A federal judge had to order the government to stop airing commercials for the president, and the government’s best defense was that they were about to stop anyway.
Here’s what happened. Judge Jennifer Rochon in New York issued a two-week temporary restraining order Sunday night, telling the administration to cancel every remaining ad it bought with taxpayer money and not to sign, renew or expand any more deals for them. The Justice Department argued the order was pointless because “the alleged offending conduct will end tomorrow.” That’s not a defense. That’s a kid saying he was going to put the cookie back.
The money came from Homeland Security, which had $20 million set aside for what it called a national media campaign. AdImpact tracked the spending past $21 million. The biggest piece, $13 million, went to an ad called “Final Battle,” which the judge noted looks a lot like a 2024 Trump campaign ad, except the disclaimer now says the U.S. government paid for it. She also wrote that it “provides no information about DHS’s official functions.” So a Homeland Security ad that says nothing about Homeland Security. Interesting.
To be fair about where this stands: a restraining order isn’t a final verdict. But it isn’t nothing either. Rochon found the challengers likely to win, calling the ads likely a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the government didn’t dispute that the money was border-security funds. Federal law bars using appropriated money for “publicity or propaganda.” The White House says these are public service announcements like the ones past presidents ran. A PSA tells you to buckle up. It doesn’t relitigate a campaign.
The timing is what gets me. These ran for about two weeks, weeks before the Nov. 3 midterms, and the White House says it has no immediate plans to pay the money back. Trump says his super PAC will cover any future ads, which raises an obvious question about why it wasn’t covering the first batch. Even Republicans noticed. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 86% of Americans called the spending inappropriate, and that included 80% of Republicans. When 80% of one party’s voters agree with the other party on something, it’s not a close call.
My complaint isn’t about taxes. I’m fine paying for roads and fire trucks. My complaint is that Congress hands an agency money for one job and it ends up on the air selling the boss. I’d be just as angry if a Democrat did it, and I’d like to think you would be too. I’ve been through this pattern before, from the tariffs the Supreme Court said were illegal to the Kennedy Center fight he lost twice in court. Somebody does the thing, a court says hold on, and the answer is to keep going until the clock runs out. It’s the same kind of waste I flagged when $23.7 billion in earmarks included a door for a museum, only this time it’s pointed straight at the ballot box.
If the ads were so great, they’d have been paid for with campaign money from day one.
My two cents: if you need a judge to stop your commercials, they were never public service announcements.