$20 Million in Ads, Pulled by a Judge

A federal judge has pulled the plug on a $20 million government ad campaign, and the fight over it is not finished.

On Sunday night, Oct. 11, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon of the Southern District of New York issued a temporary restraining order requiring the administration to stop airing the Department of Homeland Security's TV ads immediately. The order bars DHS from spending any more of the $20 million set aside for the campaign and, for two weeks, from entering, renewing or expanding any agreement to create, place or air the challenged ads. It lasts 14 days unless extended and required the administration to confirm compliance within 24 hours.

Who sued and why

The case was brought by the watchdog group Common Cause, a Democratic candidate for the Alabama state House, and a New York labor union and its political action committee. The Democratic National Committee filed a separate lawsuit in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 7. The challengers argue the ads break a federal law that bars appropriated money from being used for "publicity or propaganda." According to court filings described by Democracy Docket, Customs and Border Protection obligated the $20 million under a purchase agreement with an ad firm.

The White House defended the ads as public service announcements like those past administrations have run. Reports describe the ads as promoting the president, and one as rehashing a 2024 campaign ad. On Oct. 5, the president said he would pay for the ads going forward through MAGA Inc. DHS later told the court it had directed its vendor not to make any media buys past Oct. 11. A White House official, speaking anonymously, said the plan did not mean any reimbursement was coming. Asked about repaying the money, Trump said, "We'll decide."

Judge Rochon found the challengers likely to win on the merits and ruled that the case was not moot just because DHS said the ads were ending. She said a fuller opinion will follow. This is a temporary order, not a final ruling.

The take

Conservatives believe in limited government and careful spending. We have said so about Democratic administrations for years. The same principle has to hold now: taxpayer money should not pay for ads that look like campaign spots three weeks before an election. Not for a Democrat, and not for a Republican.

The president seems to have reached the same conclusion. Saying on Oct. 5 that he would pay for the ads himself was the right call, and it came before any judge ordered anything. In practice, Sunday's order mostly locks in a decision the administration had already made.

That leaves one piece unfinished: the money already spent. The White House has given no sign it will reimburse the government. That is a mistake. Paying it back would take the issue off the table and would hand Democrats nothing to talk about. Refusing keeps the story alive in every ad the other side runs between now and Nov. 3.

It is fair to note that the challengers are not neutral. A Democratic candidate, a union PAC and the DNC are suing a Republican administration weeks before a midterm. Courts should be careful not to become a campaign tool, and a 14-day order on a campaign that was already ending is not a grand constitutional victory, whatever the press releases say.

But the strongest position for the right is the principled one. Our movement wins when it is the side that respects the taxpayer. Pay it back, run the ads with campaign money, and let the message stand on its own.