Two lawsuits filed Wednesday aim to shut down President Donald Trump's taxpayer-funded television advertising campaign, which has cost more than $12 million so far and drawn bipartisan condemnation. The Democratic National Committee filed in Washington, DC, while the democracy watchdog Common Cause filed in the Southern District of New York. Both suits seek to have the ads declared illegal and to recover funds already spent. The legal arguments converge on two points. First, the $20 million Trump directed to the campaign was repurposed from a $175 million Department of Homeland Security package Congress allocated for border security commemorative activities — including honoring those killed in the line of duty. Diverting those funds without congressional approval, both suits argue, violates the constitutional separation of powers over appropriations. Second, both cite a standing provision in congressional appropriations bills that explicitly bars public funds from being used for "publicity or propaganda purposes." The ads themselves are instructive. Three have aired since September. One features a choir singing "love me" over a montage of Trump declaring the US will "never be a communist country." Another uses Mount Rushmore imagery as Trump heralds a "golden age of America." The third — shot in black and white — shows Trump walking toward the camera warning of a "final battle" against the "deep state." Critics note one ad appears nearly identical to a spot from Trump's 2024 re-election campaign. Public opinion is unambiguous. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday found 86 percent of Americans surveyed consider it inappropriate for Trump to have used public money on the ads. That figure includes four out of five Republicans. The backlash is not partisan — it is structural. Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, compared the ads to something former Hungarian leader Viktor Orban would produce. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he agreed with one ad's message but emphasized "it shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars." Trump has defended the ads as "promotion for the country," likening them to public outreach campaigns of previous administrations. On Monday, he said taxpayer funds would no longer be used for future ads — but pointedly declined to commit to repaying the $12 million-plus already spent. The distinction matters: the lawsuits target both future spending and recovery of past expenditures. The extraction pattern here is direct. Congress appropriated $175 million for a specific DHS purpose. The White House diverted $20 million of that — 11.4 percent — into advertising that mirrors campaign content. The beneficiary is Trump's political brand and, by extension, Republican midterm prospects. The cost falls on taxpayers and on the institutional integrity of the appropriations process. If the precedent holds, any future president could redirect congressional appropriations into self-promotional media with no mechanism for recovery. The lawsuits now test whether courts will enforce appropriations law against the executive in real time or whether the precedent of executive fund diversion becomes normalized. The bipartisan opposition suggests this is not a partisan fight over content but a structural fight over who controls the public purse.
