The Trump administration redirected $20 million in federal Homeland Security funds to finance television advertisements featuring President Donald Trump ahead of the midterm elections. Congressional Democrats announced Tuesday that the money was transferred into a U.S. Customs and Border Protection budget line designated for “commemorative events” related to border security, raising questions about the use of taxpayer dollars for political messaging.
Federal Funding Shifts to Ad Campaign
Records show that on Sept. 19, $20 million was moved into a fund for border security commemorative events, which previously held only $500,000. The following day, the Department of Homeland Security awarded a $20 million contract to LMD Agency, Inc. Three advertisements have been released so far, featuring stylized imagery of the president with disclosures stating they were “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” Approximately $2 million worth of these ads aired on cable and broadcast stations over one week.
One of the new spots is nearly identical to a Trump campaign ad from 2024. Attorneys for artist JMSN sent a cease-and-desist letter regarding the use of his song “Love Me” in one of the advertisements. The White House and Homeland Security did not deny using government funds for the ads, describing them instead as public service announcements intended to be educational.
Congressional Pushback Across Party Lines
The allocation has drawn criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the ads on the Senate floor Monday, calling them taxpayer-funded propaganda indistinguishable from campaign advertisements. “It’s an absolute violation of what democracy is supposed to look like,” Schumer said. “Americans sat down to watch football, not to be force fed Trump’s propaganda on their own dime.”
Republican leaders also expressed concern. Senate Majority Leader John Thune stated that tax dollars should not pay for the ads despite liking the message. Sens. John Kennedy and John Cornyn pushed back against using public money for private advertisements. Sen. Maggie Hassan sought unanimous consent to pass a resolution stating the federal government should not pay for the ads, but Sen. Cynthia Lummis objected, halting action on the measure.
Ethics Concerns and Legal Questions
Sens. Patty Murray and Christopher Murphy wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin regarding the $20 million allocation. Reps. Rosa DeLauro and Henry Cuellar cited federal apportionment changes recorded by OpenOMB to highlight the shift in spending priorities. The funds were originally provided to Customs and Border Protection in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act passed last year.
Government ethics experts have raised concerns about the nature of the messaging. Samuel Bagenstos noted that the primary legal issue is whether the messages violate prohibitions on using government funds for propaganda. “There’s a distinction between providing people with information about government programs and engaging in communication that merely aggrandizes government officials,” Bagenstos said. “And what we have here is purely aggrandizing Donald Trump.”
Polling suggests Democrats are likely to gain control of the House and possibly the Senate, adding political stakes to the debate over federal spending on presidential advertising.