Updated:
The Democratic National Committee sued President Donald Trump and members of his administration in federal court in Washington on Wednesday, Oct. 7, seeking to block further taxpayer funding for television advertisements that feature and praise the president. The complaint alleges the campaign violates federal restrictions on using appropriated money for “publicity or propaganda purposes” and asks a judge to declare the spending unlawful.
The case escalates a dispute over campaign-style ads airing less than a month before the November midterm elections. The spots began running in September, and media tracker AdImpact estimates they have cost more than $12 million to air; $20 million in Homeland Security Department funding has been tapped for the campaign, according to reporting on the lawsuit.
Lawsuit challenges how federal funds were used
The DNC’s complaint names Trump, the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget as defendants. It alleges the White House developed the campaign, OMB shifted $20 million to finance it, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection carried it out. Those are allegations in the filing, not findings by a court.
The party argues that the ads violate a statutory ban on using appropriated funds for unauthorized publicity or propaganda. It also cites the Administrative Procedure Act and federal spending laws, including the Antideficiency Act and the Purpose Statute, which govern whether agencies may spend funds beyond or outside the purposes Congress authorized.
The DNC says government-funded promotion gives Trump and Republican candidates an electoral advantage by using public money for messages that might otherwise be paid for by political committees. The complaint asks the court to stop additional federally funded ads and rule that the administration’s actions were illegal. No ruling or hearing schedule was reported when the suit was filed.
Spots aired after Trump said private funds would take over
Trump said on Monday that he would no longer have taxpayers pay for the ads, describing them as positive promotion for the United States and saying he or his political action committee, MAGA Inc., would fund future placements. The White House subsequently said the committee would not reimburse the government for costs already incurred.
But the transition had not immediately taken effect. Reuters reported that ads continued to air after Trump’s announcement, including during football games on Sunday, and a fifth spot began running on Tuesday with a disclaimer identifying the U.S. government as payer. That ad promoted Trump’s military actions in Venezuela, according to the Associated Press.
A person familiar with the advertising plans told AP that ad buys placed before Trump’s pledge were expected to end during the week, after which outside groups would pay for the spots. The White House’s refusal to repay past costs leaves the lawsuit’s challenge to the earlier spending in place even if future ad purchases shift to private funding.
Ads feature Trump and midterm themes
The advertisements include messages about the president and his policies, with one showing Trump saying America would never be a communist country while a chorus repeats “love me,” Reuters reported. Another uses images of Mount Rushmore alongside footage of Trump describing a “golden age” for the country. One spot closely resembles an ad from Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, according to reporting on the complaint.
The DNC filing also describes eight additional ads prepared for broadcast, which it says were found in a Dropbox account controlled by LMD Agency, the contractor bringing the campaign to air. The Guardian reported that the planned material includes a spot celebrating a UFC event at the White House and an ad titled “God Made Trump.” It was not clear which of the prepared ads would ultimately be broadcast.
The campaign drew criticism from both parties as the election approached. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday found that 86% of Americans considered taxpayer-funded television ads featuring the president around an election inappropriate, including 80% of Republicans, according to reporting by Reuters and The Guardian.
Administration calls spots public-service announcements
The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements, arguing that previous administrations used public funds to advertise government policies. It has also said the spots are not political because Trump is not a candidate in the midterm races and the ads contain no call to action, Axios reported.
That position is contested by the DNC and by legal experts cited in contemporaneous reporting, who have questioned whether spots that praise the president and do not direct viewers to a specific government service fit the public-service rationale. Whether the campaign falls within the law’s restrictions is now a question for the court; the lawsuit itself does not establish a violation.
DNC Chair Ken Martin said the party was taking legal action to defend what it described as a fair election. The White House referred reporters to Trump’s earlier comments about having his super PAC fund the ads, while DHS and OMB did not immediately respond to requests for comment, AP reported.
Next steps remain uncertain
The immediate issue before the federal court is whether to grant the DNC’s request to block further use of taxpayer money for the campaign. The administration’s stated plan to end government-funded placements during the week could limit future spending, but it does not resolve the complaint’s claims about money already allocated or spent.
The case arrives as early voting is underway and the midterm election is less than a month away. The court had not announced a timetable for considering the DNC’s request, and the administration had not committed to reimbursing the government for the more than $12 million in airtime costs reported to date.
