Trump adverts paid for with border-policy funds
The US Department of Homeland Security reportedly used tens of millions of dollars for campaign-style adverts.
The US Department of Homeland Security has reportedly used money from a border budget for television adverts featuring President Donald Trump, according to US media. The administration calls the adverts public information, while critics describe them as the political use of taxpayers’ money.
According to Associated Press, the department set aside $20 million for the campaign. ABC News reports, based on budget data and contract information, that the money was transferred via Customs and Border Protection to a media agency for a nationwide campaign.
The first adverts appeared on television shortly afterwards. According to an estimate by AdImpact, at least $1.7 million has so far been spent on three different spots featuring Trump. The adverts emphasise patriotism and the defence of the US border.
The funding is reportedly from the major tax and spending bill passed in 2025. That law allocated $6.2 billion for various improvements at the border, as well as activities to reframe and draw attention to border security.
The White House is defending the approach. In a statement, the administration says the spots are not campaign adverts because Trump is not on the ballot and they contain no explicit appeal to vote. According to the White House, previous administrations also used public funds for information campaigns about policy and public health.
Democratic senators have asked Secretary Markwayne Mullin to explain the contracts, the source of the money and whether more adverts are planned. They believe government funds should not be used for advertising that personally glorifies the president.
The matter has also not been settled legally. AP spoke to experts who believe the spots could conflict with federal rules against propaganda and the partisan use of government funds. That is a legal assessment, not a court ruling; as far as is publicly known, no court has yet definitively assessed the adverts.
The case therefore touches on a broader boundary between government communication and political marketing. A government may inform citizens about policy, but using a sitting president as the face of a campaign can create the impression that public funds are being used to strengthen one person’s political brand.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- DHS used money from a border budget for adverts featuring Donald Trump.
- The administration calls the adverts public information.
- Democratic senators and legal experts question whether this is permissible.
- There has been no reported definitive court ruling on the spots.
Left
Arguments Public money should inform citizens about services and policy, not enhance the president’s political reputation.
Values Transparency, government neutrality and protection against abuse of power.
Consequences The campaign should be halted and independently investigated; otherwise, the boundary between state and party will become blurred.
Centre
Arguments Government communication can be legitimate, but its funding, content and procurement must remain verifiable and institutionally neutral.
Values Good governance, legal scrutiny and trust in public institutions.
Consequences A clear standard for government advertising could constrain future administrations of both parties.
Right
Arguments The administration must be able to explain its border policy to citizens and may use patriotic communication provided there is no explicit appeal to vote.
Values Administrative effectiveness, national identity and scope for the elected government to defend its policies.
Consequences An overly broad restriction could hamper necessary public communication about border security and national security.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The financial and political claims were checked against AP, ABC News and the White House. Legal criticism is clearly presented as experts’ assessment, not as an established ruling.
- confirmed DHS used or set aside $20 million for the adverts. — AP reports that DHS allocated $20 million to the campaign. source
- confirmed At least $1.7 million was spent on three television spots. — ABC News cites AdImpact’s estimate. source
- confirmed The money was transferred via Customs and Border Protection to a media agency. — ABC News refers to budget and contract data. source
- confirmed The White House calls the adverts public information. — The White House explicitly defends the spots as public service announcements. source
- uncertain There has not yet been a definitive court ruling on the legality of the adverts. — The public sources consulted report criticism and possible legal problems, but no final judicial ruling. source
Editor's note
The funding, the contract and the government’s response have been described by several public sources. Whether the adverts legally constitute propaganda has not yet been established by a court.Sources
- Homeland Security taps $20M in taxpayer funds for pro-Trump ads — Associated Press
- Pro-Trump ad campaign was financed by DHS — ABC News
- Presidential Public Service Announcements Are Nothing New — The White House
More on this in Dutch media
- NOS — „donald trump”
- Het Parool — „donald trump”
- Trouw — „donald trump”