A federal judge in New York has ordered the Trump administration to cancel all remaining television ads that were paid for with taxpayer money and promote the president’s political message. She issued the order on Sunday night, even though the administration had said the campaign was about to end.
What the court ordered
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon sided with a coalition that includes the watchdog group Common Cause. The coalition says the ads are an illegal misuse of public funds. She granted a temporary restraining order, which covers ads set to air even that same evening. The order lasts 14 days unless extended.
The judge also barred the administration from using, moving or paying out money appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for developing, placing or airing the challenged ads. For the two weeks, the defendants also cannot enter into, renew or expand any agreement for the ads. The order also stops DHS from spending any more of the $20 million set aside for the campaign. About $19 million of it had already been spent.
Who sued, and why the judge acted
The plaintiffs are Common Cause, Robert Hunter and SEIU 32BJ along with its political action committee. Rochon found that they had legal standing, and that they would suffer irreparable harm without the order. She also wrote that they had shown a high probability of winning the case on the merits. The plaintiffs are represented by the nonprofit legal group Democracy Forward.
In a filing late Saturday, the Justice Department had argued that the order was unnecessary because the conduct would end the next day. The judge rejected that argument and the argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing. She said a full written opinion would follow soon.
The legal issue
The money came from a large congressional appropriation for immigration enforcement. In a court declaration on Saturday, DHS official Holly Mehringer said the funds could be used for “commemorating efforts and events related to border security.” Legal experts have suggested the ads violated a federal ban on using appropriated money for “publicity or propaganda,” and possibly other laws.
How the controversy unfolded
The ads began airing in late September. One of them was nearly identical to a spot from Trump’s 2024 campaign. On Sept. 24, Sen. Maggie Hassan wrote to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, a day after the first ad aired. She said it had no clear government purpose and appeared to violate rules against using appropriated funds for a general propaganda effort that aids a party or candidates.
Trump responded to the criticism on Oct. 5, calling the ads “rather standard” but saying that he or his super PAC, MAGA Inc., would pay for them going forward. The White House later said he would not reimburse the government for ads that had already aired. The fifth ad in the series, focused on the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, still began airing the next day.
Two lawsuits followed on Oct. 7. The Democratic National Committee sued first, calling the ads illegal government propaganda. The Common Cause coalition filed its own case in New York, which is the one that produced Sunday’s order. On Saturday, the Justice Department told the court that the ads would end the next day, and the judge issued her order on Sunday night anyway.
Reactions
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, said the ads should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars. The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements like those of past administrations. Critics note that these ads, unlike many past ones, do not help people use specific government programs.
In a statement from Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs said they were pleased the court acted swiftly. They said there is no precedent for a president to use government funds set aside by Congress to influence election outcomes. Common Cause CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said the group will continue its legal fight.
The restraining order runs for 14 days unless it is extended, and Judge Rochon has said a full written opinion will follow. The ruling comes in the final weeks before the November midterm elections, and a separate lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee over the same ads is still pending.
