claim form and no court case for viewers or taxpayers to join.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a lawsuit over the taxpayer-funded Trump ads?
No court case over the ads had been filed as of October 7, 2026, based on a search of federal dockets on CourtListener. The challenges so far are administrative complaints to the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Special Counsel, the Homeland Security inspector general, the FCC and the FTC, plus a copyright cease-and-desist letter from the songwriter JMSN.
What law bans government propaganda in the United States?
A provision repeated in each year’s appropriations law bars federal agencies from spending appropriated money on publicity or propaganda that Congress has not authorized, and 5 U.S.C. § 3107 bars paying a publicity expert without a specific appropriation. The Government Accountability Office has read the appropriations ban to cover self-aggrandizement, purely partisan messaging and covert propaganda.
Does the Hatch Act apply to the president?
The Hatch Act’s definition of a covered employee, in 5 U.S.C. § 7322, expressly excludes the President and the Vice President. Its limits on political activity can still apply to other executive branch employees, which is why complaints over the ads were sent to the Office of Special Counsel, the agency that enforces the Hatch Act.
Will taxpayers be repaid for the Trump ads that already aired?
On October 5, 2026, President Trump said his super PAC, MAGA Inc., would pay for the ads going forward. White House officials said the group did not plan to reimburse the government for the roughly $10 million in federal money that ad trackers estimate had already been spent, according to reporting by Axios and The New York Times.
Can the songwriter of Love Me sue the government over the ad?
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), a claim that the United States, or a contractor acting with its authorization or consent, infringed a copyright is brought against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, which can award reasonable compensation including statutory minimum damages. JMSN’s lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter in September 2026; no lawsuit had been filed as of October 7, 2026.
Sources
• 5 U.S.C. § 3107 — Employment of publicity experts• 5 U.S.C. § 7322 — Hatch Act definitions
• 31 U.S.C. § 1301 — Application of appropriations
• 28 U.S.C. § 1498 — Copyright infringement by the United States
• 18 U.S.C. § 641 — Public money, property or records
• GAO B-302710: CMS Medicare video news releases (2004)
• GAO B-305368: Department of Education, Armstrong Williams contract (2005)
• GAO B-326944: EPA social media and the waters of the United States rule (2015)
• Associated Press: Taxpayers have funded nearly $1.5M in pro-Trump ads (Sept. 28, 2026)
• The New York Times: Trump directed use of taxpayer money for ads praising his presidency (Oct. 2, 2026)
• PBS NewsHour: Trump says his super PAC will pay for the ads instead
• ABC News: Trump says his super PAC will now pay for the ads
• White House: Presidential public service announcements are nothing new
• Senate and House Appropriations Democrats’ letter to the White House (Sept. 24, 2026) (PDF)
• Public Citizen: complaint to GAO and the Office of Special Counsel
• Public Citizen: complaint to the FCC and FTC
• CREW: complaint to the DHS Office of Inspector General
• California Attorney General: complaint to GAO and OSC (Oct. 5, 2026)
• TV Technology: Reps. Raskin and Whitesides call for an investigation
• CNN: GOP senator blocks resolution criticizing the ads (Sept. 30, 2026)
• CBS News: JMSN sends cease-and-desist over “Love Me”
• CourtListener federal court dockets
About This Page
OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site, not a law firm. This article is general information about the federal laws governing taxpayer-funded government advertising. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
