The Democratic National Committee (DNC), the governing body of the US Democratic Party, sued President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday over a series of television advertisements that promote his political message and have been paid for with public money. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges the ads are illegal government-sponsored propaganda and accuses Trump of personally directing them. It asks the court to declare the ads unlawful, halt the use of federal funds, and take steps to recover money already spent. Later the same day, Common Cause, a democracy watchdog group, filed a separate suit over the same ads in the Southern District of New York.

The spots began airing in September and have cost more than $12 million to run, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact. A total of $20 million has been tapped from Department of Homeland Security funds, part of a $175 million package Congress gave the department for Trump's immigration enforcement agenda. Both lawsuits argue that the money was repurposed from funds Congress set aside for commemorative activities related to border security, including for those killed in the line of duty, and that this violates the constitutional separation of powers. Common Cause's complaint put it this way: the executive "can spend money only according to Congress's direction." Both also cite a provision routinely included in appropriations bills that bars taxpayer funds from being used for "publicity or propaganda purposes."

Three early ads included one in which a choir sings "love me" over images of Trump, another set against Mount Rushmore heralding a "golden age of America", and a darker black-and-white spot warning of a "final battle" against the "deep state". Critics noted that one closely resembles an ad from his 2024 campaign. DNC Chair Ken Martin called the campaign "a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans" ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, with early voting already under way. Common Cause said the ads are "not public-service announcements" but "personal publicity and political propaganda."

The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements similar to past administrations' outreach campaigns, and Trump has called them "positive promotion for our Great USA." Legal experts, however, say they differ from earlier examples because they are not designed to help people access specific government programmes. On Monday, Trump said future ads would be paid for by his MAGA Inc. super PAC, but a fifth ad promoting his military actions in Venezuela earlier this year aired Tuesday bearing the notice "paid for by the US Government." Asked whether he would reimburse money already spent, he said only: "we'll decide." The defendants, including Trump, the White House, DHS and the Office of Management and Budget, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The backlash has crossed party lines. Republican Senator Thom Tillis likened the ads to something Hungary's former leader Viktor Orban would produce, while Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he agreed with the message of one ad but that it "shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars." A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday found 86 percent of Americans, including four in five Republicans, consider the use of public money for the ads inappropriate. The cases may test how far a president can redirect appropriated funds toward messaging, and how courts interpret the long-standing ban on government propaganda.