The Department of Homeland Security has committed $20 million in taxpayer funds to a campaign-style advertising effort featuring President Donald Trump, prompting bipartisan criticism and questions about whether the spending violates federal law.
The advertisements, which began airing in late September, feature Trump discussing his administration’s immigration and national security policies. They have appeared during television programming, including college sports and NFL broadcasts, as well as on cable networks and streaming platforms.
The spots are labeled as being “Paid for by the U.S. government.” Administration officials have defended them as public service announcements intended to inform Americans about the federal government’s work.
Critics argue the ads go beyond public information and instead promote the president personally. The commercials reportedly use imagery, music and language that resemble political campaign advertising, including themes associated with Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign and Republican messaging ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Senators demand answers
Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, demanded answers from Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.
In a letter sent Tuesday, the senators said the money was drawn from funding Congress approved for Customs and Border Protection as part of the 2025 budget law commonly known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” They questioned how the department authorized the spending and whether the ads comply with federal restrictions on the use of appropriated funds.
House Democrats also criticized the spending. Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, said taxpayer money intended for government operations should not be used to promote a president.
The lawmakers have not alleged that the advertising campaign has been formally found illegal. Rather, they are asking federal officials to explain the legal authority for the spending and the process used to approve it.
Questions over federal propaganda rules
Federal law restricts agencies from using appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda designed to promote a political party or elected official. Legal experts cited in reporting on the campaign have said the ads could raise concerns under those rules because they appear to praise Trump personally rather than direct viewers to a specific government service or program.
The White House and DHS have maintained that the advertisements are public service announcements. The administration has shown no indication that it plans to stop the campaign.
Outside advertising data reviewed by The Associated Press showed that more than $2.5 million had been spent airing three of the ads over a recent seven-day period. The total cost could be higher depending on how television networks classified the spots.
A person familiar with the matter, who was not authorized to discuss it publicly, confirmed that DHS had committed $20 million to the campaign. The Wall Street Journal first reported the funding arrangement, according to the AP.
Funding comes as midterms approach
The advertising campaign comes as both parties prepare for the 2026 midterm elections. Republicans currently control Congress, while Democrats are signaling plans for aggressive oversight if they regain control of either chamber.
The timing has intensified criticism from lawmakers who say the ads could give Trump political exposure at public expense. Republicans have also expressed reservations. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he agreed with the message of the ads but questioned whether taxpayer money should be used to pay for them, according to The Associated Press.
The dispute is likely to continue as Congress examines how DHS transferred and spent the money. It also raises broader questions about the limits of government-funded communications and whether federal agencies may use public resources to promote an administration’s political message.
For now, DHS continues to describe the spots as official government communications rather than campaign advertisements. Whether that distinction satisfies federal oversight officials, lawmakers or courts remains unresolved.
