US President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media after disembarking Air Force One, after attending a campaign rally in Clarksville, Tennessee, at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, US, October 10, 2026. REUTERS/Eric Lee
A federal judge pointed to President Donald Trump's personal involvement in taxpayer-funded TV ads that "likely" violated the law by airing ahead of the midterms, noting his administration did not contest that the ads were “purely partisan.”
After issuing a restraining order to shut down the ads on Sunday, U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon explained her reasoning in an opinion filed Monday in Manhattan federal court.
The government paid for the ads with Department of Homeland Security money that Congress set aside for border security, even though the ads praise the president and cast his perceived adversaries in sharply negative terms, Rochon wrote.
Government lawyers did not try to defend the ads as legal, Rochon noted. In a court filing Saturday, they argued instead that the case was moot, meaning no longer a live dispute, because the ad buys would end Sunday. They also argued the plaintiffs had no legal right to sue.
A provision of federal spending law known as Section 718 bars agencies from using taxpayer money “for publicity or propaganda purposes” that Congress has not approved, Rochon explained.
“Defendants do not contest that the at-issue advertisements are purely partisan and unconnected to DHS’s official functions,” Rochon wrote. “Thus, the Court finds that Moving Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the advertisements are impermissible ‘publicity or propaganda’ under Section 718.”
“Indeed, the ‘Final Battle’ advertisement is almost identical to one used during President Trump’s 2024 campaign, other than the fact that its funding disclaimer now identifies the United States government rather than his presidential campaign,” the judge wrote.
In that ad, Trump vows to “demolish the deep state,” “cast out the communists, Marxists, and fascists” and “rout the fake news media,” according to the opinion.
“This advertisement provides no information about DHS’s official functions,” Rochon added.
The money came from a $6.168 billion border security fund Congress approved in July 2025, according to the opinion. One listed use was “[c]ommemorating efforts and events related to border security,” which a House report described with examples such as line-of-duty death memorials, agency anniversaries and commendation ceremonies.
The White House budget office approved a request to shift an extra $20 million into that category within two hours on Sept. 19, the opinion said. The ads began airing four days later.
Rochon also found the plaintiffs have the right to sue. She agreed, citing an earlier ruling, that the ads “fundamentally alter the environment” for Robert Hunter, the Democratic nominee for Alabama House District 28 and a democratic socialist, by attacking socialism under a government label.
“Indeed, this appears to be the advertising campaign’s intended goal,” Rochon wrote.
She noted that the government did not dispute that "President Trump, along with Wiles and others, met with Republican political strategists to discuss the upcoming elections and the use of funds from MAGA Inc., a political action committee, to support Republican candidates in the midterm elections" on Aug. 7.
“Thus, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the challenged advertisements were disseminated to support Republican candidates and impact the midterm elections,” Rochon wrote.
Hunter said in a court declaration that his campaign has spent $1,812 on advertising and that the government ads ran far more widely in his district.
Absentee and early voting are already underway in states including Alabama and New York, she noted.
Rochon wrote that the Constitution’s spending clause exists to ensure public money is spent according to Congress’s judgments about the common good, so any alleged violation is “in contravention of that common good and against the public interest.”