Skip to content
Bramble

Politics

Taxpayer-funded Trump TV ads draw bipartisan criticism; FCC chair sees no issue

Federal money has paid for TV ads featuring President Trump weeks before the midterms. The White House calls them public service announcements; critics, including some Republicans, say they may break the ban on federal propaganda spending, while FCC Chair Brendan Carr sees nothing to review.

15 outlets · 9L · 4C · 2R First reported Account updated

Updated (version 8). New coverage since the last version from Al Jazeera, Deadline, NBC News. Previously: “Taxpayer-funded Trump TV ads draw criticism over $20 million in border funds”.

Image: Reason
Image: France 24
Image: ABC News
Image: Deadline
Image: The Independent
Image: Washington Examiner
Image: Ars Technica
Image: CBS News

1 / 8

The story, neutrally told

The federal government has paid for a series of TV ads featuring President Trump, with AdImpact estimating air-time costs of at least $1.7 million and, per CNN, more than $2.5 million. One ad is nearly identical to a 2024 Trump campaign video, with the "Trump 2024" branding replaced by a "Paid for by the U.S. Government" notice; CNN reported Trump personally orchestrated the ads, made in-house by the White House communications team. Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Chris Murphy wrote to the Department of Homeland Security saying it planned to spend $20 million, and demanded the ads come off the air; Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican who chairs the Appropriations Committee, confirmed the money was earmarked for Customs and Border Protection.

The White House says the ads are public service announcements, that Trump is not on the ballot and that there is no call to action; Trump said on Wednesday he would "gladly pay the money" if someone said it was wrong. Criticism is bipartisan: Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the ads "shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars", Sen. John Kennedy said "you can't spend public money to promote yourself", and Rep. Jamie Raskin said the ads "may be felony criminal theft and conversion of government property". Public Citizen filed complaints, including one with the FCC, calling the ads propaganda and unlawful.

On Wednesday FCC Chair Brendan Carr, appointed by Trump, called them normal PSAs that do not merit FCC review, and accused groups like Public Citizen of trying to "weaponize" license renewals. Democratic FCC commissioner Anna Gomez said she doubted the agency would investigate and called that a "glaring double standard" given the FCC's probes of ABC, CBS and NBC. Zeteo, as relayed by Raw Story, reported that Trump officials privately called the ads "obviously illegal" and that Trump had referred to them as "midterm ads"; other outlets here do not confirm this.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on.

Left9 outlets

Framing
Treats the ads as likely illegal propaganda and misuse of public money, stressing bipartisan criticism, the $20 million and Carr's dismissal against the backdrop of his actions against networks.
Emphasis
Republican discomfort, Democratic letters, insider claims of illegality, FCC double standard.
Leaves out or plays down
Give little space to Republicans who defend the ads.
Charged language
“shockingly corrupt”“obviously illegal”
For example
“Republicans squirm over Trump's 'shockingly corrupt' TV ads: 'I hate it'” — Raw Story
“Trump officials make shocking admission on president's 'obviously illegal' move: report” — Raw Story

Centre4 outlets

Framing
Frames the question as legal and political: PSA or propaganda, who pays, and the FCC's response.
Emphasis
Carr's dismissal, Gomez's rebuttal, Public Citizen complaint, White House precedents.
Leaves out or plays down
BBC and France 24 items are brief; little detail on the funding trail.
For example
“But the latest Trump spot is centered on Trump himself, not a single issue.” — Deadline
“Public service announcement or Donald Trump propaganda?” — France 24

Right2 outlets

Framing
Reason (opinion) says the ads blur public service and campaign messaging; the Washington Examiner reports the border-money angle straight.
Emphasis
Legal test under GAO guidance; Collins' confirmation of CBP money.
Leaves out or plays down
Neither covers Carr's remarks or Public Citizen's complaints.
Charged language
“Look Like Campaign Spots”
For example
“Trump's New Ads Look Like Campaign Spots. Taxpayers Are Paying for Them.” — Reason
“The White House has tapped a pot of federal taxpayer dollars meant for Customs and Border Protection” — Washington Examiner