|

The White House is being accused of violating federal law after it aired an ad glorifying President Donald Trump, which it explicitly said was “paid for by the US government.”

The ad was first reported by CBS News Miami investigative reporter Jim DeFede, who saw it airing on Fox News Wednesday night.

The 30-second spot features numerous videos and images of Trump, set to the song “Love Me” by JMSN. It includes voiceovers by the president railing against “communism,” a label he’s regularly used to hammer Democrats as the midterm elections approach.

So I was just watching Fox News and this commercial played during Jesse Watters show. It says “Paid for by the US Government.” This is clearly a campaign ad. And the singers are just singing over and over again, “Love me” – over images of Trump. @CBSMiami @CBSNews https://t.co/eCkEZpipWx

— Jim DeFede (@DeFede) September 24, 2026

“Together we will defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism, in America,” it features Trump saying. “America will never be a communist country.”

The video then goes on to amplify, in bright red letters, what the White House views as Trump’s signature policy accomplishments and goals: the “largest tax cuts in history,” “reigniting American manufacturing,” and “defend law and order and police.”

Footage from the 2024 Republican National Convention featuring Trump alongside Ultimate Fighting Championship president and CEO Dana White is then shown.

“He is the toughest, most resilient person that I’ve ever met,” White is heard saying about Trump. “And nothing was going to stop him from fighting so hard for the country he loves.”

As White is heard slathering Trump with praise, a message appears at the bottom of the screen in large white letters: “Paid for by the US government.”

DeFede described the taxpayer-funded message as “clearly a campaign ad.”

Many onlookers found the use of government resources to flood the airwaves with nakedly partisan messaging chilling, particularly in light of Trump’s recent attempts to censor critical media outlets and establish a state-run TV channel, while designating political opponents as “terrorists.”

Fernand R. Amandi, a political science professor at the University of Miami and analyst at MS NOW — a network recently banned from the White House by Trump — said that the use of state organs for messages like these was an “unmistakable [sign] you live under an authoritarian, fascist government.”

Longtime Senate Democratic aide Jim Manley said the ad was not just “creepy,” but also “illegal.”

Provisions in annual appropriations laws explicitly forbid federal appropriations from being used for “publicity or propaganda purposes.”

For decades, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has interpreted this to mean that the executive branch can’t use federal dollars for material whose “obvious purpose is ‘self-aggrandizement’ or ‘puffery,’” or for communications that are “purely partisan.”

The Hatch Act also bans federal employees from using their official authority or government resources for partisan activity. While Trump himself is not subject to the Hatch Act, most other senior government employees and appointees are.

The Trump administration has been accused of violating the Hatch Act on multiple occasions during his second term, including by using official agency websites to run messages blaming “Radical Left” Democrats for last year’s lengthy government shutdown.

During Trump’s first term, multiple officials were found to have violated the Hatch Act for arguably less overt offenses.

Former Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf was found to have violated the law by hosting a naturalization ceremony orchestrated to generate footage for the 2020 Republican National Convention. Former Trump housing official Lynne Patton, meanwhile, admitted to violating the act by using her government position to recruit participants for an RNC video, resulting in a $1,000 fine and a four-year ban from federal employment.

It’s not clear which government employees were behind the taxpayer-funded Trump ad. But Max Flugrath, the communications director at the voting rights group Fair Fight, said it was the “weirdest way to violate the Hatch Act, ever.”