Posted on September 28, 2026
Donald Trump says he is cutting costs, saving taxpayers money, and draining the swamp. His administration is now spending an estimated $1.3 million or more of that same taxpayer money on television ads praising Trump just weeks before the November midterms.
The ads look like campaign videos. They feature Trump’s face, Trump’s voice, Trump’s political talking points, and old Trump campaign footage. The only major difference is the disclaimer at the end:
“Paid for by the U.S. Government.”
That is the basic hypocrisy. Trump wants credit for lowering costs while the government pays to promote him on national television.
This is exactly the kind of entry a Trump hypocrisy tracker should record.
The “Love Me” ad is taxpayer-funded Trump promotion
The first ad is called “Love Me.” It uses a montage of Trump photos, video clips, and campaign-style slogans. The screen flashes claims about Trump’s record, including:
- “Largest tax cuts in history”
- “Reigniting American manufacturing”
- “America will never be a communist country”
The ad plays the song “Love Me” by the artist JMSN. Trump also repeats language from one of his speeches about fighting “Democrat communists in Congress.”
The ad first appeared on conservative television networks. It later expanded to national broadcasts, including CBS’ “Face the Nation” and college football games. That gave the commercial a much larger audience than a normal government announcement.
An estimate from AdImpact reported by CNBC puts the government’s cost to air the ad at nearly $920,000 so far. That figure is an estimate based on AdImpact tracking and press reporting. The final amount could change as more placements are counted.
The timing is also hard to ignore. The ad aired in the same week Trump hosted Chinese leader Xi Jinping for a state visit. China is the world’s largest communist nation. At the same time Trump was welcoming its leader to the White House, his taxpayer-funded commercial was warning Americans about communism.
JMSN says the administration used his music without permission. He wrote:
“I would never authorize my music to be used for ANY political agenda or campaign.”
The singer said his lawyers are handling the matter. The original song is available through the music link included in NBC News’ report.
“Final Battle” was already a Trump campaign video
The second ad is called “Final Battle.” It is filmed in black and white and shows Trump walking down a hallway. His voice warns about the “deep state,” “warmongers,” “globalists,” “Marxists,” “communists,” and “fascists.”
Trump says:
“This is the final battle.”
He also promises to expel “the warmongers from our government” and “liberate America from these villains once and for all.”
The footage was already used in a Trump campaign video posted to Truth Social in 2023. The earlier version carried campaign language saying it was paid for by Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc.
The new version removes the campaign disclaimer and replaces it with:
“Paid for by the U.S. Government.”
As NBC News reported, the new ad also removes the old campaign ending that asked viewers to join Trump’s fight to save America.
The ad has aired during NFL games and “Fox News Sunday.” AdImpact estimates, as reported by CNBC, put the cost above $362,000 so far. That is an estimate based on AdImpact tracking and press reporting. The Associated Press has reported a higher estimate of at least $443,000.
A third ad uses parts of Trump’s July 3 Mount Rushmore speech and has aired on Newsmax. The amount spent on that placement has not been fully disclosed.
Taken together, the reported estimates put the taxpayer-funded advertising effort at more than $1.3 million. The exact total remains unclear because the administration has not identified:
- The federal account used to pay for the ads
- The agencies involved
- The private contractors involved
- The cost of producing the commercials
- The legal authority used to approve the spending
The government has made the public pay for the ads without telling the public who arranged them or where the money came from.
The timing makes the ads look even more political
The ads are running about five weeks before the midterms. Democrats lead in national polling and are trying to take control of both the House and the Senate.
Republicans on the campaign trail are using the same themes found in the commercials. They are calling Democrats “communists” and pointing to Trump’s tax law as a major accomplishment.
That does not make the ads neutral public education. It makes them look like a taxpayer-funded version of the Republican campaign message.
The ads also put Trump at the center. They do not explain how to apply for a government service, prepare for an emergency, or understand a new public program. They show Trump walking, speaking, posing, and claiming credit.
That is self-promotion.
The spending also comes after an estimated $220 million border security advertising campaign connected to former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. That campaign drew scrutiny from lawmakers over the use of public funds for messages that looked political.
Trump’s other vanity projects add to the frustration. His White House ballroom has an estimated price tag of more than $1.8 billion. At the same time, the administration says it needs to spend more taxpayer money reminding Americans to love the country by watching Trump on television.
Lawmakers from both parties are asking questions
Sen. Maggie Hassan sent a September 24 letter to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Hassan demanded answers about the ads, including:
- How much did the government spend to produce and air them?
- Which federal agencies worked on the ads?
- Which private agencies and contractors were hired?
- Where did the money come from?
- What legal authority allowed the spending?
Hassan said the ad “does not have a clear official government purpose” and appears to conflict with federal restrictions on propaganda.
Other lawmakers have also criticized the campaign:
- Republican Sen. John Kennedy said no public official, including Trump, Kristi Noem, or Kennedy himself, should spend public money on private ads for themselves.
- Republican Sen. Thom Tillis called the spending inappropriate and compared it to the behavior of Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary.
- Republican Rep. Thomas Massie said taxpayer-funded ominous ads for a president have been done before and are “completely legal” in banana republics.
- Democratic Sen. Andy Kim asked how much taxpayer money the government spent on the ad.
- Democratic appropriators demanded that the ads be removed from the air, calling them the kind of government propaganda people might expect in North Korea, not the United States.
The anti-propaganda rule is simple
Federal funding laws have included an anti-propaganda restriction since the 1950s. The current language says:
“No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used directly or indirectly, including by private contractor, for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.”
In plain English, Congress says agencies cannot use public money to create political propaganda inside the United States unless Congress specifically allows it.
The Government Accountability Office has explained that the rule can cover government material that is:
- Purely partisan
- Self-aggrandizing
- Covert
- Designed to help a political party or candidate
A government advertisement can be patriotic and still violate the rule. Calling something a public service announcement does not automatically make it legal.
The White House says these ads are not campaign ads because Trump is not on the ballot and the commercials do not include a direct call to action. Officials call them educational messages about loving America.
The administration has also pointed to advertising campaigns under George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. But those campaigns were nonpartisan and did not feature the sitting president as the star. The GAO also found that one Bush administration campaign violated the anti-propaganda rule.
That history does not prove Trump’s ads are illegal. It does show that government advertising has rules, and past administrations have not received a free pass.
The Hatch Act could create another problem
The Hatch Act limits political activity by federal civilian employees. The president is exempt from the law, but White House employees are not automatically exempt.
That raises a key question: Did federal employees help produce, approve, place, or distribute ads designed to help Trump and his party before the midterms?
Public Citizen filed complaints with the GAO and the Office of Special Counsel asking for an investigation. The Office of Special Counsel explains the Hatch Act rules, including restrictions on federal workers using their official positions for political activity.
The complaints are still pending. No final ruling has established that the ads broke the law.
That is why the administration should release the records instead of hiding behind a label.
This is the hypocrisy voters can see
Trump built his political brand on attacking government waste. He tells voters that Washington spends too much and that politicians use public money for themselves.
Now his administration is using public money to put his own face and voice on television.
The record shows:
- The ads feature Trump personally.
- The messages repeat Republican campaign themes.
- The footage comes from Trump speeches and campaign videos.
- The ads ran close to the midterms.
- The government has not identified the funding source.
- The government has not identified the agencies or contractors involved.
- The reported cost is already more than an estimated $1.3 million.
- Bipartisan lawmakers are demanding answers.
The public does not need another slogan about draining the swamp. It needs a receipt.
Readers can contact their senators and representatives and ask them to support investigations into the ads. They can ask for the funding source, production contracts, media-buy records, and legal justification. They can also follow the pending GAO and Office of Special Counsel complaints.
These ads were paid for with your money. The administration should explain why.