A federal judge in Washington has blocked the Trump administration from creating and airing television advertisements paid for with taxpayer money, ruling that the government likely broke the law when it used public dollars to finance the campaign praising the president weeks before the midterm elections. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan granted the Democratic National Committee's request for a temporary restraining order on Wednesday, six days before Americans vote on November 3. The order pauses the budget office's approval of $20 million for the ads, bars the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Homeland Security from developing and airing them, and orders both agencies to stop distributing the ads altogether, including through third parties.
The ruling is a temporary one. AliKhan found the Democratic National Committee is likely to win its case — the standard for stopping something while a lawsuit runs — and her order lasts 14 days, through November 11. The administration must report to the court by October 30 on how it has complied, and both sides must propose a schedule by November 2 for the fight over a longer injunction. Four other challenged ads, not yet aired, are not covered for now.
The money came from the border. According to the judge's opinion, the $20 million was drawn on funds Congress gave Customs and Border Protection in the president's One Big Beautiful Bill for "commemorating efforts and events related to border security" — money a House Budget Committee report described as meant for things like events honouring contributions to border security and recognising crime victims. On the evening of September 19, about an hour and a half after Homeland Security asked for it, the budget office approved an extra $20 million. The department issued a $20 million purchase order to an advertising agency the next day, the ads began airing on September 23, and by October 11 about $19 million in airtime had already been bought.
The Democrats challenged at least 13 ads, five already aired. Their titles include "Final Battle" and "Mount Rushmore." One, as the judge's order describes it, is an anti-communism spot built around a montage of the president, in which Trump's own voice declares that "together we will defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism in America." Others showcase American military power, the president's talk of a "golden age of America," and promises from his 2024 campaign. Each carried the disclosure "Paid for by the U.S. Government."
The legal line the judge drew is an old one. Federal law states plainly: "No part of any appropriation… shall be used directly or indirectly, including by private contractor, for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress." AliKhan concluded that the officials "likely used public dollars to unlawfully finance a national media campaign in the final weeks before the November 2026 elections," and she accepted the Democrats' argument that the spending harms them directly. "Here, there is little doubt that Defendants' unlawful use of public funds makes it more difficult for the DNC to achieve its mission of 'electing Democratic candidates in federal, state, and local elections across the Country,'" she wrote, adding that "election resources are finite," so every public dollar airing the ads lets the president's super PAC, MAGA Inc. — which has already spent $25 million this cycle — save its own money for other races.
Wednesday's order is the second time a court has stepped in. On October 11, Judge Jennifer Rochon in New York blocked the administration from spending taxpayer money on the broadcast fees for the same ads, in a separate case brought by the watchdog group Common Cause — that case attacked the government paying to air the ads, while the Democrats' case also attacks the government using public funds to develop and produce them in the first place. Her order has since been extended past the midterms. Before she ruled, Homeland Security had assured her court it planned no further media buys after October 11 — yet the ads kept airing for a time after that date, and it is that sequence, AliKhan wrote, that gives the court "reason to doubt Defendants' assurances that the same injury will not recur."
The White House's answer is that the ruling changes nothing, because the president already took the ads off the taxpayers' tab himself. On October 5, after the campaign drew scrutiny from both parties, Trump announced that he planned to "pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc.," his super PAC. After Wednesday's ruling, a White House official called it "moot," and set out the administration's case in full: "The PSAs are being paid for by outside groups. Administrations of both parties have used public service announcements to explain policy and make the case for the nation's direction." The tradition they point to is real: Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden all ran government ad campaigns in office — though those spots promoted specific initiatives, where these ads make the broader case for the president himself, which is exactly the difference the lawsuit turns on.
The judge, however, tested that argument against the record and found it wanting. After Trump's October 5 announcement, the ads continued to run carrying the "Paid for by the U.S. Government" disclosure on October 6, 7, 11 and 12. "That promise went unfulfilled," AliKhan wrote, and she said the court was "unpersuaded" by Homeland Security's declaration that the problem was over. The Justice Department has also acknowledged, in the New York case, that the ads ran hundreds of times after the October 11 order requiring them to be cancelled — a point the Democrats pressed hard, and the reason the second judge widened the block from paying for airtime to developing, airing and distributing the ads at all.
The Democratic National Committee claimed the win. Its chair, Ken Martin, called the ruling "a victory for the rule of law and for American taxpayers," and argued that the president had tried to use public money to rescue his standing before the midterms and that voters would judge Republicans for it at the ballot box next week.
For ordinary taxpayers, what is at stake is narrow and concrete. The $20 million is public money, voted by Congress for border-security purposes, and the courts are now deciding whether praising the president on television is a lawful use of it. The order stops any more being spent or spread while that question is argued, though it does not recover the roughly $19 million in airtime already bought. For voters, the effect is immediate: ads tagged as paid for by the U.S. Government come off the air for the campaign's final week, and the bigger question — whether a president may use the public purse to make his own case in an election season — will be fought out in the injunction hearings after November 2.
📰 ProfiloPolitics Member News — choose your news, share it, earn credit
Members choose the news they want — share it and earn credit.
📣 Join ProfiloPolitics on Telegram — breaking news first
Follow @profilopoliticsnews for every update on this story.