The Democratic National Committee filed suit alleging the Trump administration diverted $20 million in federal funds into a partisan advertising campaign, a move that would violate century-old prohibitions against using taxpayer money for political propaganda if proven, according to court records.
The Office of Management and Budget approved a transfer of funds from appropriations under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into a U.S. Customs and Border Protection line item designated for "Commemorative Events," the lawsuit states. Congressional committee reports explicitly restricted that line item to honoring line-of-duty death memorials, agency anniversaries and commendation ceremonies — not political advertising campaigns, according to the DNC's complaint.
The federal statute prohibiting use of appropriations for "publicity or propaganda purposes" dates back decades and applies uniformly across administrations. The DNC's complaint alleges President Trump personally directed the campaign, making the transfer a matter involving direct presidential instruction rather than merely a bureaucratic procedural issue.
The ads in question feature Trump touting the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and directly addressing viewers with language designed for political mobilization: "With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state. We will expel the warmongers from our government." A third ad instructs viewers to "pretend I'm on the ballot" as a tactic to drive voter turnout.
The campaign also includes ads featuring high-ranking administration officials — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio among them — offering praise for the president. The lawsuit characterizes these as government-funded partisan testimonials.
On Truth Social, Trump reframed the enterprise: "I am taking Ads, which I consider to be a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A., and paying for them with U.S.A. money. This is a rather standard thing to do but…I have decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc." The statement implicitly concedes that funding these ads with federal money is legally problematic.
The White House pointed to precedents across multiple administrations: George W. Bush's Medicare campaign, Obama-era Affordable Care Act advertising and Biden's vaccination messaging. However, public health announcements explaining Medicare benefits or vaccination campaigns operate in a different category from ads explicitly designed to boost a sitting president's electoral prospects or to influence election outcomes.
According to the lawsuit, polling data shows declining Republican prospects in traditional battlegrounds and even in typically conservative states. The DNC characterizes the ad campaign as a "last-ditch attempt" to shore up the party's position.
The lawsuit seeks a court declaration that the ads' production and airing were unlawful and asks for an immediate injunction blocking further use of appropriated funds for the campaign.
DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement that Trump is "misusing millions of taxpayer dollars to fund pure propaganda ads in a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans." He noted the administration drew from a fund intended for "memorials for Americans killed in the line of duty" to promote its political agenda.
The lawsuit represents a direct challenge to executive spending authority, hinging on specific statutory language and concrete evidence of how funds moved through the federal budget system. Whether courts ultimately find the transfer unlawful will depend partly on how they interpret "propaganda" in the modern context and partly on whether the OMB's initial authorization can withstand scrutiny.
