A federal judge in New York on Sunday, October 11, ordered the Trump administration to cancel the remaining broadcasts of a roughly $20 million television ad campaign paid for with taxpayer money, a little more than three weeks before the November 3 midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the Southern District of New York granted a two week temporary restraining order sought by a coalition led by the watchdog group Common Cause, CBS News reported. The order blocks use of the money to "fund the development, creation, and/or airing of the advertisements," requires the government to cancel scheduled airings, including those set for the evening of October 11, and stays DHS's contract with the ad firm LMD Agency, The Washington Sun reported. The Sun noted that Judge Rochon was appointed by President Biden.
What the ads were
The Department of Homeland Security set aside $20 million for the campaign through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, using money Congress appropriated for border security, according to Law Commentary. About $19 million had been spent by the time the court acted. The spots began airing in late September during football games and Saturday Night Live, and each one identified the U.S. government as the sponsor.
CBS, citing the ad tracking firm AdImpact, identified five ads. One features administration officials discussing the operation that removed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro from power. Another, titled "Final Battle," is a refurbished 2024 Trump campaign video in which the president vows to "demolish the deep state." Others use audio from Trump's July 3 Mount Rushmore speech, footage from the start of the Iran war and a promise to defeat socialism. AdImpact put total spending on the five ads above $21.7 million by Monday morning.
The legal fight
The coalition, which also includes labor organizations and an Alabama Democratic candidate for the state legislature, filed suit on October 7. It argues that DHS diverted appropriated funds into political advertising meant to help Trump and Republican candidates. The suit relies on federal limits on using appropriated money for unauthorized publicity or propaganda, Law Commentary reported.
The administration pushed back. In a court filing, the Justice Department argued that an emergency order was unnecessary because "the alleged offending conduct will end tomorrow," according to CBS. Judge Rochon rejected that argument. DHS official Holly Mehringer said in a sworn declaration that the money came from funds available for "commemorating efforts and events related to border security."
The White House has described the spots as public service announcements that "are nothing new," pointing to past campaigns under Presidents Bush, Obama and Biden, including Obama's Affordable Care Act ads, the Sun reported. One official told CBS the ads "are clearly not political" and that "the President is not on the ballot." Trump called the ads "rather standard" in an October 5 post and said his political fundraising operation would pay for future broadcasts. A White House official said there were no immediate plans to reimburse the government for money already spent.
Criticism from both parties
The objections did not come only from Democrats. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, said the ads "shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars," and Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, said no public official should spend public money on ads for themselves, CBS reported. Senate Democrats compared the spots to government propaganda "one might expect in North Korea." The Democratic National Committee has filed a separate lawsuit.
Democracy Forward, the nonprofit representing the coalition, said it was "pleased the court acted swiftly to prevent more taxpayer dollars" from going to the ads.
What comes next
A temporary restraining order is an emergency tool. It holds things in place for a short period while a judge decides whether longer relief is warranted, and it is not a final ruling on who is right. The parties were due back before Judge Rochon on October 13 to argue whether the limits should stay in place beyond the initial two weeks. Early reports did not say whether the administration planned to appeal.
One of the five ads drew on the war with Iran. For the legal fight in Congress over that war, see our explainer on who decides when America goes to war.
A government spending money on messages that look like campaign ads is the kind of question about power and its limits that the Two Taps legal panel of Daniel Rosenberg, Michael Dye and Lloyd Golburgh takes apart on the show.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
