Should taxpayers fund White House ads that echo Trump’s 2024 campaign?

The sums make that distinction urgent. DHS has committed $20 million to the advertising effort, with money reportedly drawn from funds intended for Customs and Border Protection. That is a commitment, not a verified total already spent. AdImpact estimated that more than $2.5 million was spent on three ads during the seven days before the AP’s Sept. 29 report. The estimate is not a government ledger showing which bills DHS has paid.

Taxpayers deserve to know more than the size of an ad buy. They deserve to know why an agency entrusted with public funds selected this message rather than information about its work that people could use. Experts cited by the AP said the ads were not designed to help Americans access a specific government program.

The White House’s best argument has a limit

The White House says the spots promote patriotism. It said, as the Associated Press reported, “The announcements are very clearly not campaign ads; President Trump is not on the ballot and there is no call to action.” Government agencies need room to explain their work without every presidential appearance being treated as electioneering. But even if an ad asks viewers to do nothing, that alone does not establish a public purpose.

The White House has also pointed to advertising under earlier presidents. But the AP reported a difference worth taking seriously: The examples the White House cited promoted policies, while the current ads feature and praise Trump. An ad can advance a president’s political image without naming a candidate on a ballot or asking viewers to do anything. Calling it a public service announcement does not, by itself, establish a public service.

There is a practical line an administration of either party should be able to defend. An ad explaining a policy or helping people find a service gives the public something beyond a favorable impression of the officeholder. When a government spot closely resembles campaign material, officials should have to show what useful public information it delivers and why that presentation was chosen. That standard protects legitimate communication as well as public money.

Oversight is not a verdict

The dispute has drawn objections across party lines. Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Chris Murphy told DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin that they considered government funding for political ads illegal and sought information about the funding, contracts and possible further ads. TIME reported that Sen. Maggie Hassan also sought the production costs, contractors, funding source and legal and ethical basis for an ad. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis objected to using taxpayer money for the spots.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, said, “It shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” as Talking Points Memo reported. His objection captures a concern that should not depend on which party controls the White House. Public resources are not a president’s campaign budget.

That does not settle the legal question. The lawmakers’ objections warrant scrutiny, not a declaration that a violation has been proved. A documented account of the spending and the decision to approve these ads would allow Congress and the public to assess both the administration’s defense and the allegations against it.

Make DHS account for every decision

Our position is that public money should pay for useful public information, not praise for a president. Congressional appropriators should require DHS to provide a full accounting before it pays for further ads in this effort: the funding account and spending authority, any decision to move the money, contracts and vendors, production and placement costs, amounts actually paid, and the officials who approved each spot.

That accounting should include any written assessment of the ads’ public purpose and any legal review already conducted. Appropriators should also require an independent, documented public-purpose review before additional ads are funded. The White House has offered its rationale. The people paying for the campaign deserve the records that would let them test it.