The White House's Government-Funded Ad Campaign: 'Public Service' or 'Propaganda'?

The White House's latest advertisement campaign was paid for by the US government, prompting bipartisan criticism and even questions about its legality.

Republican Criticisms: "I don't think any public official – including President Trump, or Kristi Noem, or John Kennedy – should spend public money on private ads for themselves," said Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) on Sunday, when asked if the advertisements are "the best use of taxpayer money." Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) echoed that they're "inappropriate," and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) quipped, "Using taxpayer dollars to run ominous campaign ads of the president has been done before and is completely legal… in banana republics."

White House Response: "When prior Administrations utilized the airwaves, it was called 'public education,'" said the White House in response to the criticism, "When this Administration promotes pride in our country, many of those same voices call it 'propaganda.'" It contended, "These public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad."

The Advertisements: A 35-second black-and-white advertisement states, "This is the final battle. With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state; we will expel the warmongers from our government; we will drive out the globalists; we will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake news media, and we will liberate America from these villains once and for all." The advertisement, which aired multiple times over the weekend, first aired during Trump's 2024 presidential campaign and was "provided by the Republican National Committee." The new release was instead "Paid for by the US Government," which AdImpact reported cost over $362,000 as of Sunday.

Another advertisement, also government-funded, reportedly cost about $920,000 as of Sunday. This one featured music by JMSN, who said, "I would never authorize my music to be used for ANY political agenda or campaign," and announced legal actions to follow.

Are The Advertisements Legal? "Any government employees who worked on the first pro-Trump ad – 'or used government resources to make it' – may have committed a felony violation of the Hatch Act," reported The Guardian (Left bias). The Hatch Act is a 1939 federal law that bans most federal employees from using "official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election" and "taking an active part in political management or campaigns." TIME Magazine (Lean Left) noted that the president himself is exempt from the act, but The Guardian did not.

TIME also analyzed that the Government Accountability Office prohibits the use of taxpayer funding for "'purely partisan,' 'self-aggrandizing,' or 'covert' [efforts]. But it also notes[s] that administrations may need to advocate or defend their policies."

The White House's unauthorized use of JMSN's music, however, appears to more clearly violate federal copyright laws.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.