How DHS funds backed an ad nearly identical to Trump’s 2024 campaign video

As we reported Monday, Democratic senators had raised a possible $20 million DHS commitment, while the amount paid remained unclear. The contract record adds a documented award; new congressional demands seek the decisions behind it.

A campaign video with a government payment notice

One 30-second government-funded spot is virtually identical to a video from Trump’s 2024 campaign. It shows him walking down a hallway and speaking of a final battle. The current version ends with a notice that the U.S. government paid for it, rather than the campaign sponsorship message on the earlier video. It is a new ad using nearly the same material, not the original campaign ad aired unchanged.

The White House calls the ads patriotic public-service announcements. It argues that previous administrations have used government-funded advertising and says Trump is not on the ballot. Those are its reasons for defending the spots; they do not by themselves account for the source of the money or who approved this use of it.

Axios reported Tuesday, citing an administration official, that Trump chose which White House-produced videos would air and that DHS placed the ad buys using money from an existing budget. The official said more ads were planned. Selecting videos is a different decision from authorizing a funding transfer, signing a contract or approving payments. The public account so far does not identify everyone responsible for those steps.

That distinction matters for a government ad built around a sitting president. Critics say the reuse of his campaign material turns a public expense into political promotion. The White House disputes that characterization and presents the ads as public-service messages. No legal finding that the ads violate federal law is established in the available reporting.

What the $20 million figure does and does not show

Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Chris Murphy said DHS appeared to have committed $20 million from funds provided to Customs and Border Protection under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. They said those funds were intended for events commemorating border security and asked DHS to confirm the precise account and amount. That proposed funding trail is the senators’ account, not a completed public accounting from the department.

The Sept. 20 contract award is a separate piece of evidence. Its $20 million value matches the commitment lawmakers describe, but the reported contracting data do not show that the full sum has been paid to LMD Agency or spent on airtime. Nor do the reported dates and matching figures, on their own, identify the official who approved the transfer or contract.

The amounts attributed to airtime are substantially smaller. AdImpact data cited by AP estimated more than $2.5 million in airtime spending on three ads over the seven-day period covered by AP’s Sept. 29 report. AP cautioned that the actual figure could be higher depending on how networks classified the spots. The senators’ Tuesday release cited an earlier AdImpact estimate of at least $1.7 million in airtime already purchased; the available accounts do not reconcile the two figures.

An airtime estimate, a contract award and an amount actually paid answer different questions. Without the account records, invoices and payment information, the public cannot tell how much of the reported commitment has been obligated or disbursed, or how much remains for the additional ads the administration official described.

Who is asking DHS to explain the spending?

Murray and Murphy wrote to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Tuesday seeking the funding source, contracts, decision-makers and any legal or ethics review. They asked for a response within 48 hours and called for the ads to be taken off the air. AP reported that DHS referred questions about their letter to the White House’s earlier response, which did not provide a detailed spending account or name the officials who approved it.

On Wednesday, Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee also demanded that DHS halt the ads. They sought records showing who authorized the spending, where the money came from and the department’s legal rationale. Those records could establish whether the reported movement of funds, the contract award and the ad placements passed through the same approval chain.

The objection is not confined to Democrats. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune praised the ads’ message but opposed paying for it with public money. “It’s a great message. I like the message, but it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Thune said, as reported by Talking Points Memo.

Watchdog groups have turned to agencies with oversight roles. Public Citizen said Tuesday it filed complaints concerning the ads with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and broadcasters, as well as with the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said Wednesday it asked the DHS inspector general to investigate whether department funds were improperly used. Their allegations and requests are not agency findings or orders to stop airing the ads.

Mullin has been asked to supply the precise funding account, contracts and names of the officials who directed or approved the purchases within 48 hours. Those are the records needed to determine how public money reached the ads—and how much of the $20 million has actually been paid.