I was watching Fox News today, and a commercial came on.
At first, I thought it was a Trump campaign commercial.
Donald Trump. Images of Donald Trump. His accomplishments. His message. “America will never be a communist country.” Tax cuts. Manufacturing. Law and order. And at the end, Dana White praising Trump as this incredibly tough, resilient guy.
Okay. Political commercial. Nothing unusual about that.
Then I looked at the bottom of the screen.
“Paid for by the U.S. Government.”
Wait a minute.
The U.S. government?
You mean me?
You mean you?
You mean every Republican, Democrat, independent, Libertarian, socialist, conservative, liberal and person who doesn’t give a damn about politics but still pays federal taxes?
We paid for this?
And that’s where I think we need to separate the politics from the principle.
Because I don’t care whether the president’s name is Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George Bush or George Washington.
The United States government should not become the president’s advertising agency.
Now, here’s what we actually know.
This isn’t something somebody slapped together on the internet and falsely labeled as government-funded. CBS News reports that the U.S. government produced the content and purchased airtime through an advertising agency. The commercial has aired on Fox News and other networks. (CBS News)
The White House says these aren’t political advertisements. It calls them public service announcements. Its position is that President Trump isn’t on the ballot, there’s no explicit instruction to vote Republican, and the purpose is to promote patriotism and educate Americans about the country and administration policies. (CBS News)
Okay.
That’s their argument.
But here’s where it gets interesting.
Congress has long included restrictions in appropriations laws against using federal money for “publicity or propaganda.” The Government Accountability Office has interpreted those restrictions to include certain communications that are purely partisan.
And critics in Congress are now arguing that this advertisement crosses that line. (The Washington Post)
That question has not been finally resolved by a court or authoritative ruling regarding this particular advertisement.
So I’m not going to tell you it’s illegal when that legal determination hasn’t been made.
But I absolutely think Americans should be asking the question:
Where is the line?
Because government has legitimate reasons to advertise.
“There’s a hurricane coming. Evacuate.”
Absolutely.
“Get your veterans benefits.”
Great.
“Don’t drink and drive.”
Perfect.
“Here’s how to enroll in Medicare.”
Fine.
That’s government communicating information citizens need.
But imagine something different.
Imagine President Biden buying a television commercial with taxpayer money showing Biden over and over while a celebrity talks about what an extraordinary man he is.
Republicans would lose their minds.
And frankly, they’d have every right to ask why their taxes were paying for it.
Now reverse it.
Donald Trump is president.
The principle shouldn’t change.
That’s the whole damn point of having principles.
They don’t change depending upon who’s sitting behind the Resolute Desk.
And there’s another fascinating piece of this.
The advertisement actually tells us:
“Paid for by the U.S. Government.”
That’s important because at least they’re telling us where the money came from.
But disclosure doesn’t answer the bigger question.
It tells us who paid for it.
It doesn’t tell us whether they should have paid for it.
Those are two completely different questions.
And we’re weeks away from the 2026 midterm elections.
Trump himself isn’t on the ballot, which is part of the White House’s defense. But congressional candidates from his party certainly are, and the advertisement uses themes that overlap with Republican campaign messaging. (ABC News)
Again, that doesn’t automatically make it illegal.
But it makes scrutiny pretty damn important.
Because imagine where this leads if we don’t establish a clear boundary.
Every president could eventually say:
“It’s not campaign advertising. It’s a public service announcement.”
And suddenly every administration has taxpayer-funded commercials telling us how wonderful the administration is.
Republican president?
Government commercials praising Republicans.
Democratic president?
Government commercials praising Democrats.
And before long, taxpayers aren’t simply funding the government.
They’re funding the government’s sales pitch about itself.
That’s a dangerous distinction to lose.
Because there’s another institution that’s supposed to tell us what government is doing.
It’s called the press.
Journalists investigate.
Citizens debate.
Candidates campaign.
Political parties advertise.
And government governs.
Those roles shouldn’t all collapse into one another.
And here’s what really bothers me.
We’re constantly told there isn’t enough money.
Not enough money for mental health.
Not enough money for veterans.
Not enough money for housing.
Not enough money for infrastructure.
Not enough money for schools.
And then I’m sitting on my couch watching television and suddenly:
Apparently we’ve got money for commercials telling me how great the president is.
Maybe that’s perfectly legal.
Maybe it isn’t.
That’s for investigators, Congress, the GAO and potentially the courts to determine.
But as a citizen, I don’t need a court decision to ask a very simple question:
Why are my tax dollars paying for this?
Because democracy isn’t supposed to require us to love our government.
It’s supposed to give us the freedom to question it.
And when the government spends our money telling us how wonderful the people running the government are?
That’s exactly when we ought to start asking questions.
Not because we’re Democrats.
Not because we’re Republicans.
Because we’re the people who paid for the damn commercial.
Join the Conversation