The Strange Irony of Using Government Funds for Self-Promotion Ads Against ‘Communism’ and ‘War’
By Patti Mohr, writer and editor-at-large
September 30, 2026—Democracy is built on the notion that the government represents the will of the people in a system of checks-and-balances and adheres to a rule-of-law. It is not a given that democracies survive. In fact, modern-day dilemmas such as corruption, the increasing power of technologies and the firms that run them, and consolidation of power in the executive branch of government test the foundation.
In the lead up to the nationwide November elections for Congress, President Donald Trump is also pushing the limits of what is acceptable in a democratic republic. It isn’t just that Trump used a primetime address to promise $5,000 to Americans if his party wins the midterm election. It is also that he used taxpayer money to finance political ads promoting himself.
The jarring nature of the television ad would be an affront even if they weren’t paid with taxpayer funding. The ad uses rapid, strobe-like features, perhaps playing to the subconscious mind in subliminal ways. The way the ad glorifies the U.S. president is reminiscent of the way authoritarian governments extol portraits of their leaders in prominent public spaces. What makes the ads more disturbing is that they are paid through government funding.
The ads cost taxpayers $20 million. According to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the Homeland Security Department is paying for the television spots through funding meant for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Congress appropriated those funds as part of the “Big, Beautiful Bill” in 2025., which among other things cuts Medicaid and social services.
“We should not have to remind you that using government funding to create or air political ads like the ones that have been running over the last few days is illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars.” Murray and Sen. Chris Murphy wrote in a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin. “These ads need to immediately come off the air, taxpayers need to be paid back for this theft, and everyone responsible needs to be held accountable for this corrupt and illegal propaganda.”
The White House claims the ads are public service announcements. Legally, however, it might not pass muster—meet the required standard. According to the GER’s analysis of the ad, Trump appears on screen for roughly two-thirds of the 30-second taxpayer-funded advertisement.
Trump Ads on ‘Warmongers, Globalists, and Communists’
The irony is in the messages themselves. First, the ad resembles the 2024 Trump campaign messages that Trump has since retreated from or outright reversed course. Take for example the “Final Battle” ad against “warmongering.”
Since Trump has returned to office in January 2025, the U.S. military has conducted strikes against seven countries—Iran, Venezuela, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria, and struck vessels in the open waters in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.
Another ad suggests Trump is countering “communism.” It is almost satirical to make that assertion while using taxpayer funds to promote executive power. It is reminiscent of the way the Soviets, for example, used public funds for ideological propaganda.
“Party budgetary data from the pre–World War II period show that party money indeed came from state sources and was spent largely on propaganda,” Eugenia Belova and Valery Lazarev write for the Hoover Institution for a piece on communism.
Nazi Germany also experimented with state-funded propaganda through a “Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.” It used state funds to produce press, radio, film and other cultural products, justifying it as legitimate public campaigns.
In sum, the issue is not just that Trump is using taxpayer funds to promote himself. It is also the Orwellian nature of the ads themselves that seem to miss the point. He claims to be fighting communism while adopting moves from an authoritarian playbook.
Love Me — Not
Making matters worse for the president is the apparent illegal use of a copyrighted song, “Love Me,” by musician JMSN. Lawyers for the artist sent a cease-and-desist letter to Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff. The attorneys assert the Trump administration did not buy the rights to use the song. Furthermore, the artist, whose real name is Christian Berishaj, would not have given the government permission to use the song if he had been asked. The attorneys Norman Eisen of Democracy Defenders Action and Thomas Sullivan of Ballard Spahr LLP write:
“The government’s misleading use of ‘Love Me’ also violates the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. It creates a false endorsement or association, suggesting that JMSN is connected with or affiliated with this Administration.”
Why Government Funding and Not PAC?
Another odd thing is that Trump could have avoided much of the controversy by funding the ad from his political campaign committee MAGA Inc. Associated Press reporters Lisa Mascaro and Ali Swenson note the PAC is “sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Critics Abound
Trump is not only drawing criticism among political opponents but also members of his own party. Republican Sens. John Thune, Thom Tillis, and John Kennedy are among those opposing the taxpayer funded ads. Even those donating money to Trump are turned off. For example, Joe Lonsdale, a tech investor, founder of Palantir Technologies, and political campaign donor, tweeted on X that he supports Republicans but is “strongly against bread and circus bribes,” put forward by the White House.
One Republican, however, Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming intervened to block a Senate resolution on Tuesday to denounce the ad.
Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., had sponsored a nonbinding resolution asserting it is the sense of the Senate that, “advertisements promoting President Donald Trump that aired in September 2026, which included the direct language ‘paid for by the U.S. Government,’ should not be paid for by the United States government.” In a letter to DHS, Hassan is demanding specifics by October 8.
In her floor remarks, Hassan went further than criticizing the ads. She poked fun at the hypocrisy of their content.
“If we’re going to talk about which side of the aisle is supporting communism and socialism, it is this President who had the United States government take a share, an interest, in a privately held company,” Hassan said. “It is this President who welcomed the leader of the largest communist party in the world to the White House, fawning over him…while banning the free press from the White House and welcoming the communist press in.”
