White House says Trump won't pay back $10 million in taxpayer money spent on pro-Trump ads before midterms

White House says Trump won't pay back $10 million in taxpayer money spent on pro-Trump ads before midterms

The White House confirmed Tuesday that President Donald Trump will not reimburse the federal government for at least $10.1 million already spent airing a series of campaign-style television ads promoting him and his administration, even after Trump announced Monday he would shift future ad costs to his super PAC. The decision, made just weeks before November's midterm elections, has drawn legal warnings and rare public dissent from members of his own party.

Trump said Monday night he would no longer use taxpayer funds to pay for the multimillion-dollar ad blitz, announcing that his super PAC would cover future costs. But he appears to have no plans to reimburse the federal government for money already spent. A White House official confirmed to NewsNation that Trump does not plan to repay the money already spent, saying, "The President's Truth was not referring to reimbursement."

Asked Tuesday whether he would reimburse the government as he was leaving the White House for an event in Maryland, Trump replied, "We'll decide."

Where the money came from

U.S. Customs and Border Protection funded the taxpayer-backed television ads, according to The Wall Street Journal. Democratic appropriators say DHS dedicated $20 million to the campaign ahead of the midterm election. Trump personally pushed for the ads and was involved in creating them, the Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

As of Monday, at least an estimated $10.1 million in taxpayer dollars had been spent on the ads, according to the political ad-tracking firm AdImpact. As of last week, the administration had created at least 13 campaign-style ads promoting Trump and his policies. Spots that have yet to air include three ads highlighting U.S. military operations in Iran and Venezuela, one titled "God Made Trump," and another recapping a UFC fight Trump hosted at the White House.

As part of the effort, the White House created a spot titled "Resilience" that shows Trump's progression from a younger man in the New York real estate market to the U.S. president. A 30-second ad features Trump saying, "Together, we will defeat communism, socialism and Marxism in America."

The legal questions piling up

The ads have generated a stack of legal challenges that will outlast the election cycle regardless of how the reimbursement question resolves.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the ads could violate the Hatch Act's bar against using official authority to influence elections, the Antideficiency Act's prohibition against spending federal money without congressional authorization, and criminal statutes against embezzling or stealing public funds.

Nearly all appropriations bills that Congress passes include a rider barring money from being used for publicity or propaganda purposes. The Office of Legal Counsel and the GAO have affirmed that messages designed to self-aggrandize or extol a government official are not measures that provide the public with information about government programs.

The Antideficiency Act prohibits spending money beyond what Congress has appropriated it for, and if the White House used DHS funding to produce and distribute the ads, Columbia Law professor Richard Briffault has said DHS's budget "has to be cut" by the equivalent amount spent on the ads.

Richard Painter, who served as the White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, told The New York Times that the ads could amount to grounds for impeachment. He called the ads dangerous and stressed that government-sponsored propaganda is not permitted in the United States.

Public Citizen previously asked the GAO and the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether the ads violated federal propaganda restrictions and the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act does not apply to the president himself, so only aides involved in producing the ads could face penalties under that statute.

Bipartisan pushback, but Congress did not block the ads

In a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) demanded answers within 48 hours. "The American people deserve answers about how this president is literally stealing their tax dollars to air campaign ads celebrating himself," the senators wrote, adding that "everyone responsible needs to be held accountable for this corrupt and illegal propaganda."

Republican voices joined in, though none moved to block the spending. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) called the ads "inappropriate" and compared them to something former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán would do. Senate Republican Leader John Thune told reporters at the Capitol that while it was a message he liked, it should not have been paid for with public funds, according to reporting by the Seoul Economic Daily. Though the ads received bipartisan criticism, Congress did not act to block them ahead of the midterms.

The White House and Vice President JD Vance pushed back hard on the backlash. A White House official said the president "is not on the ballot, and the ads don't have a call to action." Vance defended the ads, pointing to Obama-era ads for the Affordable Care Act as precedent for using taxpayer funds to promote government actions. FCC Chair Brendan Carr called the ads "normal public service announcements" that do not merit any FCC review.

While Trump dismissed criticism of the ads as "a rather standard thing to do," he posted Monday that he had decided to pay for them on his own dime going forward.

The midterm dimension

The timing is hard to separate from the political calendar. Facing threats of legal action and complaints from Republican and Democratic lawmakers for using public money to promote his administration before the midterm elections, Trump said Monday he will "pay for them myself" and through MAGA Inc., the connected political action committee.

If Democrats are successful in clawing back a majority in Congress, they could pass a resolution to demand that DHS return the money spent on the ads and hold public hearings about what went on behind the scenes in deciding to produce the ads and use taxpayer dollars to fund them.

The CBP funding connection carries its own political charge. Top congressional Democrats say the administration dedicated $20 million to the effort, including funds provided to CBP through Republicans' "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." That framing lets Democrats argue that money Congress approved for border security was redirected to presidential image-making.

The episode also arrives as the White House is separately defending its use of "pocket rescissions" to cancel $810 million in congressionally appropriated funds at the end of the fiscal year. The GAO said Tuesday that the pocket rescission plan violates the Impoundment Control Act, a law passed in the aftermath of Watergate to codify Congress's sole power of the purse. Together, the two disputes amount to a sustained argument between the executive branch and Congress over who controls federal dollars, playing out in the final weeks before voters go to the polls.

What to Watch

• GAO and OSC investigations: Public Citizen has asked both the GAO and the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether the ads violated federal propaganda restrictions and the Hatch Act. Watch for formal findings, which could come before or after Election Day.
• DHS response to Senate Democrats: Sens. Murray and Murphy demanded answers from DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin within 48 hours. His response, or the lack of one, will shape whether Democrats escalate to formal subpoenas.
• MAGA Inc. ad spending: AdImpact puts taxpayer spending at $10.1 million so far, against a reported $20 million total budget. Whether MAGA Inc. actually funds the remaining nine-plus million, and how quickly, is a disclosure question with FEC implications.
• Antideficiency Act referral: A formal referral to the Justice Department under the Antideficiency Act is technically available to the GAO, though the GAO has reported to Congress that there has never been a criminal prosecution under the Antideficiency Act.
• Tillis and Collins as bellwethers: Both senators are in competitive cycles and have broken publicly with the White House on this issue. Their next move, if any, will signal how much appetite remains inside the GOP caucus for confronting the administration on spending authority before November.

Sources: ABC News | CNN | NewsNation / The Hill | CNBC | The Hill | The Hill (Vance) | Slate | Spokesman-Review / Roll Call