A campaign advert used by Donald Trump during his 2024 bid for the White House has been broadcast again across the United States, this time carrying the disclaimer: “Paid for by the U.S. Government”. The use of public money to air the pro-Trump message has prompted accusations that the administration is breaching federal laws on government propaganda.
The black-and-white advert shows Mr Trump walking silently down a hallway as he attacks the “deep state” and promises to expel “warmongers” from government. It ends with his declaration: “This is the final battle.”
The advert was shown during Fox News Sunday, Saturday Night Live and several college and NFL football games, including the Seattle Seahawks’ match against the Washington Commanders and the Ohio State-Illinois game, according to AdImpact, an advertising analytics firm.
It is one of three pro-Trump adverts funded by the US Government to have aired in recent days. AdImpact estimates that the total spending could exceed $1 million, although the precise amount has not been disclosed.
The latest advert appears to have been supported by more than $70,000, based on AdImpact’s modelling. Mr Trump’s campaign spent an estimated $60,000 promoting the original version online between October 18 and November 2, 2024.
Government-funded Trump adverts face legal criticism
Norm Eisen, a former White House special counsel for ethics and government reform under Barack Obama, said the administration had moved from breaking the law to “trampling it”.
“The prior ad was bad enough, but this one openly repurposes prior political conduct,” he said. Mr Eisen has sued the Trump administration several times.
Richard Painter, who served as a White House ethics lawyer under George W Bush, said using federal funds for the adverts could amount to an “abuse of power” and “an impeachable offense”. He called for Congress to demand reimbursement.
“This is very dangerous,” Mr Painter said. “We do not allow government-sponsored propaganda in the United States.”
The adverts have also raised questions over the Hatch Act, which bars government employees from making political statements in their official capacity. The president is exempt from the law, but ethics experts said government employees involved in producing or placing the adverts could potentially have breached it.
“A divisive campaign commercial paid for by the U.S. government defies the Hatch Act’s very purpose,” said Margaret Dylus-Yukins, senior legal counsel for ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, a non-partisan watchdog group.
The White House said the adverts were “public service announcements” intended to remind Americans “to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad”. It also said there was no “call to action” in the adverts.
A White House webpage defending the campaign cites public service announcements produced under previous administrations, including messages linked to Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt, George W Bush and Joe Biden.
Mr Painter said that defence was insufficient. He pointed to a 2004 finding by the General Accounting Office, now known as the Government Accountability Office, that the Bush administration had breached a federal appropriations law by portraying its Medicare legislation as a benefit to older people.
Democrats and some Republicans have criticised the new adverts. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, said no public official, including Mr Trump, “should spend public money on private ads for themselves”.
Four Democratic members of Congress have demanded that the White House remove the adverts and provide details of the cost of producing and broadcasting them. Senator Maggie Hassan, the New Hampshire Democrat who is the ranking member on the joint economic committee, has also sought information about who created the adverts.
The broadcasts come ahead of the November midterm elections, with Mr Trump’s approval ratings and a war that has pushed up prices threatening Republican prospects of retaining their congressional majorities.
