Democratic Party and Watchdog Group File Twin Lawsuits Against Trump Over Publicly Funded TV Ads

The Democratic National Committee has taken legal action against US President Donald Trump over a series of television advertisements that were financed with public money and, according to the party, were intended to advance his political agenda. The lawsuit, announced on Wednesday, represents a significant escalation in the ongoing dispute over the use of taxpayer dollars for what critics describe as partisan messaging.

Ken Martin, who leads the Democratic Party's national leadership body, framed the legal move as a necessary response to what he characterized as an abuse of public resources. In a statement, he accused Trump of diverting millions of taxpayer dollars toward what he called pure propaganda, describing the ad campaign as a last-ditch effort to boost Republican fortunes ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

The legal challenge did not come from the Democrats alone. Later the same day, Common Cause, a democracy watchdog organization, filed a separate lawsuit targeting the same set of advertisements. The group argued that the spots are overtly political in nature and therefore violate longstanding legal prohibitions against using public funds for political propaganda.

In its filing, Common Cause rejected the justification Trump has offered for the television spots. The organization contended that the ads cannot be classified as public-service announcements, instead describing them as personal publicity and political propaganda through and through. The two complaints, though filed independently, advance a similar legal theory about the improper use of federal money.

Central to both lawsuits is the allegation that Trump directed the White House to repurpose $20m in funds that Congress had allocated for commemorative activities tied to border security, including tributes to those killed in the line of duty. The plaintiffs argue that this redirection of congressionally approved money violates the separation of powers enshrined in the US Constitution.

Common Cause invoked the intentions of the nation's founders in its complaint, noting that they made clear more than two centuries ago that the executive branch may spend money only in accordance with Congress's direction. The organization's legal argument rests on the principle that the legislature, not the president, holds the power of the purse.

Both lawsuits also highlight a provision that Congress routinely includes in its appropriations bills, which bars the use of taxpayer funds for publicity or propaganda purposes. The plaintiffs point to this restriction as further evidence that the ad campaign overstepped legal boundaries.

The two complaints seek a declaration that the advertisements are illegal, along with an order halting further expenditures on them. They also request that steps be taken to recover any money that has already been spent on the campaign. The Democrats' lawsuit was filed in Washington, DC, while the Common Cause complaint is set to be heard in the Southern District of New York.

Trump has encountered growing criticism over the ads since they began airing in September. According to the media tracking firm AdImpact, the campaign has already cost more than $12m to run, a figure that continues to climb as the spots remain on the airwaves.

The $20m that Trump tapped for the advertisements comes from a much larger $175m package that Congress assigned to the Department of Homeland Security as part of the president's immigration enforcement agenda. Critics have seized on the use of border security funds for political messaging, arguing that the money was intended for a fundamentally different purpose.

Commentators have also noted that one of the advertisements appears nearly identical to a television spot Trump used during his 2024 re-election campaign, a detail that opponents say undermines any claim that the ads serve a nonpartisan, informational function.

Three ads have aired so far, each with a distinct tone and message. In one, a choir sings "love me" over a montage of Trump as he declares that the United States will never become a communist country. Another features images of Mount Rushmore as Trump heralds what he calls a new golden age of America.

The third advertisement takes a noticeably darker approach. It shows Trump walking toward the camera in black and white, warning of a final battle against the deep state and other perceived enemies. The stark contrast in style among the three spots has drawn additional scrutiny from critics who question their purpose.

On Wednesday, Reuters and the research firm Ipsos released polling data showing that the ads are deeply unpopular with the American public. Some 86 percent of those surveyed, including four out of five Republicans, said it was inappropriate for Trump to have used public money to fund them. The bipartisan nature of that disapproval has intensified pressure on the White House.

Trump has defended the advertisements as promotion for the country and has argued that they are comparable to public outreach campaigns conducted by previous administrations. However, after facing backlash from both parties, he said on Monday that taxpayer funds would no longer be used for future ads. He did not, though, commit to repaying the money already spent on the existing campaign.

Members of Trump's own Republican Party have been among those speaking out against the ad campaign. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said the advertisements resembled something former Hungarian leader Viktor Orban would put out. Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated that he agreed with the message in one of the advertisements but emphasized that it should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars.

The lawsuits now set the stage for a legal confrontation over the limits of executive spending and the boundary between public communication and political propaganda. If the courts side with the plaintiffs, the decision could establish important precedent about how presidents may use appropriated funds for messaging. The outcome may also carry political consequences as the midterm elections approach, with Democrats seeking to frame the ad campaign as an example of executive overreach.