DNC and Common Cause Sue Trump Over $20m Taxpayer-Funded Ad Campaign Ahead of Midterms

The Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump on Wednesday over a publicly financed television advertising campaign that critics say was designed to boost Republican prospects before the November 3 midterm elections. The suit, lodged in Washington, DC, came shortly before a second legal challenge from Common Cause, a democracy watchdog group, which filed its own complaint in the Southern District of New York. Both actions target the same set of advertisements, which began airing in September and have already cost more than $12m to run, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact.

At the centre of the dispute is $20m that Trump directed the White House to repurpose from a larger $175m package Congress had assigned to the Department of Homeland Security as part of his immigration enforcement agenda. Lawmakers had earmarked those funds for commemorative activities tied to border security, including tributes to personnel killed in the line of duty. The lawsuits argue that redirecting the money toward televised political messaging violates the separation of powers enshrined in the US Constitution.

Ken Martin, who chairs the Democratic Party's leadership body, framed the ads as an improper use of public resources. In a statement on Wednesday, he accused Trump of misusing millions of taxpayer dollars to fund what he called pure propaganda in a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November. Martin's remarks underscored the partisan stakes of the legal battle, which unfolds just weeks before voters head to the polls in contests that will determine control of Congress.

Common Cause levelled a similar critique in its own filing, describing the advertisements as overtly political and therefore incompatible with laws that bar public funds from being used for political propaganda. The group rejected the justification Trump has offered for the television spots. "These ads are not public-service announcements," the lawsuit stated. "They are personal publicity and political propaganda through and through." Both complaints seek a declaration that the ads are illegal, an order halting further expenditures, and steps to recover money already spent on the campaign.

The legal filings also invoke a provision that Congress routinely includes in its appropriations bills, which prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for publicity or propaganda purposes. Common Cause's lawsuit leaned on historical precedent, noting that the founders made clear more than 200 years ago that the executive can spend money only according to Congress's direction. That argument strikes at the heart of the separation-of-powers principle, positioning the cases as a test of whether the White House can redirect appropriated funds toward messaging that benefits the president politically.

According to the source material, three ads have aired so far, each with a distinctly different tone. One features a choir singing "love me" over a montage of Trump as he declares the United States will never be a communist country. Another uses images of Mount Rushmore as Trump heralds a new golden age of America. The third takes a darker approach, showing Trump walking toward the camera in black and white as he warns of a final battle against the deep state and other perceived enemies. Critics have noted that one of the spots appears nearly identical to a television advertisement Trump used during his 2024 re-election campaign.

The campaign has drawn mounting criticism from across the political spectrum since it debuted in September. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday found that the ads are highly unpopular, with 86 percent of Americans surveyed saying it was inappropriate for Trump to have used public money for them. Notably, that figure included four out of five Republicans, suggesting the backlash extends well into the president's own base. The polling data has intensified pressure on the White House to explain its decision to finance the messaging with funds intended for other purposes.

Trump has defended the advertisements as promotion for the country, arguing they are comparable to public outreach campaigns mounted by previous administrations. However, after the bipartisan outcry, he said on Monday that taxpayer funds would no longer be used for future ads. He stopped short of committing to repay the money already spent on the existing spots, leaving open the question of whether the government would seek restitution or whether the courts would order it.

Members of Trump's own party have been among the most vocal critics of the campaign. Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, said the advertisements resembled something former Hungarian leader Viktor Orban would put out. Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated that while he agreed with the message in one of the advertisements, he stressed that it should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars. Those comments highlight the unusual coalition of voices opposing the campaign and the political difficulty it has created for Republican leaders ahead of the midterms.

The two lawsuits now set the stage for a legal reckoning over the boundaries of executive spending and political speech. By seeking to halt the expenditures and recover funds already disbursed, the plaintiffs aim not only to end the campaign but also to establish a precedent that constrains future administrations from using appropriated money for self-promotion. The cases will proceed in separate jurisdictions, with the DNC's complaint heard in Washington, DC, and Common Cause's action litigated in the Southern District of New York, potentially producing divergent rulings that could eventually reach higher courts.

Beyond the immediate legal questions, the controversy carries significant implications for the November 3 midterm elections. Democrats have seized on the ads as evidence of what they describe as Trump's willingness to leverage government resources for partisan advantage. Republicans, meanwhile, must navigate a landscape in which a majority of their own voters disapprove of the spending, according to the Reuters/Ipsos survey. The outcome of the lawsuits and the public's reaction to them could shape voter turnout and messaging in the final weeks of the campaign season.

The White House has not signalled whether it will contest the suits vigorously or seek a negotiated resolution. Legal analysts suggest the core dispute hinges on whether the ads constitute genuine public outreach or thinly veiled political advocacy, a distinction that courts have sometimes found difficult to draw. The appropriations clause and the anti-propaganda provision give the plaintiffs strong textual footing, but the executive branch has historically claimed considerable latitude in how it communicates with the public. How the judges weigh those competing claims could reverberate far beyond this particular advertising campaign.

For now, the ads remain a flashpoint in an already charged political environment. With early voting underway in several states and the midterms fast approaching, the legal challenges ensure the controversy will remain in the headlines. The DNC and Common Cause have signalled they intend to pursue the cases aggressively, while Trump has shown no inclination to apologise for the campaign. The coming weeks will determine whether the courts intervene to stop the spending, order repayment, or allow the advertisements to continue as the president's opponents press their case in two federal courthouses.