Regulators urged to halt White House ads critics call illegal partisan propaganda

Key points

• Public Citizen filed a letter urging the FCC and FTC to stop the broadcast of three White House ads, stating they violate laws prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for government propaganda or self-aggrandizement.
• The ads, which began airing last week, include a rerun of a 2024 campaign commercial and a spot featuring the song 'Love Me,' with the White House labeling them as public service announcements.
• The Wall Street Journal reported that the ads were funded by US Customs and Border Protection, a move that echoes a previous $200m campaign that boosted then-Secretary Kristi Noem.
• FCC chair Brendan Carr stated the ads fall within standard practice and do not require intervention, while the White House website dismissed criticism as dishonest, comparing the ads to historical presidential announcements.
• Public Citizen estimates the cost of the three ads already broadcast exceeds $1m, with more ads planned for the November midterm campaign, which polls suggest Republicans are likely to lose.

Background

This development follows a series of earlier reports in late September 2026 regarding the White House's use of taxpayer funds for television spots. Previous coverage highlighted the legal and ethical debates surrounding the 'Love Me' ad and the recycling of 2024 campaign materials, as well as the Department of Homeland Security's diversion of $20m in border funds to air these advertisements. The current situation represents an escalation of these efforts, with the White House now facing direct calls for regulatory intervention from advocacy groups.

How outlets are covering it

The Guardian and Public Citizen emphasize the legal violations and the partisan nature of the ads, arguing that Trump is not a candidate and thus the ads do not qualify for the protections afforded to candidate advertisements. The White House, in contrast, defends the ads as patriotic public service announcements, likening them to historical precedents from presidents like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Wall Street Journal provides the factual context of the funding source, identifying Customs and Border Protection as the payer, while Politico's coverage of the day's events does not directly address the ad controversy but highlights the broader political tensions in the Senate regarding other issues.

Why it matters

The legality of using federal funds for presidential promotion is a critical issue for the integrity of the upcoming midterm elections. If the ads are deemed illegal, it could set a precedent for future presidential administrations and impact the fairness of the electoral process. The involvement of the FCC and FTC in this matter could lead to significant regulatory changes or legal challenges that affect how public money is used for political messaging.

What to watch

The FCC and FTC are expected to review the letter from Public Citizen and decide whether to intervene. The White House has indicated that more ads are planned, with Trump personally selecting which ones to air. Legal challenges may follow if the ads continue to air, potentially leading to court cases that could define the boundaries of public service announcements versus partisan advertising.