US Democrats and Watchdog Group File Successive Lawsuits; Trump Accused of Diverting Congressional Appropriations for Political Propaganda Ads

With less than a month before the November 3 US midterm elections, the US Democratic National Committee and political oversight group Common Cause have successively filed lawsuits in court, directly targeting the Trump administration’s use of taxpayer funds for television advertising. According to Al Jazeera, both lawsuits accuse Trump of directing the White House to divert $20 million from a $175 million congressional allocation originally designated for the Department of Homeland Security—funds specifically earmarked for border security commemorative events (including memorial services for personnel who died in the line of duty)—to fund the advertisements, arguing that this move violates the constitutional principle of separation of executive and legislative powers.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin stated bluntly in a declaration that Trump is abusing millions of dollars in tax revenue to make a last-ditch rescue for the Republican ticket. According to Al Jazeera, the lawsuits point out that Congress had clearly written provisions into the appropriations bill prohibiting the use of public funds for “publicity or political propaganda purposes,” and this advertising campaign is a blatant violation of that provision. The lawsuit filed by Common Cause in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York further alleges that these ads “feel like personal publicity and political propaganda from start to finish, and are by no means public service announcements.” The Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit is being heard in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Al Jazeera, citing statistics from media tracking organization AdImpact, noted that the advertising campaign has spent more than $12 million since its launch in September. One of the ads was pointed out by critics to be nearly identical to the television campaign film Trump used when running for re-election in 2024. Al Jazeera described that among the three ads already aired: the first features a choir singing “Love Me” as background, with Trump declaring in montage footage that America “will never become a communist country”; another uses imagery of Mount Rushmore, with Trump announcing the dawn of “America’s golden age”; the third has a dark visual, with Trump walking toward the camera in black-and-white footage, declaring that a “final battle” against the “deep state” and other so-called enemies is imminent.

Trump himself has argued that these ads constitute “promotion of the country” and are no different from public outreach campaigns by previous administrations. However, amid a wave of bipartisan opposition, he stated on Monday that future ads will no longer use taxpayer funds. According to Al Jazeera, Trump did not commit to repaying funds already spent. Particularly notable is that criticism has also emerged from within the Republican Party. North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis stated bluntly that these ads “are reminiscent of content that Hungarian former leader Orbán would put out”; Senate Majority Leader John Thune, while expressing agreement with the message conveyed by some of the ads, emphasized that “taxpayers should not foot the bill.”

Al Jazeera, citing a joint poll released by Reuters and market research firm Ipsos, added a footnote on public sentiment to this controversy. The survey showed that as many as 86% of American respondents considered it inappropriate for Trump to use public funds for advertising, including four-fifths of Republican supporters. This figure indicates that even within Trump’s base, resentment toward the executive branch’s overreach in using public resources has become quite common. The lawsuits invoke a principle of the US Constitution: more than two hundred years ago, the Founding Fathers made clear that executive branch expenditures must be carried out in accordance with congressional directives. Both lawsuits seek a court ruling that the advertising activity is illegal, that related spending be stopped, and that steps be taken to recover funds already expended.