Trump releases new ad funded by taxpayers: ‘This is the final battle’
The White House defends the commercial as a public service announcement, while some lawmakers and organizations question the use of public funds
Donald Trump appears walking down a hallway, in black and white, with a serious expression and his eyes fixed on the camera. As he moves forward, his voice announces what he presents as the “final battle” against communists, Marxists, fascists, globalists and the media, all of his familiar “enemies.” At the end of the ad, a caption makes clear who is funding it: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”
The 30-second commercial is the third in a series of ads funded with taxpayer money that the White House has presented as public service announcements. Its release comes just over a month before the November midterm elections and has opened a new debate over the limits of using public resources to promote the president.
The ad began airing during programs such as Saturday Night Live and Fox News Sunday, as well as college and NFL football games, according to advertising-tracking firm AdImpact. According to The Washington Post, more than $300,000 has been spent on the commercial, although it is unclear which government agency was responsible for producing and paying for it.
The controversy also centers on the ad’s content. The video reuses imagery and rhetoric that Trump had already employed during his 2024 presidential campaign. “We will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists,” the president says in the recording, before promising that his administration will defeat the media he calls “fake news” and liberate the country from those “villains.”
The White House maintains that the ads are not campaign advertisements because Trump is not on the ballot in the midterm elections and because the commercials do not include an explicit call to vote. The administration describes them as “educational” and “patriotic” ads intended to promote pride in the United States.
It has also defended its use of public funds by pointing to precedents from other administrations. The White House cited campaigns carried out under the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, among other presidents, to argue that advertising can be used to explain policies or promote messages of national interest.
However, federal law places limits on the use of public money for unauthorized “publicity or propaganda” activities. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has interpreted that prohibition as potentially covering communications that are exclusively partisan, while also recognizing that the government may use public funds to explain and defend its policies.
Criticism has come from both parties. Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said that no public official, including Trump, should use taxpayer money for advertisements intended to promote his own image. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky called the new commercial “ominous,” while Democratic Sen. Andy Kim questioned how much taxpayer money had been spent on the ad.
Democracy advocacy organizations have also raised concerns. Common Cause said the ads could violate rules against using public funds for propaganda. Public Citizen, meanwhile, filed a complaint with government oversight bodies over previous Trump ads and argued that they posed a problem for taxpayers and democracy.
The controversy follows two other government-funded ads. One used images of Trump and highlighted accomplishments of his administration, while another showed the president at Mount Rushmore. The commercials are part of a campaign that the White House continues to present as a public service effort, despite critics arguing that Trump’s prominent role and the use of messages associated with his campaigns cross a different line.
The debate also revives the precedent of an advertising campaign by the Department of Homeland Security during Kristi Noem’s tenure. The government spent more than $200 million at the time on ads showing her on horseback and warning that those who violated U.S. laws would be “hunted down and deported.” Trump had approved that campaign, although he later criticized the spending and shortly afterward fired Noem as secretary of Homeland Security.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition