Judge blocks DHS election‑year ads praising Trump as likely illegal
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued a temporary restraining order on Oct. 12 that bars the Department of Homeland Security from using taxpayer‑funded television ads that tout President Donald Trump’s first‑term achievements.
The judge found that the advertisements, released less than a month before the federal election, likely violate the federal purpose statute and anti‑propaganda rules that prohibit the use of appropriated funds for unauthorized political publicity.
The order was granted at the request of a coalition that includes watchdog group Common Cause, Alabama legislative candidate Robert Hunter, and the Service Employees International Union 32BJ and its political action committee. The plaintiffs argued that the ads constitute unlawful political propaganda and give the incumbent president an unfair advantage.
Rochon’s ruling blocks the DHS from "using, disbursing, or transferring funds appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security to develop, create, disseminate, place, distribute, publish, or air" the challenged advertisements. It also requires cancellation of all scheduled ad slots and halts any further spending on the campaign for the next 14 days, pending further court action.
The advertising campaign, valued at roughly $20 million, began in late September and aired more than 16,000 times, generating an estimated 1.5 billion impressions. Funding was drawn from a congressional appropriation intended for border‑security commemorative activities, which the judge concluded does not cover a political advertising effort.
The White House had previously defended the spots as non‑partisan public‑service announcements, arguing that the president was not a candidate in the upcoming election. President Trump later said he would personally pay for the ads using his own money and money raised by his MAGA Inc. political action committee.
While the administration argued that it had already decided to stop purchasing the ads, the judge noted that existing contracts, outstanding payments, and the possibility of additional spending meant the court’s relief was still necessary.
The order remains in effect for 14 days and may be extended if the plaintiffs demonstrate a continued likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
