DHS allocates $20 million for pro-Trump ads, sparking criticism over taxpayer funds

Washington: The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has committed $20 million in taxpayer funds to a campaign-style advertising drive featuring President Donald Trump, drawing criticism from both Republicans and Democrats over the use of public money for what they describe as political propaganda.

The advertisements, which began airing last week during popular television programmes, including college and National Football League broadcasts, have come under scrutiny over whether they violate laws prohibiting the use of federally appropriated funds for propaganda.

In a letter sent on Tuesday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, two senior Democratic senators said the money had been drawn from Trump's so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill" and was originally intended for US Customs and Border Protection.

"We should not have to remind you that using government funding to create or air political ads like the ones that have been running over the last few days is illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars," wrote Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee overseeing Homeland Security funding.

The senators sought answers within 48 hours, asking the department to explain "how this president is literally stealing their tax dollars to air campaign ads celebrating himself."

They also asked whether DHS planned to spend additional federal funds on the advertisements or produce new ones, and sought details of the contracts involved. The lawmakers further questioned whether Mullin had discussed the use of taxpayer money for the campaign with Trump.

Ad spending exceeds $2.5 million in a week

Data from advertising analytics firm AdImpact showed that more than $2.5 million had been spent on three advertisements over the preceding seven days. The actual expenditure could be substantially higher, depending on whether television networks classified the commercials as political advertising.

The senators said DHS had committed $20 million to the campaign. A person familiar with the matter, who was not authorised to discuss it publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed the findings, which were first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The commercials feature imagery from Trump's presidency and echo Republican campaign slogans ahead of the midterm elections. One advertisement uses a song with the refrain "Love me, Love me" in the background.

Another advertisement released over the weekend resembles a black-and-white video from Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. It shows the president walking down a hallway as his voice warns of a "final battle" against "globalists" and "warmongers."

The advertisement concludes with Trump looking directly into the camera, accompanied by a message stating "Paid for by the U.S. Government."

The White House has defended the advertisements as public service announcements, pointing out that they disclose that they are funded by the US government.

When asked on Tuesday about the senators' letter, the Department of Homeland Security referred to the White House's earlier response.

Critics have argued that the advertisements differ from conventional public service announcements because they do not direct Americans towards a specific government programme or service.

$20 million contract awarded to Maryland agency

House Democrats said Russ Vought, Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget, moved $20 million from Homeland Security resources to the advertising campaign on September 19.

The following day, a $20 million contract for a "National Media Campaign" was awarded to Maryland-based LMD Agency, Inc., according to federal data.

The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The funding comes from the $175 billion allocated to the Department of Homeland Security under Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill", which was signed into law last summer as part of his immigration enforcement and deportation agenda.

Democrats opposed the legislation, citing, among other concerns, significant cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security subcommittee, criticised the administration's use of the funds.

After gutting $1 trillion from Medicaid and social services and "more than quadrupling funding for mass deportations, it turns out the Trump administration used Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill to pay for President Trump's political ads," they said.

The lawmakers said Democrats would investigate the spending if they regained control of Congress, pledging to "work to uncover and reverse misuses of taxpayer money like this and hold those who abused their power accountable."

Republicans also question the advertisements

The advertising campaign has drawn criticism from members of Trump's own party.

Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, compared the advertisements to those used by former Hungarian leader Viktor Orban.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, said the advertisements "shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars."

The controversy comes as Republicans face a closely contested midterm election season, with control of both chambers of Congress and Trump's legislative agenda at stake.

Voters have expressed concerns about high fuel and grocery prices, as well as the prolonged US war against Iran, which is now in its seventh month.

Democrats have also signalled plans for extensive congressional oversight of the Trump administration if they regain control of Congress, with impeachment among the possibilities being discussed.

The use of taxpayer funds for the advertisements has also drawn attention because Trump's political fundraising committee, MAGA Inc., holds hundreds of millions of dollars that could be deployed during the midterm election season. Groups aligned with the organisation have already begun spending on House and Senate races.

Despite the criticism and growing legal scrutiny, the administration has defended the campaign and given no indication that it intends to halt the advertisements.