DHS diverts $20 million in border funds to pro-Trump ad blitz, drawing bipartisan fire

The Department of Homeland Security has funneled roughly $20 million toward a campaign-style television blitz glorifying President Trump, with officials confirming this week that part of the money was redirected from funds originally earmarked for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The disclosure has drawn a rare bipartisan rebuke on Capitol Hill, with Republican and Democratic senators alike questioning whether the ads amount to an illegal use of taxpayer money to promote a sitting president five weeks before the midterm elections.

The centerpiece of the campaign is a 30-second spot set to the song "Love Me" by the R&B artist JMSN, featuring rapid-cut footage of Mr. Trump over audio of him denouncing "communism, socialism and Marxism," with a disclaimer reading "Paid for by the U.S. Government." It first aired in late September on Fox News and Newsmax at a reported cost of about $14,000, according to wire reporting. Within days the buy had expanded dramatically, moving onto broadcast and streaming platforms during NFL and college football games.

The numbers

Homeland Security has committed roughly $20 million to the expanded push, with about $2.5 million already spent over the past week alone. Officials say Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought redirected part of that money, on or around Sept. 19, from funds that had been appropriated for Customs and Border Protection operations rather than public messaging. The figure sits on top of the $220 million advertising campaign that consumed much of former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's final months in office before she was fired in March; her successor, Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, was confirmed to the post by the Senate on a 54-45 vote.

The spending is governed by a provision that has appeared in federal appropriations law every year since 1951: a blanket ban on using agency funds, directly or through contractors, "for publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. In the current fiscal year, that language sits in Section 718 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, and the Government Accountability Office has long held that it applies to any government communication found to be "purely partisan" or "self-aggrandizing," with no minimum dollar threshold for a violation.

A familiar fight over an old law

The propaganda ban has a well-worn enforcement history. In a foundational 2005 opinion still cited by appropriations lawyers, GAO found that video news releases produced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy amounted to unlawful "covert propaganda" because the government's role as author was concealed from viewers. This year alone, the same statute has already been invoked twice against the Trump administration: House Homeland Security Committee Democrats asked GAO in March to investigate a TSA video that blamed airport delays on the "Democrat shutdown," and Ms. Noem's own $220 million border-security ad campaign, which paid firms with ties to Mr. Trump's political operation, helped trigger the congressional hearings that preceded her ouster.

Watchdog group Public Citizen has now filed a formal complaint over the "Love Me" ad with GAO and the Office of Special Counsel, arguing it violates both the propaganda ban and the Hatch Act's prohibition on using federal resources for partisan political activity. The group says it has lodged roughly a dozen Hatch Act complaints against administration officials over the past year, all of which it says the Office of Special Counsel has declined to act on.

Who is affected

Taxpayers are underwriting a message that critics say functions as free campaign advertising for a president who cannot appear on any 2026 ballot, at a moment when Republicans are defending narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress. Border agencies are also affected: diverting Customs and Border Protection funds toward television advertising means less money, at least on paper, for the operational accounts Congress appropriated for enforcement and staffing. And the episode has ensnared an artist who says he never agreed to any of it. JMSN, whose 2023 track supplies the ad's soundtrack, said on social media that "it should go without saying that I would never authorize my music to be used for ANY political agenda or campaign," adding that he was consulting lawyers about his options.

Reaction on the Hill

The sharpest official response so far came in a letter sent Sept. 24 by Senate Appropriations Committee Democrats, led by Vice Chair Patty Murray of Washington, to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. It demanded the ad be pulled immediately, that employees responsible be disciplined, and that the administration disclose the full cost and funding source of the campaign.

"This is the sort of government propaganda one might expect in North Korea, not the United States of America, and it is an egregious and illegal misuse of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars," the senators wrote.

Republicans broke with the White House as well. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina told reporters the spending "feels like Viktor Orban," invoking the Hungarian leader's use of state media for political messaging, and noted that Mr. Trump's own political operation could easily have paid for the spot with campaign or party money instead of public funds. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said he had not seen the ad but questioned its legality outright, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said such spending should not come from taxpayers. The White House has held its ground. A spokesperson said in a statement that the spots are legitimate public-service announcements, not campaign material, because Mr. Trump is not on the November ballot and the ads carry no call to action: "These public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad. The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic."

What's next

Senate Democrats gave the White House 48 hours to respond to their letter with contracting records and a full accounting; as of this week, the administration had not made that information public. Public Citizen's complaint now sits with GAO and the Office of Special Counsel, agencies that can issue findings but have limited power to compel compliance quickly, and Democrats lack the votes to force disclosure through legislation while Republicans control both chambers. With early voting already underway in several states and DHS signaling the campaign will continue expanding across football broadcasts through the fall, the dispute is likely to remain a subplot of the midterm campaign rather than a settled legal question before Election Day.